|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 21:33:05 GMT -6
I dont disagree with you Mr Half, your conviction in protecting your family is the same as mine. I only think that if you didnt have guns in the US (barring the army and police) there would be far less homicides and far less spur of the moment deaths. A gun is very unforgiving.
|
|
|
Post by halflife1052 on Mar 11, 2012 22:28:33 GMT -6
Britain has a full ban in place. What did that gain them? From my reading what it has gained them is: the only person armed in the fight is the criminal. It would seem also that that is occurring more often. Bans affect law abiding citizens not crooks. How is it in Australia since the buyback? Better do you think? The numbers point to some other cause than the ban. After all the trend started 10 years before the ban with just a little up bobble right after the ban. Gun ban or no gun ban, Australia would probably be about the same right now in terms of violent crimes. BTW, knives are very unforgiving too. Add hands to that list. Ah jeez if we keep following this logic to decide what we should be allowed to have, we will shortly be reduced to harsh language. Oops forgot about the moral majority scratch the harsh language too ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 22:45:43 GMT -6
Yes, we Australians will attack you with our moral majority! Beware, Mr Life, for the rain of a thousand insults shall beset your land from afar! There shall be taunting and insults a-plenty, the amount of people in this country that weild the Bic biro would astound you. Be afraid, be very afraid - the pen is mightier than the sword and a whole lot more prevalent these days, however, pales into insignificance compared to a turret mounted anti-tank gun, for example!
|
|
|
Post by halflife1052 on Mar 11, 2012 22:54:43 GMT -6
At least you are not french. I don't think that I could keep a straight face if you threatened to pass wind in my general direction
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 23:29:57 GMT -6
Ah, yes, the French, the nasally, height-challenged French - inventor of the fries, Toulouse Lautrec and the leaning tower of Eiffel. The French - who have only ever won one war - because of the competition - yes, their civil war - off with his head, Jacques, me lad, he's too tall to be French! The French, reduced to feed upon garden pests - the snails, frogs and most probably those little antennae thingies that slugs have. Only of any worth due to the invention of kisses (French kiss), egg on toast (French toast) and condoms (French letters - or was that lettuce?) They seem to all be obsessed with gardening and talking in outrageous accents. Vivants grenouilles! Burn some sense into them, I say. What I wonder is, if a Frenchman gets punched in the stomach, do they go, "EGG!"?
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Mar 12, 2012 4:11:41 GMT -6
We have guns here. Shotgun, rifle licences and such. The average Brit won't know it but in hunting/keeping circles a lot of folk get rifles pointed at them every day by land owners or game keepers. And we're (farmers) allowed to shoot dogs worrying livestock. Id like to see a house breaker in my home. He wouldn't like it so much
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 12, 2012 15:47:45 GMT -6
We have guns here. Shotgun, rifle licenses and such. The average Brit won't know it but in hunting/keeping circles a lot of folk get rifles pointed at them every day by land owners or game keepers. And we're (farmers) allowed to shoot dogs worrying livestock. Id like to see a house breaker in my home. He wouldn't like it so much I shot my neighbor's dog a couple of weeks ago. Too bad, it was my cousin, but he came to the door and we had a discussion. My wife had a loaded shotgun behind the door (she didn't know he was my cousin until he identified himself later in the conversation). Before I get too much hate mail, it was a pellet gun and the dog survived with her dignity intact. My cousin was just offended that I shot his dog. I was offended that his dog used my lawn as a toilet. Not the two acres around the house proper, but he the 5 feet within my door step. He was still offended that I shot his dog. He said I could beat her, or run her off with the truck, but no shooting. I told him I would not shoot his dog. Then we both marvel led at the shot shot itself, on the run with a pellet gun while I was home sick. I thought it was a damn fine shot personally, so did he.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 12, 2012 15:59:00 GMT -6
Although I'm listening, I dont agree. Guns are only designed, created and produced for one purpose - to kill. When you buy a gun in reality you increase the chance that you will kill someone (based on your own word "tool", you cant dig a hole without a shovel). In reality, the actual purchase of a gun reflects the premeditated act of killing someone. Guns only kill - you buy a gun - you have the tool with which to kill, whether you use it or not. A knife, however, can make a pretty nifty sammich, yes? I have no qualms or reservations regarding the army or police having guns - as their playing field includes such things as death, loonies, fanatics, assassins, Lyndsay Lohan, etc. Can't see a rogue Taliban knocking on my door in downtown Port Stephens in the near future, at least not without prior warning. All I'm saying is you shouldn't need a gun to ward off Mr Burglar, a nice 2 iron or the threat of waking my missus up would scare any poor burglar. If Tommy Jefferson were alive today, he'd probably say, look, I was wrong, you dont need a gun no more, the Indians are all on their reservations (although I have my reservations on that issue) and all the grizzly bears are rugs on Mr Monty Burns lobby floor. If you guys came to Australia, you'd need a gun for the mossies, a gun for the spiders, a gun for the sharks, a gun for the box jellyfish, a gun for the blue-ringed octopod, a gun for Bob Katter, etc, ad nauseum. Please read the following out loud: You dont need a gun! If you're worried about an invasion, I think the threat of dropping a nuke on the offending party would suffice - despite it taking two to wake the Japanese into submission (remember that one - WWII?). The only reason you need guns is paranoia. Guns make you no safer in your own home than a size 12 pair of boots at your front door, especially when you have such nifty gadgets as tasers - eh? Don't taze me, bro! Zap! How's them apples, Mr lefty uni student? Bwahaha. I wish I had a two iron. If you have one you must be quite the scratch golfer. Spiders - I have seen some big ones, but a good shoe is the best weapon. Sharks - a bang stick with single or double 00 buck will work, bullets in water don't work too well. Grizzly bears are not a huge problem in the east, but ferel black bears are, but not so much in town. Jellyfish are a problem, but the earlier comment about bullet in water will suffice. Jellyfish can be scooped up and left on the beach to die. I hope you are not a big supporter of PETA or that might offend you. I am worried about the burglar. If he (or she in this PC minded society) comes into my home they can expect a load of lead. Thomas Jefferson intended what he intended not on home invasion, but as defense against an intrusive government. He would wholly agree to maintain the 2nd amendment as it was written especially in these times.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 12, 2012 17:52:54 GMT -6
(I forgot about snakes)
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 12, 2012 18:04:34 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2012 19:09:32 GMT -6
IMO, what Brums said.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 12, 2012 19:31:30 GMT -6
Yes, I see where you are coming from, thanks. It's the "right" to bear the arms that's important rather than bearing the "arms" themselves. All respect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2012 19:40:15 GMT -6
(I forgot about snakes) Hi Joe, I've heard it argued that the second amendment is outdated because in the event of a government take-over, our armed citizens wouldn't stand a chance anyway. I'm curious what your take on this is. Thanks. Lynne
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 12, 2012 20:15:33 GMT -6
Sure military could launch large scale weapons to destroy " all" the armed population. But, they would not have a country (would they) left to rule ;D
Do you want the police/military to be the only one's with firearms? Military could go corrupt and rule the country, or a corrupt chief of police rule a town/city?
|
|
|
Post by halflife1052 on Mar 12, 2012 20:57:04 GMT -6
Simply put, no order is valid if it is illegal. Our military is a segment of our population that set down their rights temporarily so that we can continue to enjoy ours. Having worn the uniform I believe the order to fire on our own populace would go unheeded.
|
|
|
Post by The Tipsy Broker on Mar 13, 2012 1:13:55 GMT -6
"And to Mr Broker, I hope you aim for their legs and not the kill shot".
When dealing with a housebreaker if you hit him make sure he dies.
This bit of advice was told to me by a policeman when he was checking my gun cabinet for safety regs. He didn't mean, 'oh yeah kill the f***er, nice one!' More that it makes the court case easier when the scumbag is dead.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 13, 2012 5:18:55 GMT -6
Thank for the considerate response, that has been missing of late in opposing arguments. The 2nd amendment is about protection of the populace from a tyrannical government. That is it, that is all. It has a drawbacks but, it is the separation we have from government takeover. In the end, we can all go for out guns (if the states haven't taken them away). It is a concept that is not copied anywhere else in any other government and for good reason (at least from the standpoint of government). Votes and the right to public assembly or freedom of speech are good, but in the end you need back up all of that with an undeniable right to freedom. For Americans, it is our right to bear arms. Hi Joe, I've heard it argued that the second amendment is outdated because in the event of a government take-over, our armed citizens wouldn't stand a chance anyway. I'm curious what your take on this is. Thanks. Lynne Lynne, I haven't heard or seen you for some time. Good to see you. Half's comment is very valid. The idea is that an armed populace gives you the chance to change to course of things. A unarmed populace has few to none when it comes to taking back government. Jefferson knew this, it is how the country came to be. Jefferson and the founding fathers considered themselves very gentile men not given over to emotional decisions. They did not want war and tried to avoid it. The eloquence of the Declaration of Independence attests to this. Additionally, to stand up against a well armed and modern army successfully we need only look to our current situation in Afghanistan and previous venture into Vietnam.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 13, 2012 7:46:59 GMT -6
I read the 2nd amendment a little different to you, I believe. I would think that the right to bear arms in this paragraph continues from the opening remark about the militia - for the security of a free State, rather than taking "the right to bear arms.." bit in isolation, although it's not really relevant. Read District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 Supreme Court decision. Held: (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. Decision: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=07-290
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 9:38:26 GMT -6
Hi Joe, I've heard it argued that the second amendment is outdated because in the event of a government take-over, our armed citizens wouldn't stand a chance anyway. I'm curious what your take on this is. Thanks. Lynne Lynne, I haven't heard or seen you for some time. Good to see you. Half's comment is very valid. The idea is that an armed populace gives you the chance to change to course of things. A unarmed populace has few to none when it comes to taking back government. Jefferson knew this, it is how the country came to be. Jefferson and the founding fathers considered themselves very gentile men not given over to emotional decisions. They did not want war and tried to avoid it. The eloquence of the Declaration of Independence attests to this. Additionally, to stand up against a well armed and modern army successfully we need only look to our current situation in Afghanistan and previous venture into Vietnam. I've been computerless for sometime. It's nice to be seen, Joe I go back and forth on the gun issue. I know our murder rates are higher because we have guns and the right to bear arms. Yet, I'm loathed to give up that right (though I don't personally own one). If law-abiding citizens were not armed, then the only people who would be armed is the government (et al) and criminals... and visa versa.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 13, 2012 9:48:41 GMT -6
I go back and forth on the gun issue. I know our murder rates are higher because we have guns and the right to bear arms. Yet, I'm loathed to give up that right (though I don't personally own one). If law-abiding citizens were not armed, then the only people who would be armed is the government (et al) and criminals... and visa versa. They can often be one and the same. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you may note that the signers mentioned it was the citizens' "right and duty" to remove oppressive governments, by force if necessary. Hence, the Second Amendment. P.S. Welcome back, Lynn.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 13, 2012 12:58:26 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2012 14:52:55 GMT -6
I go back and forth on the gun issue. I know our murder rates are higher because we have guns and the right to bear arms. Yet, I'm loathed to give up that right (though I don't personally own one). If law-abiding citizens were not armed, then the only people who would be armed is the government (et al) and criminals... and visa versa. They can often be one and the same.Absolutely, Bob! Well, when I was bearing arms, every practice shot (aimed at the middle of the chest) went, instead, where men would prefer death over being shot. I *think* it is my duty NOT to carry. Thanks, Bob! I've missed this place.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 13, 2012 14:53:01 GMT -6
I am sorry that you need guns to protect your homes, that must be an awful thing to live with. We have guns to protect ourselves from the state, in or out of our homes. That's the point of the Second Amendment, and it's a good one. I have never even touched a gun, and probably never will, but I fully support the right to bear arms, which is the most important right there is.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 13, 2012 16:07:47 GMT -6
One question, please? How accurate or detailed has the word "arms" been defined? Are you allowed to carry automatic weapons? Bazookas, thermo-nuclear devices? Just asking.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 13, 2012 17:32:23 GMT -6
One question, please? How accurate or detailed has the word "arms" been defined? Are you allowed to carry automatic weapons? Bazookas, thermo-nuclear devices? Just asking. Good question and really in depends on the state and federal statues. I'm sorry that I can't be more definitive than that. We will need to get into an entire state's rights discussion. Which I am sure we can. I just don't won't to a this place and time. I have been drinking and get verbose. I apologize in advance.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 13, 2012 17:35:00 GMT -6
Lynne, I haven't heard or seen you for some time. Good to see you. Half's comment is very valid. The idea is that an armed populace gives you the chance to change to course of things. A unarmed populace has few to none when it comes to taking back government. Jefferson knew this, it is how the country came to be. Jefferson and the founding fathers considered themselves very gentile men not given over to emotional decisions. They did not want war and tried to avoid it. The eloquence of the Declaration of Independence attests to this. Additionally, to stand up against a well armed and modern army successfully we need only look to our current situation in Afghanistan and previous venture into Vietnam. I've been computerless for sometime. It's nice to be seen, Joe I go back and forth on the gun issue. I know our murder rates are higher because we have guns and the right to bear arms. Yet, I'm loathed to give up that right (though I don't personally own one). If law-abiding citizens were not armed, then the only people who would be armed is the government (et al) and criminals... and visa versa. Your absence here has been duly noted my lady and I sincerely welcome you back. As far as your shooting goes, hitting a man in "the junk" isn't necessarily a bad thing considering the man you are shooting at. It keeps the undesirables out of the gene pool so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 13, 2012 17:38:25 GMT -6
Wouldn't dream of spoiling your evening, sir. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 13, 2012 17:46:55 GMT -6
Wouldn't dream of spoiling your evening, sir. Cheers! Thank you but it is a warning for misspellings and gobbly-gook if I have been drinking. I give the same disclaimer to my family when it comes to math or finances under the influence. I am, however, fair game regardless of my state. It is part and parcel of the board and my motto - The stupid shall be punished.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 13, 2012 17:53:25 GMT -6
I dont think I'd like to push the envelope, sir, all the same! All respect. (Also, I have a very lot of work to avoid,
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 13, 2012 18:06:39 GMT -6
I dont think I'd like to push the envelope, sir, all the same! All respect. (Also, I have a very lot of work to avoid, Not a problem, if you nothing else here it is this. You are responsible for your comments - sober or otherwise. That is why I have a disclaimer. Good evening to you sir.
|
|