Gun control

[185248]

Are you really saying that radio, TV, and the internet have only benefited society? I'd have to disagree.

Btw, can you confirm or deny this quote from a fellow Aussie: "Drive by shootings have gone through the roof in this country , and show no signs of diminishing." It seems to contradict what you've been saying.

I have not seen evdence of this statement here (aus) balsry. So I can't confirm or deny it, if there was I would have posted it here earlier...but...in very recent times there has been an increased police and government effort in cracking down on outlaw biker gangs and related crime. Branches of US biker groups in Aus such as Hells Angels, Comancheros, Bandidos..etc, have been targeted, apparently there is much unrest between these groups at the moment because of laws passed by our governments stance on drug and gun related crime within these groups. Tension between gangs is high at the moment because it has been made illegal for them to operate in 'gangs'.

From what I can gather the drive by shootings, bashings, the the few times that have happened, are of members belonging to the same gangs, are inter gang related, not anything to do with the public becoming involved or fired upon. Maybe the person that made this statement belongs, or is in some way assocciated with a gang or gang member. There have been raids by our customs and police to seize illegal or unlicenced firearms held or imported from overseas, such as auto pistols, rifles, shotguns etc. If I have any further news on this I will post it here.

To summarise, there has been none of that happening in the capital city I live in, Brisbane. There has been no gun related crime that I have heard of in the news that says these things are happening all the time, nothing at all. I am sure, going by recent happenings in the US, if there had of been it would be front page news. Then again I try hard not to gain all my views from media outlets.

 

[185248]

Please do not let this thread fall into a tit for tat. There have been some very intelligent and helpful comments made by a cross section of people. We all realise what we say here is a pindrop in the ocean, on the grand scale of things it means fuck all... but it helps people sometimes to air their views.

I just find it heart stopping sad at times debating guns, when children in one of the first true democracies are being killed on a regular basis by firearms, legal or illegal by persons that are citizens living in that country. If these things were carried out by an overseas country, government or group, the US would defend their own to the death. Ammendment or no Ammendment. When it comes to one of their own doing it, an over 200 year old piece of history becomes more important.

 

[554279]

Early American views that shaped the Second Amendment:

• deterring tyrannical government; (we have three branches of government and now have a standing Army to prevent this)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-34
• repelling invasion; (we now have a standing Army for this)
• suppressing insurrection; (we now have law enforcement and a standing Army for this)
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense; (this probably is the only one left to make a case for, but doesn't give carte blanche to own anti-tank weapons)
• participating in law enforcement; (we now have a multiple police agencies and law enforcement for this)
• enabling the people to organize a militia system. (we have a National Guard for this)

 

[Blacksun]

deterring tyrannical government; (we have three branches of government and now have a standing Army to prevent this)

And look at what a fine job those three branches of government do to prevent tyranny, wars of aggression, excessive regulation, et cetera.

I do not feel that we can rely on the military to deter tyranny, except for perhaps in truly extreme cases, because the loyalty of the military is unshakeable. The military has followed the President and Congress into several less than just and arguably illegal wars in living memory without complaint or resistance, so unless a hypothetical President were to begin to run concentration camps, I believe the military would continue to follow him.

repelling invasion; (we now have a standing Army for this)

And, yet, anyone who seriously wishes to invade the US must bear in mind that they will contend not only with the organized military and intelligence branches of the US, but a well-armed populace.

suppressing insurrection; (we now have law enforcement and a standing Army for this)

I believe that the Second Amendment was written, at least in part, to foment justified insurrection.

facilitating a natural right of self-defense; (this probably is the only one left to make a case for, but doesn't give carte blanche to own anti-tank weapons)

I am not convinced about this. The carrying of arms in public--in particular, the concealed carry of handguns--is something that has by and large not existed in American legal tradition until about twenty five years ago.

It may be a surprise to some, but the Second Amendment is generally not construed to allow the ownership of anti-tank weaponry. Such weaponry is generally not allowed to be purchased by citizens in the US, though if you want to get through all of the red tape, it is possible.

If the Second Amendment had been intended to protect the right to bear anti-armor weaponry, the word "arms" would have been replaced with the word "guns" or "batteries" or "cannons", since such weapons were the anti-vessel armaments of the time.

participating in law enforcement; (we now have a multiple police agencies and law enforcement for this)

I have never seen anyone argue that the Second Amendment was written to enable citizens to enforce the law. It is especially noteworthy that officers of the law are able to use the threat of force and deadly force when it would be highly illegal for other citizens to do so.

enabling the people to organize a militia system. (we have a National Guard for this)

The National Guard swears an oath to the President of the United States. In the unlikely event that there were to be a sort of violent conflict between a state and the federal government at large, I do not see any reason to believe that the loyalty of the National Guard would be to the state, rather than the federal government.

Let us recall that the National Guard itself is organized as a subset of the military, that is, the armed wing of the federal government.

Apart from that, US Code itself defines the military as being the National Guard, as well as all men aged 17 to 45, with some exceptions:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[h0neymustard]

Just watched The Hobbit, and there's a part where Bilbo finds Sting, and Gandalf says to him, "Pray you won't need to use it."

 

[185248]

....

early american views that shaped the second amendment:

• deterring tyrannical government; (we have three branches of government and now have a standing army to prevent this)

tyrannical business and corporate greed. Is there an army for that?

• repelling invasion; (we now have a standing army for this)

is there an army to repel an invader from within?

• suppressing insurrection; (we now have law enforcement and a standing army for this)

i agree with this, we always have to be vigilant and keep the barstards honest. This is where a free and unbiased press is needed. But that is becoming less and less.

• facilitating a natural right of self-defense; (this probably is the only one left to make a case for, but doesn't give carte blanche to own anti-tank weapons)

natural self defence or natural right? Do we arm our 5 year olds to defend themselves against other 5 year olds whose parents views differ from ours? Or do we arm our teachers, for our children to learn they are not safe to go to schools or walk therir nighbourhood or city streets unless they have a gun on their hip?

• participating in law enforcement; (we now have a multiple police agencies and law enforcement for this)

maybe it's about time they really make a joint effort to clamp down and no tollerance.

• enabling the people to organize a militia system. (we have a national guard for this)

I agree with this also. We have the military reserves.

Mentioned earlier, have a mate that owns a cartidge reload/gun shop. They reload cartidges for other gunshops, clubs, police and firing ranges etc. His latest pistol is a walther (007) , for his wife. Yes, he is a gun advocate, he thinks laws here are to strict, then in the next breath speaks of the atrocities of mass murder. On a personal note, with my first earnings working in a garage on a friday arvo and a saturday morning i bought myself a rifle over the counter from the gunshop across the road from where i worked that's how easy it was. I walked in, picked out a gecado, paid $30.00 with a telescopic sight and walked out.

Militia, if I was in a place, any place. All of a sudden a gunperson started firing, rat-a-tat-tat................................. Next thing.... 10 people pull out guns and take aim. Who is the good person? Who is on the bad persons side? Who is on the good persons side? Who gives a fuck, just shoot and ask later? All of this happens in an instant of confusion. Me thinks it would end in a gunfight of confusion. Who is left to pick up the pieces?

PS I think I stuffed up the quote thing

 

[554279]

It may be a surprise to some, but the Second Amendment is generally not construed to allow the ownership of anti-tank weaponry...

Apart from that, US Code itself defines the military as being the National Guard, as well as all men aged 17 to 45, with some exceptions:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

I was being sarcastic regarding anti-tank weapons. My point being where do you draw the line with fire arms?

I'm very familiar with the oath because I took the oath multiple times over 20 plus years, albeit in the Active component vice the NG or Army Reserve.

 

[185248]

I was being sarcastic regarding anti-tank weapons. My point being where do you draw the line with fire arms?

I'm very familiar with the oath because I took the oath multiple times over 20 plus years, albeit in the Active component vice the NG or Army Reserve.

Some people just don't get it do they . Now I'm kind of wondering.....does that person have a gun licence? Does my dry sense of humour threaten his or her existence. Is ok, they have to be quick around here

 

[Blacksun]

I was being sarcastic regarding anti-tank weapons. My point being where do you draw the line with fire arms?

If you're implying that in order for those who advocate for the right to keep small arms to remain consistent, then they should advocate for the right to keep anti-vehicle weapons, you're using a reductio ad absurdum.

I advocate for the right to keep small arms. I think any citizen without a criminal record, for whom there is no legally sustainable reason to suspect malicious or criminal will, should have access to small arms.

 

[Remington]

Some people just don't get it do they . Now I'm kind of wondering.....does that person have a gun licence? Does my dry sense of humour threaten his existence. Is ok, they have to be quick around here

Not quite a license, per se. If it's legal in your area, you have to fill out a bunch of paper work, get it registered, get finger printed, and pay out the ass for it. (If you can find one, transferable ones are extremely rare)

That's not even getting into all the trouble of actually using the thing.

Here has more info in the process of getting a NFA item.

 

[185248]

If you're implying that in order for those who advocate for the right to keep small arms to remain consistent, then they should advocate for the right to keep anti-vehicle weapons, you're using a reductio ad absurdum.

I advocate for the right to keep small arms. I think any citizen without a criminal record, for whom there is no legally sustainable reason to suspect malicious or criminal will, should have access to small arms.

That brings a wee chuckle, and I be not one to laugh out loud often

 

[554279]

If you're implying that in order for those who advocate for the right to keep small arms to remain consistent, then they should advocate for the right to keep anti-vehicle weapons, you're using a reductio ad absurdum.

I advocate for the right to keep small arms. I think any citizen without a criminal record, for whom there is no legally sustainable reason to suspect malicious or criminal will, should have access to small arms.

Nope I was just being sarcastic.

 

[185248]

Not quite a license, per se. If it's legal in your area, you have to fill out a bunch of paper work, get it registered, get finger printed, and pay out the ass for it. (If you can find one, transferable ones are extremely rare)

That's not even getting into all the trouble of actually using the thing.

Here has more info in the process of getting a NFA item.

From what I can gather Remington, it depends which state one lives in over there...are these laws where you live nation wide? This seems to be the problem, travelling from one state to the other. Here
OMG, more reading
OMG does not mean Obama Means Guns

 

[554279]

From what I can gather Remington, it depends which state one lives in over there...are these laws where you live nation wide? This seems to be the problem, travelling from one state to the other.

Part of the beauty and the problem with many things in the US; State vice Federal laws & jurisdiction.

 

[Remington]

From what I can gather Remington, it depends which state one lives in over there...are these laws where you live nation wide? This seems to be the problem, travelling from one state to the other.

Each state has it's own set of gun laws. Ranging from if you can open carry in the area, to magazine round count restrictions, how one can get a conceal carry permit or if a permit is even necessary to conceal carry. And many, many more....

Here's more info when it comes to state gun laws, if you're interested.

Part of the beauty and the problem with many things in the US; State vice Federal laws & jurisdiction.

Ain't that the truth....

 

[185248]

Ouch, what's this? A government making money off of weapons sold in country? Like a tobacco tax? Does your government, like tobacco, collect tax on weapons made and sold?

 

[Remington]

Ouch, what's this? A government making money off of weapons sold in country? Like a tobacco tax? Does your government, like tobacco, collect tax on weapons made?

For NFA items(Suppressors, Short barrel rifles/shotguns, select-fire guns[automatics], destructive devices, etc) you have to pay an extra tax to legally own them. Ranging from 40-200 dollars. On top of all the paper work and waiting.

If one doesn't, it's a felony.

 

[185248]

Each state has it's own set of gun laws. Ranging from if you can open carry in the area, to magazine round count restrictions, how one can get a conceal carry permit or if a permit is even necessary to conceal carry. And many, many more....

Here's more info when it comes to state gun laws, if you're interested.



Ain't that the truth....

So, lets for a moment, just a second or two, pretend you are standing in a hall filled with pipe smoke and scotch . For a start you would be breathing noxious gas, back then you would not have known you died from tobacco poisoning or cancer from passive smoking or asbestosis. Lets move on... A country grows strong, it defeats slavery and oppression from within.

It has fought brother against brother to bring to existence the US..United States. Ok. So, now, a new foe has emerged, brother against brother again. You are faced with your own executing your kids, you send your kids off to school, they may not come back, it grows more ordinary in the US, to shoot the young..

Whether that be at the hands of the stable or instable it it still remains the same. What choices do you all wish to make, does it once again become brother against brother, believe me, another few massacers and you are not far from that. The all for, the mediates or those all against. Myself, I just wish you would adopt our laws, the sane. Either you have a national vote of the people and not politicians, or you lose your place as the worlds first true democracy, and become the laughing stock of those that carry out mass murders everyday via car bombs and those that brainwash them and those unfortunates into doing so..

Yes, I personally think the mother transferred her fears on to her son from an early age. Similarities? Yes, arm the teachers in school.... not long before you have bombs in cars going off in the playground. Then where will you be? Downtown Afghanistan. Ask those persons if they think everyone owning a weapon is good for the US? Obviously you guys have not seen teenagers in Egypt wearing automatic rifles over their shoulders. In 20 years or less, welcome to the USA.

 

[Blacksun]

Yes, I personally think the mother transferred her fears on to her son from an early age. Similarities? Yes, arm the teachers in school.... not long before you have bombs in cars going off in the playground. Then where will you be? Downtown Afghanistan. Ask those persons if they think everyone owning a weapon is good for the US? Obviously you guys have not seen teenagers in Egypt wearing automatic rifles over their shoulders. In 20 years or less, welcome to the USA.

And people say that those who advocate for the continued legality of small arms are paranoid.

You have utterly ignored the evidence I have brought forth suggesting that guns in the US do more good than harm. You have also ignored the decreasing rates of murder and violent crime and their coincidence with the historically unprecedented legalization of concealed handgun carry by civilians.

And now you want to tell us that we're twenty years away from your view of Afghanistan.

 

[185248]

By the way, I have the most unfortunate characteristic of things I place into word or letter becomming whatever. is why I don't shat much, although I be regular.