Firearm confiscation has started?

[Hollis]

http://www.kc3.com/news/chicago_confiscation.htm (http://www.kc3.com/news/chicago_confiscation.htm)

Confiscation of Registered Guns Begins in Illinois


Chicago Anti Gun Enforcement (CAGE) unit. This elite squad, operated jointly by the Illinois State Police, the Chicago Police Department, and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, supposedly exists to identify illegal gunrunners. However, information gained by the ISRA makes it clear that the CAGE unit is targeting law-abiding citizens, not criminal gunrunners.
The Chicago Police Department and the Illinois State Police have teamed up to make good on Mayor Daley's pledge that, if it were up to him, nobody would have a gun. Daley and his elite "CAGE" unit are apparently taking advantage of gun privacy loopholes to pinpoint certain individuals for inclusion in the confiscation program.

The ISRA is following up on leads in one case that has disturbing implications. An elderly first-generation Chicago resident was recently paid a visit by an Illinois State Police trooper. After asking to come inside the man's home, the trooper asked if the man owned a gun - to which he replied yes. The trooper then directed the individual to surrender the firearm. The man complied with the officer's demand and the trooper left with the gun. And the story gets better...

The gun in question was purchased legally by the man in the 1970s shortly after he became a U.S. citizen. When Chicago's infamous gun registration scheme went into effect in the early 1980s, the man registered the firearm as per the requirement. However, over the years, the fellow apparently forgot to re-register the firearm, and forgot to renew his Illinois FOID Card.

So...what does this all mean?

In the last edition of The Illinois Shooter, we reported on the activities of a shady taskforce known as the Chicago Anti Gun Enforcement (CAGE) unit. This elite squad, operated jointly by the Illinois State Police, the Chicago Police Department, and the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, supposedly exists to identify illegal gunrunners. However, information gained by the ISRA makes it clear that the CAGE unit is targeting law-abiding citizens, not criminal gunrunners.

Thanks to a ruling by a liberal federal judge, the CAGE unit now has the name of every single person in the United States who, since 1992, lawfully purchased more than one handgun in the period of a week. The CAGE unit also has all the makes, models and serial numbers of those guns. In essence, the Chicago Police Department is now registering guns and gun owners nationwide.

The ISRA has also learned that the CAGE unit has compiled a list of families where more than one person in that family holds a FOID card. Acting on that information, the CAGE unit is now contacting gun shops where those families have shopped, and is illegally registering all guns purchased by those families.

Now, it appears that the CAGE unit is scrubbing Chicago's gun registration list against the list of FOID card holders. Indications are that folks who have let their registrations and FOIDs lapse will have their guns confiscated. We have to wonder how long it will be until state troopers show up at the doors to confiscate the guns of non-Chicago residents who have let their FOIDs expire.

More later as this story develops.

Source: Illinois State Rifle Association

[D-gin]

Thanks to a ruling by a liberal federal judge, the CAGE unit now has the name of every single person in the United States who, since 1992, lawfully purchased more than one handgun in the period of a week. The CAGE unit also has all the makes, models and serial numbers of those guns. In essence, the Chicago Police Department is now registering guns and gun owners nationwide.



Not to sound like some conspiracy nut but what the hell is a state/local Police Agency/Dept doing with a Nation Wide gun ownership list?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Woot about time.

I generally don't care about firearms. (Against CCW nothing will change) Although I would consider myself a anti-gun type person. I still believe normal everyday responsible person should be able to own firearms. (except full auto-matic or semi-automatic "military styled" firearms)

But gun registration is something that should be compulsory. Just because the government knows what type of weapon you have have doesn't actually infringe your rights now does it?

Also and this is something I bet non of you have thought of. Lets just say in a conflict for some reason the US Navy has suffered a massive defeat and is facing invasion. Now on the massive call up of all able bodie males they have a huge weapon shortage. Now instead of trying to manufacture super high tech weapons which can take time and money. why not go through a register see what people own and direct the arms factories to pump out the ammo of weapons already in stock?

See Gun Registration can be of benifit to national security!!!!!!1

[D-gin]

I have no problem with the government knowing what kind of firearms I have but I do want to know why a State and Local Police Agency has information on gun owners that are outside if there jurisdiction.

[Lt. James Anderson]

I have no problem with the government knowing what kind of firearms I have but I do want to know why a State and Local Police Agency has information on gun owners that are outside if there jurisdiction.

Read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's take on it. Those gun "laws" were perfected in the USSR 1920-1940 ...

Chicago PD is one of the most corrupt PDs in the country. How about addressing the real issues? Like widespread corruption in the Chicago PD and fighting REAL crime?
But no, they go with the easy tasks ...

So what's next? Gulags???

[exrecce]

Awwww you Crazzzzyyyyyy Yanks and your Crazyyyyy obsession with 'bang-sticks'!!!!! :) lol

[mi35d]

But gun registration is something that should be compulsory. Just because the government knows what type of weapon you have have doesn't actually infringe your rights now does it?

The problem is that historically, these "registration lists" which are always touted as "not being compiled to be a confiscation list" turns into being just that when they decide to change the laws at whatever point the government sees fit.

Don't think it happens? It already has. NYC in the early 90's in a fine example. Washington DC and others as well.

[Andrew Chalmers]

But gun registration is something that should be compulsory. Just because the government knows what type of weapon you have have doesn't actually infringe your rights now does it?

The problem is that historically, these "registration lists" which are always touted as "not being compiled to be a confiscation list" turns into being just that when they decide to change the laws at whatever point the government sees fit.

Don't think it happens? It already has. NYC in the early 90's in a fine example. Washington DC and others as well.

the DC ban just got overturned 2 months ago http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

[nagant_m44]

Woot about time.

I generally don't care about firearms. (Against CCW nothing will change) Although I would consider myself a anti-gun type person. I still believe normal everyday responsible person should be able to own firearms. (except full auto-matic or semi-automatic "military styled" firearms)

But gun registration is something that should be compulsory. Just because the government knows what type of weapon you have have doesn't actually infringe your rights now does it?

Also and this is something I bet non of you have thought of. Lets just say in a conflict for some reason the US Navy has suffered a massive defeat and is facing invasion. Now on the massive call up of all able bodie males they have a huge weapon shortage. Now instead of trying to manufacture super high tech weapons which can take time and money. why not go through a register see what people own and direct the arms factories to pump out the ammo of weapons already in stock?

See Gun Registration can be of benifit to national security!!!!!!1

please stay in Australia, and never come to the US

[mas-36]

Had the Chicago PD confiscated a gram of marijuana, the ACLU would have been all over this cases, charging illegal search and seizure.

In the end, all Americans will lose their 2nd amendment rights, simply because we talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. We're too lazy to get off our collective fat asses to do anything that should be done. Same goes for other constitutional rights.

The ACLU needs to be sued for discrimination via double-standards, maybe then they'll decide it may be best to defend ALL constitutional rights, not just the ones they like.

[lider_r]

please stay in Australia, and never come to the US

with a friendly welcome (ahem) like that why would he want to go the US? I thought US and Australia were great allies?

[TacoDelRio]

with a friendly welcome (ahem) like that why would he want to go the US? I thought US and Australia were great allies?

Cool, then by that logic he'll stay out! :)

[Flagg]

Woot about time.

I generally don't care about firearms. (Against CCW nothing will change) Although I would consider myself a anti-gun type person. I still believe normal everyday responsible person should be able to own firearms. (except full auto-matic or semi-automatic "military styled" firearms)

But gun registration is something that should be compulsory. Just because the government knows what type of weapon you have have doesn't actually infringe your rights now does it?

Also and this is something I bet non of you have thought of. Lets just say in a conflict for some reason the US Navy has suffered a massive defeat and is facing invasion. Now on the massive call up of all able bodie males they have a huge weapon shortage. Now instead of trying to manufacture super high tech weapons which can take time and money. why not go through a register see what people own and direct the arms factories to pump out the ammo of weapons already in stock?

See Gun Registration can be of benifit to national security!!!!!!1

That might have worked for the War of 1812, but your argument holds no weight.

Is it POSSIBLE that such a thing could happen? Sure...and pigs could evolve to grow wings and fly........ in about 14 million years

Is it LIKELY, hell no.

Gun registration is a failure in Canada...over a billion spent.....the results have been a mess to be polite.

In Australia, the latest stat I heard was when gun registration was brought in after the massacre the following thing happened:

TOTAL gun registrations/handins equalled LESS than the total number of Ruger Mini 14 + SKS numbers imported into the country.

What does that mean?

That the law made millions of law abiding gun owning(and I mean MILLIONS) Australians criminals as MILLIONS of now illegal firearms are in the possession of formerly law abiding Australians.

Now I know ALL Aussies are descendants of crims....but the stupidity of gun registration made millions of them crims AGAIN.

If you know any firearms owners in Aussie, you know I'm telling the truth.

It's a pathetic failure in your own country.

[perdurabo]

semi-automatic "military styled" firearms)
why Min? if you put new car body of Lamborghini on Pontiac Fiero it still will be pontiac just looking like lamborghini, semi auto is just semi auto it dosent matter how it looks it shoots same bullets in same manner.

[Hydro]

What makes a rifle "military styled" anyway?

[TacoDelRio]

What makes a rifle "military styled" anyway?

It's black.

Or politicians don't see Elmer Fudd with it in a cartoon.

[Shinobi]

What makes a rifle "military styled" anyway?

Pistol grip and bayonet lug.

[justagoodolboy]

If you read the wording in the original assault weapons ban, you can tell that they drew it up after watching a screening of "commando" featuring arnold schwarzenegger. They included pistol grips because it "aids in full automatic single handed fire".

OH and as far as registration goes, how else are they going to know who has the guns when it comes time to confiscate them?

"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

[lider_r]

That might have worked for the War of 1812, but your argument holds no weight.

What does that mean?

That the law made millions of law abiding gun owning(and I mean MILLIONS) Australians criminals as MILLIONS of now illegal firearms are in the possession of formerly law abiding Australians.

If you know any firearms owners in Aussie, you know I'm telling the truth.

It's a pathetic failure in your own country.

that isnt true:

-The Australian buyback was massive equivalent to an estimated 40 million guns in the US [3]

-Homicides committed with firearms have been declining – from 21 percent of all homicides in 1997 to 16 percent in 2002-2003.[4,5]

-Along with the declining use of firearms in homicide, Australia saw a 44% decline in the use offirearms in armed robberies from 1993 to 2003.[6]

-From 1997 to 2003, the proportion of robberies committed with a firearm dropped from 10 to 6 percent.[7, 8]

-Suicide rates using a firearm dropped 48% between 1991 and 2001 and firearm-related accidental injuries in Australia are also declining.[9]

-Public health experts see these declines as related to tighter controls over who may obtain a gun, stricter requirements for training and safe storage, and longer waiting periods for obtaining gun licenses.[10]


3. Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in "Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns," in JensLudwig and P.J. Cook (eds.), Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence. Washington,D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2003, 130.


4. Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 1998,” Australian Government.http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/1998/facts.pdf

5. Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 2004,” Australian Government.http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/facts_and_figures_2004.pdf


6. Ibid.



7. Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 1998.”


8. Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 2004.”


9. Jenny Mouzos and Catherine Rushfort, “Firearms related deaths in Australia, 1991-2001,”Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Government. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html


10. Dr. Adam Graycar, Director, Australian Institute of Criminology, “Crime, Safety and Firearms,”Speech to Injury 2000: Prevention and Management, Canberra, Nov. 23, 2000.
http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/other/graycar_adam/2000-11-csf.pdf



Now I know ALL Aussies are descendants of crims....

They are?

Even the aboriginals?

[TacoDelRio]

Whew, good thing the government put out an unbiased article.... wait a second...

[tomonator]

What makes a rifle "military styled" anyway?

subdued paint, held by men/women able to make war face.

[justagoodolboy]

that isnt true:

-The Australian buyback was massive equivalent to an estimated 40 million guns in the US [3]

-Homicides committed with firearms have been declining – from 21 percent of all homicides in 1997 to 16 percent in 2002-2003.[4,5]

-Along with the declining use of firearms in homicide, Australia saw a 44% decline in the use offirearms in armed robberies from 1993 to 2003.[6]

-From 1997 to 2003, the proportion of robberies committed with a firearm dropped from 10 to 6 percent.[7, 8]

-Suicide rates using a firearm dropped 48% between 1991 and 2001 and firearm-related accidental injuries in Australia are also declining.[9]

-Public health experts see these declines as related to tighter controls over who may obtain a gun, stricter requirements for training and safe storage, and longer waiting periods for obtaining gun licenses.[10]


3. Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in "Australia: A Massive Buyback of Low-Risk Guns," in JensLudwig and P.J. Cook (eds.), Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence. Washington,D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2003, 130.


4. Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 1998,” Australian Government.http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/1998/facts.pdf

5. Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 2004,” Australian Government.http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/facts_and_figures_2004.pdf


6. Ibid.



7. Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 1998.”


8. Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 2004.”


9. Jenny Mouzos and Catherine Rushfort, “Firearms related deaths in Australia, 1991-2001,”Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Government. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html


10. Dr. Adam Graycar, Director, Australian Institute of Criminology, “Crime, Safety and Firearms,”Speech to Injury 2000: Prevention and Management, Canberra, Nov. 23, 2000.
http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/other/graycar_adam/2000-11-csf.pdf



They are?

Even the aboriginals?

Did overall crime rates drop?

[lider_r]

not sure


the gun legislation was introduced to prevent a repeat of Port arthur and gun crime in general, which its suceeded in doing.


Even Mr Howard says so (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417/wl_asia_afp/uscrimeshooting)

[Buckeye67]

Anyone have a news source for this other than the article posted at KC3? I couldn't find anything about it on the ISRA site (the "source" for the story) and there's nothing about it on the NRA-ILA website. Googling for it just turns up the KC3 article and then posts in forums referring to the original article.

Not saying it isn't possible that this is going on - I'd like to see it from a "real" news source (and to learn the entirety of the story) before I get my blood pressure up.

[akd]

-Homicides committed with firearms have been declining – from 21 percent of all homicides in 1997 to 16 percent in 2002-2003.[4,5]

They were declining before the new gun ban. The rate of decline did not increase.


-Along with the declining use of firearms in homicide, Australia saw a 44% decline in the use offirearms in armed robberies from 1993 to 2003.[6]

-From 1997 to 2003, the proportion of robberies committed with a firearm dropped from 10 to 6 percent.[7, 8]

Thank god Australia finally thought of the feelings of poor guns and protected them from being used in crimes. Personally, I care about how many robberies there are, not what is used in the robbery.



-Suicide rates using a firearm dropped 48% between 1991 and 2001 and firearm-related accidental injuries in Australia are also declining.[9]

Overall suicide rates stayed steady.

[helomech]

subdued paint, held by men/women able to make war face.

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

LET ME SEE YOUR WARFACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.orizzontikubrickiani.it/images/hartmantojoker.jpg

[lider_r]

They were declining before the new gun ban. The rate of decline did not increase.


Massacres have ended and firearms deaths have declined.


Thank god Australia finally thought of the feelings of poor guns and protected them from being used in crimes.

i think it was more about protecting the people than protecting guns.


Personally, I care about how many robberies there are, not what is used in the robbery.

Call me crazy but I think most service station attendants would rather be robbed by someone with a crow bar than someone with a gun.

Why? You cant run from a bullet....

I think this just comes down to certain people not being able to accept that strict gun laws can make a difference, as they have in this case.

[Hollis]

not sure


the gun legislation was introduced to prevent a repeat of Port arthur and gun crime in general, which its suceeded in doing.


Even Mr Howard says so (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070417/wl_asia_afp/uscrimeshooting)




While gun crimes may have dropped, violent crimes are 2 1/2 times higher in Austrialia and the UK. The BBC had a report on this and a bunch of other articles.

The issue is violence and that the government/police can not protect a person from being victimized. The citizens are part of the policing of a country, something you may have forgotten. Read up on neighborhood Watch programs and community policing.


BTW the world was a extremely violent place way before firearms were even invented.

[akd]

Massacres have ended and firearms deaths have declined.

Massacres have ended? How can you declare this? Massacres of any sort tend to be anomalous events. They cannot be reduced to statistics and it is base idiocy to pretend that they are not possible because of a law that is principally directed towards disarming the people least likely to commit a massacre. Are you actually suggesting that the gun ban provides protection from someone blowing up a school or a bus?



i think it was more about protecting the people than protecting guns. Yet you can only quote statistics about guns saved from use in crimes/suicides, not human lives saved.




Call me crazy but I think most service station attendants would rather be robbed by someone with a crow bar than someone with a gun.

Why? You cant run from a bullet.... If I were a service station attendant and thought either was a real possibility, I'd be a bit peeved at a government that tells me I can't defend myself.


I think this just comes down to certain people not being able to accept that strict gun laws can make a difference, as they have in this case.

You have not proved your case.

[lider_r]

Massacres have ended? How can you declare this? Massacres of any sort tend to be anomalous events. They cannot be reduced to statistics and it is base idiocy to pretend that they are not possible because of a law that is principally directed towards disarming the people least likely to commit a massacre.

Australia hasn't had a gun massacre since the buyback. End of story.


Are you actually suggesting that the gun ban provides protection from someone blowing up a school or a bus?

It was never intented to provide absoulte certainty that people won't get hurt in one way or another- it was intended to curb gun violence which, as the figures show, it has.

Im not sure how widespread gun ownership could possibly stop someone from bombing somewhere, it hasnt in the US (Oklahoma) and more recently the bomb at the abortion clinic in LA. The Australian government did however ban a certain type of fertiliser which can be used for explosives, that makes more sense than giving everyone guns.


Yet you can only quote statistics about guns saved from use in crimes/suicides, not human lives saved.

One can only guess how many lives have been saved, just like one can only guess how many lives would of been lost if the laws had remained unchanged


If I were a service station attendant and thought either was a real possibility, I'd be a bit peeved at a government that tells me I can't defend myself.

Id be more peeved at the government for letting criminals have an easy conduit for obtaining something which could blow my head off.

[James]

Australia hasn't had a gun massacre since the buyback. End of story.

Did Australia have a series of massacres before the gun buy back? Or was Port Aurthur an anomalous event?

[PPSH41]

Massacres have ended and firearms deaths have declined.



i think it was more about protecting the people than protecting guns.



Call me crazy but I think most service station attendants would rather be robbed by someone with a crow bar than someone with a gun.

Why? You cant run from a bullet....

I think this just comes down to certain people not being able to accept that strict gun laws can make a difference, as they have in this case.





What you fail to show is how taking away firearms has in any way reduced crime. It does matter that this or that proportion has gone down in comparison to that.

Geez, I could reduce stabbings by 25% by outlawing knives. But of course clubbings and beatings would go up 25%. Don't you see. You can't change people. If someone wants to kill you they will find a way. Take away the gun, they will use a knife. Take away the knife they will use a car. Take away the car they will use a club. Take away the club they will use poison. Take away the poison they will make a bomb etc.

You can try to control anything you want but you can't control human nature. Where exactly do you stop with this line of logic? Outlaw cars? More people are killed by them than firearms. Maybe we should outlaw rocks? My neighbor was almost killed by one.

[Shinobi]

Statistics Indicate Gun Control Only Increases Crime
by Pierre Lemieux


Henry Aubin’s Jan. 18 column repeats urban legends propagated by groups financed by the state to lobby the state, such as the Coalition for Gun Control.

It is true, as Aubin claims, that homicides have decreased in Canada over the past 15 years, although I don’t understand why he chooses 1996 as the starting year to make his point, when the 1995 C-68 law really started to come in force only in 1998. The main point, however, is that homicide rates have decreased more in the U.S., where guns have become more common, than in Canada: in fact, since 1998, the homicide rate has dropped by 33% in the US while it increased 3% in Canada.

Look at total violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants. Their rate is now about twice as high in Canada as in the U. S. The violent crime rate has dropped markedly in the U.S. since the early 1990s, but has remained basically stable here. More data is available in Professor Gary Mauser’s Fraser Forum article, Why a Drop in ‘Gun Deaths’ Cannot Justify the Gun Registry ( www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Nov05ffmauser.pdf ).

In the U. K., after the introduction of tougher gun control and a prohibition of handguns in 1997, as well as the general repression of self-defence (victims who defend themselves against violent criminals often get more severe sentences than their aggressors), violent crimes have shot up. To control exploding crime, the British government is resorting to police-state surveillance and control measures, an astounding development in the cradle of Western liberty, and the cradle of our traditional right to keep and bear arms.

Massive social-science research shows the ineffectiveness of gun control in reducing crime. It is a source of continuous amazement that gun control advocates ignore the results of criminological, historical and econometric studies by reputed scholars like (among others) John Lott, Bill Landes, Gary Kleck, James Wright, Peter Rossi, Taylor Buckner, David Kopel, Don Kates, Gary Mauser, Colin Greenwood, and Joyce Malcolm. Why?

In January 2002, two armed students of Appalachian Law School, in Virginia, stopped a mass killing in progress at the university by arresting the killer. Why don’t gun-control activists wonder why there have been no mass killings at the University of Utah, where students are allowed to carry guns? Could it be that madmen look for places where they can do more damage without being interrupted?

But these are only anecdotes. In a more serious, econometric study, John Lott and Bill Landes estimate that, from 1977 to 1999 in the U.S., deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent when state governments decriminalized concealed carry of handguns.

Aubin admits that the proportion of homicides committed with handguns has increased. In fact, their actual number also has. He mentions that handguns are controlled “by an earlier law,” but doesn’t say that handgun registration has been on the books since 1934, and was severely strengthened by the 1977 Bill C-51. How are we supposed to square this with rising handgun violence?

Of course, gun control will reduce some crimes, because they make guns more expensive and more risky to acquire by criminals on the black market. The problem is that gun control leads to an increase in other crimes, because it imposes on honest citizens who want guns greater costs and risks than it imposes on criminals – who generally already have criminal records and don’t bother with the time and humiliation required to get a license. Gun control transmits to thugs the signal that people are defenceless – until the police arrives, after the crime. The historical and empirical evidence is that, in the net, gun control increases crime.

Emotions, anecdotes, selective and poorly analyzed data, ignorance of social-science research: this is what gun-control activists have to offer. Or perhaps they have another agenda. The way things have been going, we will soon have a Coalition for the Control of Everything.

| http://www.pierrelemieux.org |

[lider_r]

What you fail to show is how taking away firearms has in any way reduced crime. It does matter that this or that proportion has gone down in comparison to that.

Im not sure how much more evidence you need. If you aren't willing to accept studies being published that show a reduction in gun violence and speeches by the prime minister of the country then nothing will convince you.

Firearm control was never about trying to reduce all crime, was about reducing firearm crime. Trying to argue that its useless to enact these sort of laws because they don't achieve things they were never supposed to achieve is weird, and illogical.


Geez, I could reduce stabbings by 25% by outlawing knives. But of course clubbings and beatings would go up 25%. Don't you see. You can't change people. If someone wants to kill you they will find a way. Take away the gun, they will use a knife. Take away the knife they will use a car. Take away the car they will use a club. Take away the club they will use poison. Take away the poison they will make a bomb etc.

So why is that reason enough to make a violent persons job of hurting someone so much easier by letting them get their hands on a weapon that can cause so much damage.

Should we just let people have hand grenades and morters? Why not? They'll just use knives and stuff anyway so we might as well let them have them, right?


You can try to control anything you want but you can't control human nature. Where exactly do you stop with this line of logic? Outlaw cars? More people are killed by them than firearms. Maybe we should outlaw rocks? My neighbor was almost killed by one.

Rocks aren't made for killing people and neither are cars, guns are.

By your reasoning we should just let people wander around with flamethrowers, cars kill more people so why not?

[lider_r]

Did Australia have a series of massacres before the gun buy back? Or was Port Aurthur an anomalous event?

there were a few:

Hoddle Street massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoddle_Street_massacre)

Milperra massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milperra_massacre)

Queen Street massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Street_massacre)

Strathfield massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strathfield_massacre)

[PPSH41]

Im not sure how much more evidence you need. If you aren't willing to accept studies being published that show a reduction in gun violence and speeches by the prime minister of the country then nothing will convince you.


Firearm control was never about trying to reduce all crime, was about reducing firearm crime. Trying to argue that its useless to enact these sort of laws because they don't achieve things they were never supposed to achieve is weird, and illogical.


What exactly is the point of trading one crime for another? You admit it doesnt reduce overall crime so if there is no net decrease what is the point? Illogical indeed.



So why is that reason enough to make a violent persons job of hurting someone so much easier by letting them get their hands on a weapon that can cause so much damage.

Sounds like you're treating the symptom and not the root cause. Outlawing guns won't make those "violent" people go away. Why don't you make some more beaurocracy to tend to them instead?



Should we just let people have hand grenades and morters? Why not? They'll just use knives and stuff anyway so we might as well let them have them, right?


I didn't say anything about relaxing laws on explosive devices or firearm laws in general. The burden is on you to prove how my life will improve when you take firearms away. And also how the police will be in my house the second a criminal comes in...as well as ensuring that the power of the state rests with the people. I'm sorry but I don't wish to reside in a country with a nanny-government that thinks it needs to control every aspect of my life. Funny I thought we defeated communism...


Rocks aren't made for killing people and neither are cars, guns are.

Really?! Wow so all these years I've never used my firearms for what they are supposed to be used for? To think all these years of hunting animals, target shooting and relic-collecting, I wasn't doing what I was supposed to. Please tell me what else I'm doing wrong in my life. Anyways, firearms are a tool, nothing more, nothing less.



By your reasoning we should just let people wander around with flamethrowers, cars kill more people so why not?


:roll:

[deadtired]

Should we just let people have hand grenades and morters? Why not? They'll just use knives and stuff anyway so we might as well let them have them, right?


By your reasoning we should just let people wander around with flamethrowers, cars kill more people so why not?


In the US you can legally own machine guns, flamethrowers (I worked with a guy who owned one), even Antiaircraft guns and tanks. Care to guess how many drive by flamethrower attack there've been? How many tanks have been used to commit crimes?

The point I'm trying to make is the VAST majority of firearms are never used in anything other than a peaceful and legal manner. All these restrictions do is punish law abiding people for the actions of criminals.

[Mastermind]

Honestly, this gun vs anti gun debate will never, ever end. Neither side will ever convince the other of their point of view. It comes to this. Why is it that most vocal anti-gun people who have money have armed body guards (I cite Rosie O'Donnel for one and just about every Democrat Politician for the rest...Diane Feinstein>>>)?

The gun is the greatest equalizer ever made for human beings. I'm over 60 years old now...but, if my home, family or self are under threat by a 19 year old buffed out nut-job...I can at least have a chance of defending against him if I am armed as I am. But, even with a ball bat in my hands, that guy is most likely gonna own me in very short order. With my pistola...I am equal to just about anyone else no matter what in a close up encounter of the worst kind.

Now, I know there are all kinds of arguments about, "What if his gun is bigger than mine" and "What if he's a better shot?" and all that crap. I have been in enough gun fights between very highly skilled gun fighters (in war) to fully understand all that crap does not mean siht! I know that if I am not armed...not matter what, I stand no chance. If I am armed with anything that shoots, no matter what, I stand a chance and that's all I need is a chance.

Think how the kids trapped inside their classrooms being slaughtered like cattle by Cho at VT, would have been able to save themselves and their class mates if they had had just a single shot shotgun...even a little 4-10. An old man professor was able to resist by closing a door...but was murdered in the process because they had absolutely no means to defend against that lunatic. At that close range, even a bow and arrow would have been effective. But, because of the silly socially inbred "fear" of ALL guns, no one had any means at all to defend themselves.

That nut that got loose in the Mall in Salt Lake City this year was held down by a man with a concealed hand gun on him until police could get there and nutralize the situation (kill the nut)...the off duty officer who engaged the nut, was packing in spite of the mall being posted restricting entry by persons carring legal weapons! If he had "obeyed" the law, that nut in the mall would have killed many more people. For sure, the lunatic ignored the little sign restricting guns in the mall.

Sure...the argument now will be..."Well, if people did not have guns, then the lunatics would not have them to threaten us...so there!"

Utter nonsense...already this year we have reports from many the most restrictive gun places, London, New York, Washington DC, even Sydney that people are being killed in rising numbers by guns....and in those places, no one has a chance unless one murderer accidentally happens across another...the armed police don't seem to be much of a help, do they, when you have a lunatic shoving a loaded semi-automatic up your nose. ? Seems in both Columbine and VT, the police took plenty of time to first, survey the situation, then to analyse their survey, then to assemble their SWAT team, then to scout out the bad guy...blah, blah, blah...Cho had fired more than a hundred and twenty rounds before the police responded to the actual scene of the murders! We are very fortunate the death toll was only 32. It could have been far worse ...and it probably would have been far less than it was had I (or just about any CCW packer) been a student or teacher in Cho's path.

[Martial]

All I can see is that Lider_r, like all gun control types, is using specious logic to back his weak points and mask his overall ignorance on the issue.

[nagant_m44]

Hey minardiau, care to tell us about that illegal firearm you yourself own?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

what firearm are you talking about?

Are you talking about the enfield I gave my uncle money to purchase to add to his collection of enfields?

I don't own anything.

:)

[Flagg]

what firearm are you talking about?

Are you talking about the enfield I gave my uncle money to purchase to add to his collection of enfields?

I don't own anything.

:)

So you SUPPORT firearms registration for everyone else, just not for you........OK then

[Flagg]

that isnt true:

What isn't true? That millions of Australians are now breaking the law by NOT participating in the gun buyback/registration process? Minardinau's post is but one example of that.

You quote how many weapons were turned in.....how about the estimate of how many that weren't turned in and in effect created a huge illegal black market of firearms?

I'll have to do some hunting for my citation supporting the total number of firearms hand ins added up to LESS THAN the total number of RUger Mini 14 & SKS imports(what happened to the other couple million firearms?)....I read it in an Australian magazine while in the Solomons earlier this year...the quote obviously stood out to me like dogs balls.



They are?

Even the aboriginals?

It was an obvious joke, lighten up scooter.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

So you SUPPORT firearms registration for everyone else, just not for you........OK then

Far from it.

It's like this. The only people I go shooting with are reletives. I refuse to have a firearm in mine or parants house. Now when I had some money a while back I asked my uncle would he mind storing my firearms when I got my got my licence. This is not actually allowed under legislation. So instead of me purchasing the firearm under my name. He purchased the weapon. Got it registered and is stored in his secure lock up at his property.

Now his son in law is a copper and knows full well about our arrangement and actually commends it in that the precautions put in place for me to use are more restrictive then what the current legislation is.

[isaac]

There are hundreds of statistics out there that prove gun control does not stop violent crime, and, that if it does anything it only enervates the problem. It would be nice if at some point people would take their fingers out of their ears and look at the facts.

At the end of the day gun control does not prevent criminals from killing people. It does however succeed in slanting the playing field against law abiding citizens.

The statistics are there, try reading them.

[Firefly26]

In countries that have not had a history of bearing arms, gun control works. But in a nation with over 300 years of bearing arms as a right, it's pointless to try to unwrite what has already been done. I think gun control works in UK, Japan and most of the EU, but in the US, it's actually less logical to take away that right from the people when so many guns are already out there. I'm for proper firearm education, registration and licensing, but for abolishing firearms as a means to reduce violent crime, you will find a cure to cancer faster. It won't work now; it is way too late.

[Pandy]

Woot about time.

I generally don't care about firearms. (Against CCW nothing will change) Although I would consider myself a anti-gun type person. I still believe normal everyday responsible person should be able to own firearms. (except full auto-matic or semi-automatic "military styled" firearms)

Ok... Minardiau, do keep in mind that the average criminal isn't going to pay the amount of money required to buy "military styled" firearm in the first place. Along with that, anyone who fires rifles on a semi-regular basis knows that ammo is not a cheap thing to come by neither...


In Ohio;
Romanian AK WASR 7.62x39 Rifle goes for about $319.95.
Bushmaster 20" A3 .223 Rifle goes for about $859.95
These rifles are not cheap, along with their ammo..

PA63 Hungarian PA63 9x18Mak Pistol goes for a mere $109.95.

Chances is, the average criminal is going to buy the pistol then the rifle itself. Besides, your title of "military styled" rifles in my book are collectibles and a hobby for many others.

[Hollis]

Chances is, the average criminal is going to buy the pistol then the rifle itself. Besides, your title of "military styled" rifles in my book are collectibles and a hobby for many others.


Minny also does not realize all rifles are military style.

BTW what the hell does style have to do with anything that is based on functionality. Minny, ok in your case style is everything.

[StukaJr]

I lived in the country with absolute firearm prohibition and an absolute ease in obtaining firearms on the black market... Since then, it moved away from it and crime rate rose and fell not withstanding firearm proliferation amongst civilians.

[vryhpyammoadded]

A government that doesn’t want me to keep my firearms equals a government that forces me to possess firearms. It’s not insane; it’s a matter of distrust founded upon study of eons of human experience, personal experiences and a personal choice of philosophy. This subject is nonnegotiable.

Politicians need to understand that there are “many” who think this way and to pursue the current and future disarmament policies will result in very difficult times for themselves and the many innocents caught between their forces and those protecting the Constitution. They should let this rest and no longer wheedle away the people’s rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

As for preventing certain immature, insane or criminal individuals from possessing firearms, there are plenty of methods that do not include trampling on the rights of those capable of possessing firearms responsibly. The problem is that these methods require time, money and effort. A process noted for its lack of appeal to lazy, meddling and controlling politicians who enjoy groupthink zombies at their beck and call and the easy way out of overbearing, centralized management i.e. incremental enslavement.

I prefer individual responsibility, oppose the group think and am willing to pay the price of a more reasoned method, note regrettably the possibility of the occasional VT of which my niece escaped harm, to ensure our right to enforce our own self defense and the ultimate power of veto over would be oppressors.

Note: In my own studies, I've seen no proof that VT like events will be any more likely reduced or prevented by disarming the population.

[punchinout]

crazy. was filling out a multiple handgun transfer sheet today and all i could think about was this thread and what would happen if that crap ever happened 'round here.

[mi35d]

Small minor point Min...

You seem to have no problem lecturing Americans on our present laws and more laws you'd like to see us saddled with, but you seem to have no compulsion with violating your own country's laws???

Regardless of how you see it as being "more secure", by your own admission it's a violation, correct?

[lider_r]

There are hundreds of statistics out there that prove gun control does not stop violent crime, and, that if it does anything it only enervates the problem. It would be nice if at some point people would take their fingers out of their ears and look at the facts.

At the end of the day gun control does not prevent criminals from killing people. It does however succeed in slanting the playing field against law abiding citizens.

The statistics are there, try reading them.

its not supposed to prevent criminals from killing people, its supposed to prevent criminals from being able to get hold of weapons which help them kill people more easily.

[lider_r]

What exactly is the point of trading one crime for another? You admit it doesnt reduce overall crime so if there is no net decrease what is the point? Illogical indeed.

Sounds like you're treating the symptom and not the root cause. Outlawing guns won't make those "violent" people go away. Why don't you make some more beaurocracy to tend to them instead?


Gun control isnt about trying to rid the world of violent people. Its about preventing those violent people from getting hold of things which help them make their work so much easier. Perhaps when we figure out way to prevent each person in the world from ever becoming angry then your point may stack up.



I didn't say anything about relaxing laws on explosive devices or firearm laws in general. The burden is on you to prove how my life will improve when you take firearms away.


I disagree. I think the burden of proof lies on those who want even more guns. If the amount of guns on the streets can't stop massacres and daily shootings then how can more guns do it?


Really?! Wow so all these years I've never used my firearms for what they are supposed to be used for? To think all these years of hunting animals, target shooting and relic-collecting, I wasn't doing what I was supposed to. Please tell me what else I'm doing wrong in my life. Anyways, firearms are a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

A hammer is a tool. A gun is a device for killing. Unless they gave you guns to use in high school woodworking?


There are hundreds of statistics out there that prove gun control does not stop violent crime, and, that if it does anything it only enervates the problem. It would be nice if at some point people would take their fingers out of their ears and look at the facts.

The statistics are there, try reading them.

You would do well to take a leaf out of your own book and look at the case of Australia.

[TacoDelRio]

Dude, Lider, stop while you're ahead. I don't know what you intend to gain from this arguement. Are you taking a debate team kinda class in school or something?

[Laconian]

Here is the problem with gun control: it attempts controls an individual's action by controlling an inanimate object.

We decided we had a problem with DUI, but we didn't decide to legislate (control) cars, we went after OFFENDERS. We didn't start advocating suing GM, Ford, etc. for the actions of a driver. We didn't start making beer or alcohol less potent. We did lower the BAC laws, raise the legal drinking age and begin strict enforcement of laws on the books. Have we eradicted DUI? No, but we've made a dent. Has the under 21-crowd stopped consuming booze because it's illegal? Not entirely. So do we go back to Prohibition? By the same token, you will not eradicate gun crime by banning gun possession by free/nonprohibited people. Life in a free society is not without risks. I am not willing to disarm myself for a little perceived safety.

Going after guns to stop violent criminals is not going to be effective;going after violent criminals to stop violent crime will.

And if we're going to start violating Constitutional rights, lets not stop at the 2nd. I could really use a modified 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th. It would make my job easier...

[Hollis]

Here is the problem with gun control: it attempts controls an individual's action by controlling an inanimate object.

We decided we had a problem with DUI, but we didn't decide to legislate (control) cars, we went after OFFENDERS. We didn't start advocating suing GM, Ford, etc. for the actions of a driver. We didn't start making beer or alcohol less potent. We did lower the BAC laws, raise the legal drinking age and begin strict enforcement of laws on the books. Have we eradicted DUI? No, but we've made a dent. Has the under 21-crowd stopped consuming booze because it's illegal? Not entirely. So do we go back to Prohibition? By the same token, you will not eradicate gun crime by banning gun possession by free/nonprohibited people. Life in a free society is not without risks. I am not willing to disarm myself for a little perceived safety.

Going after guns to stop violent criminals is not going to be effective;going after violent criminals to stop violent crime will.

And if we're going to start violating Constitutional rights, lets not stop at the 2nd. I could really use a modified 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th. It would make my job easier...


Well said, BBC reported that violence in the UK is 2 1/2 times higher than the USA. While gun violence maybe higher in the USA, over all violence is lower. One factor that probably contributes to the lower rate of violence is, the ability of the average American has in self protection.

The world was a much more violent place before firearms ever came on the scene.

The is issue is violence, a inanimate object, Like you say, is incapable of doing anything with out humans hands working it.

[sferrin]

its not supposed to prevent criminals from killing people, its supposed to prevent criminals from being able to get hold of weapons which help them kill people more easily.

It doesn't though.

[Geezah]

Australia hasn't had a gun massacre since the buyback. End of story.

So prior to Port Arthur there had been multiple massacres in Australia, and wasn't there some questions that needed to be answered as to how the shooter aquired the firearms in the first place????

[akd]

I disagree. I think the burden of proof lies on those who want even more guns. If the amount of guns on the streets can't stop massacres and daily shootings then how can more guns do it? Wrong. You insist there is a correlation, and use that correlation to argue from a false position. You claim that if someone says that more guns do not lead to more crime, then they must prove that more guns leads to less crime. I claim that you have not proved there is any correlation in the first place.

[Hollis]

Wrong. You insist there is a correlation, and use that correlation to argue from a false position. You claim that if someone says that more guns do not lead to more crime, then they must prove that more guns leads to less crime. I claim that you have not proved there is any correlation in the first place.


Bill Clinton established a commission to determine what benefits that the nation obtained from the passing of the Brady Bill. The Commission was abondoned shorty because the Brady Bill actually had the opposite effect, increase in violence.

That is one of the BIG reason it sunset, with out a fight in congress. The Anti-gun bill cause more harm than good.

[akd]

Bill Clinton established a commission to determine what benefits that the nation obtained from the passing of the Brady Bill. The Commission was abondoned shorty because the Brady Bill actually had the opposite effect, increase in violence.

That is one of the BIG reason it sunset, with out a fight in congress. The Anti-gun bill cause more harm than good.

Well, yes and no. Commission was abandoned because the expected correlation between the ban and violent crime rate reduction did not occur. That does not necessarily mean that the increase was do alone to the gun ban, it just means that the ban certainly did no good that area and may have contributed to the problem. This simply suggests that gun laws are not the solution to violent crime. The coexistence of the ban and an increase in crime rate does not prove a correlation, just as the violent crime rate showing some signs of increase in the last couple of years in the absence of this same ban does not prove a correlation.

Guns are a smokescreen for the much deeper root causes people want to shove under the rug.

[Calanen]

Ok... Minardiau, do keep in mind that the average criminal isn't going to pay the amount of money required to buy "military styled" firearm in the first place. Along with that, anyone who fires rifles on a semi-regular basis knows that ammo is not a cheap thing to come by neither...

In Ohio;
Romanian AK WASR 7.62x39 Rifle goes for about $319.95.
Bushmaster 20" A3 .223 Rifle goes for about $859.95
These rifles are not cheap, along with their ammo..



You are right to some extent - the average criminal does not have the highpowered weapons. Drug dealers do, but they have plenty of cash. And they tend not to ever use them, just have them confiscated. Rifles also cannot be easily concealed.

Mostly pistols and sawn-off shotguns are used in robberies. Rare to see high powered autos in those sorts of crimes.

[Hollis]

Well, yes and no. Commission was abandoned because the expected correlation between the ban and violent crime rate reduction did not occur. That does not necessarily mean that the increase was do alone to the gun ban, it just means that the ban certainly did no good that area and may have contributed to the problem. This simply suggests that gun laws are not the solution to violent crime. The coexistence of the ban and an increase in crime rate does not prove a correlation, just as the violent crime rate showing some signs of increase in the last couple of years in the absence of this same ban does not prove a correlation.

Guns are a smokescreen for the much deeper root causes people want to shove under the rug.

Yes is not a simple yes or no, it is much more complex. focusing on just one aspect serves no other purpose but to promote some political agenda.

Firearms are just a vehicle, what is more crucial is to know why they were chosen as the vehicle of a violent crime. Or Better, what was the causation of the violent crime. All difficult to ascertain, easier just to create a straw-man/straw..object and attack that.

[Calanen]

its not supposed to prevent criminals from killing people, its supposed to prevent criminals from being able to get hold of weapons which help them kill people more easily.

No, its supposed to stop firearms from being in homes, because the cops worry about people having guns when they raid homes. Thats the only reason (whatever the rhetoric) that the gunlaws were introduced in Australia. The Police attended the summit on gun control and said 'This is what we want.' No one else was there, aside from the cops and the Attorney Generals.

They have also taken guns from most security guards, with the exception of cash transit, because the insurance companies said 'Ok, take the guns, no insurance.' So they stopped short there.

The general public without thinking about it too much believes that criminals cant get firearms anymore.

Criminals, real criminals, get their guns from other sources. You could never buy AKs in Australia legally anyway, and yet the crims have them.

[velvet-cream]

Geez, I could reduce stabbings by 25% by outlawing knives. But of course clubbings and beatings would go up 25%.

Guess what...... They are outlawed in NSW. Unless you have a very good reason, it is illegal to carry knives in public.

[Shinobi]

Guess what...... They are outlawed in NSW. Unless you have a very good reason, it is illegal to carry knives in public.

What Ninja do for fight crime then?

[Hollis]

Guess what...... They are outlawed in NSW. Unless you have a very good reason, it is illegal to carry knives in public.


It really seems your government thinks of it's citizens as little children, not to be trusted with sharp objects or self control.

[Calanen]

It really seems your government thinks of it's citizens as little children, not to be trusted with sharp objects or self control.

Worse than that, the people think of themselves as little children and expect the government to protect them. And will violently and angrily confront you if you say otherwise. Seriously, try to have a sane conversation with anyone in Sydney about guncontrol. Its like talking to a brickwall.

[Hollis]

Worse than that, the people think of themselves as little children and expect the government to protect them. And will violently and angrily confront you if you say otherwise. Seriously, try to have a sane conversation with anyone in Sydney about guncontrol. Its like talking to a brickwall.


Calanen, it is sad that when something is said often enough over time, it has a effect on people. It creates a culture of dependency, which political power merchants like. They gain more power and are not very accountable to the people they are suppose to serve. We have people like that in the states too. Some will call them sheeple.

Freedom lies somewhere between anarchy and totalitarianism. Too close to either extreme is equally dangerous. I think as a society, in the US, we waddle between those points too close at time.

[Calanen]

Gee lucky we banned guns in Australia, stuff like this couldn't happen then right?

http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,,21678380-5001021,00.html
Gun crime explodes

By Marnie O'Neill
May 06, 2007 12:00

Article from: http://www.news.com.au/images/sources/h14_sundaytelegraph.gif (http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/?from=ni_story)

SYDNEY is in the grip of a wave of gun crime, with a weapon fired or used to menace innocent residents six days in every seven.

Police figures show there have been no fewer than 40 incidents involving guns across the metropolitan region since the beginning of last month.

The presence of guns in so many recent crimes is at odds with the State Government's repeated insistence that the incidence of gun crime is continuing to fall dramatically.

The armed robbers, carjackers and home invaders have not discriminated between districts of the city, striking everywhere from Double Bay to Sydney's west, from the southern to the northern suburbs.

On April 17, a security guard opened fire on two masked men after one of them had pointed a gun at the guard outside a factory at Arncliffe.

The following day, three men held up a hotel at Guildford, in western Sydney.

They assaulted a male staff member and punched a female patron in the face.

On April 20, a man brandishing a handgun walked into a Fairfield jewellery store and forced the owner to fill up a backpack with expensive trinkets.
On April 24, residents of Marlow, on the Hawkesbury River, were evacuated after reports that an "agitated'' man carrying a sawn-off shotgun had been stalking several properties.

A subsequent search of the 49-year-old man's Wisemans Ferry home allegedly netted an unregistered, shortened firearm and several rounds of ammunition.

Police Minister David Campbell expressed concern over the incidents but said police raids 10 days ago had resulted in eight armed robbery suspects being taken off the streets.

"Any level of gun crime in NSW is unacceptable, and police are working hard to catch those responsible,'' Mr Campbell said.

"Police arrested eight armed-robbery suspects and charged them with at least 19 offences.

"Armed-robbery gangs are a plague on our streets, and it's pleasing to see our police making breakthroughs and getting serious criminals behind bars.''

Mr Campbell said the Government had taken "giant steps'' towards reducing the number of illegal guns on Sydney's streets and "the thugs who carry them''.

Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures showed crimes involving firearms had dropped by 44 per cent since 1997, he said.
Shooting offences had fallen by 40 per cent since 2001, and shooting incidents involving handguns had dropped by about 62 per cent over the same period.


Three hurt in nightclub drive-by shooting

By Marnie O'Neill and Ilya Gridneff
May 06, 2007 01:00am
Article from: http://www.news.com.au/images/sources/h14_sundaytelegraph.gif

THREE men were wounded when a Sydney nightclub with bikie links was sprayed with bullets in the city's latest drive-by shooting.

Police said about 100 people were standing outside the Nomads-linked DCM nightclub, also known as UN, when they were fired on from a dark-blue sedan at 3.30am (AEST) yesterday.

More than a dozen bullets were fired at the Oxford St club, three of them shattering the glass facade of Trumps, a next-door hair salon.
One man, 42, suffered a wound to the stomach while a second man, 26, was shot at least twice in the torso. Both were in a serious but stable condition after undergoing surgery at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital yesterday.

A third man, 23, was released after being treated for bullet grazes.
"It's very lucky that nobody was killed," Surry Hills Superintendent Daryl Donnolly said.

"At this stage we're not sure if the injured men were part of a large group of about 100 people standing outside the club at the time."

Shocked clubbers said they saw no dispute inside or outside the R&B and hip-hop club night called "Chocolate City" before they heard gunshots.

Kat Pan, 22, of Cronulla, was waiting for a cab on Oxford St after spending Friday night at a club opposite. "It's unreal! It all happened so fast - I am in total disbelief this happened right here," she said.

"I was standing just next door to the club, right near Gloria Jean's coffee shop and all of a sudden I heard a fast car accelerating away and then there were these men yelling.

"There were really loud firecracker sounds and people dived to the ground. People were ducking for cover and then a little bit later we realised it was bullet fire."

Her friend, Michael, said he went to the aid of one of the wounded men.
"After the bullets stopped everyone began running, but I saw one of the men didn't get up from the ground," he said.

"He was a huge guy and I went to see if he was OK and then saw massive amounts of blood.

"I held his leg up for him in a first-aid way and realised he was in extreme pain.

"There was blood everywhere and someone went to get towels from the club but couldn't find any.

"Someone put the belt around his leg to stop the blood flow but he was complaining and then I realised he was shot in the ankle."

Supt Donnolly said it was too early to link the shooting to the ongoing turf war between the Nomads, the Bandidos and the Comancheros. But detectives from State Crime's gangs squad are assisting Surry Hills Police in their investigations into the incident.

[Calanen]

Some will call them sheeple.


Australia does have a big sheeple culture. Thats why I preferred living in the states, overall, I agreed that their point of view on many things made a lot more sense.

This whole idea that someone who breaks into your house should never be shot is just insane. But that's what most people believe here, you are supposed to wait 2 hours for the cops to come and politely ask them to leave.

[Meh - me ranting too much, but yeah Id like to return to the US .]

[Hollis]

[PS To all those who say 'Well why dont u leave then - I never wanted to come back, and I'll be on the first plane out as soon as I can sponsor myself back to the US with enough cash. I tried to enlist in the US Army I wanted to stay in the US so bad. I hate it here, and wish I was gone, and never would have returned had I not lost my job in the US.]


I hope you can make it back. US immagration laws are very weird. Wish you the best.

H.

[Calanen]

So prior to Port Arthur there had been multiple massacres in Australia, and wasn't there some questions that needed to be answered as to how the shooter aquired the firearms in the first place????

One of his AR-15s had been handed into the Police in Victoria ( a neighbouring state) in a gun amnesty. How it came to be in the shooter's possession at a later time, no satisfactory answer was ever given.

[WKD]

its not supposed to prevent criminals from killing people, its supposed to prevent criminals from being able to get hold of weapons which help them kill people more easily.

And if this attempt has not reduced the actual total homicide rate, then it has made it no more difficult for criminals to kill people than before. So....what was the point of it again? This is the issue that you're happily talking past in this thread. There is no point in gun control if the overall murder rate (or violent crime rate etc) does not drop with the prohibition of firearms; it actually makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL and quite obviously makes it no more difficult for criminals to kil/rob/assaultl people (or obviously being inclined towards killing/robbing/assaulting people) then before. All you've done is destroy the property of law abiding citizens. And spend an enormous amount of government (that would be taxpayer) money on, um, platitudes to misplaced idealism?

Does it make you feel warm and safe at night that at least now, when someone kills you, even though the likelihood of your being murdered has not at all decreased, the criminal who murders you will not be using a firearm to do it?

And no, you do not now have a greater chance of surviving. Because if more people were surviving, then the rate would have dropped (fewer murders). So you're just as likely to not survive being attacked with a knife than with a gun, if the overall murder rate does not decline.

[velvet-cream]

So you're just as likely to not survive being attacked with a knife than with a gun, if the overall murder rate does not decline.

mm...I would prefer my chances with a crim armed with a knife over a gun. I am fit and I can run away from someone with a knife (effective range of a knife is within arms reach). A gun on the other hand has a bit more range.

[Hollis]

mm...I would prefer my chances with a crim armed with a knife over a gun. I am fit and I can run away from someone with a knife (effective range of a knife is within arms reach). A gun on the other hand has a bit more range.


The problem is the guy with the knifes knows that too, so he gets up close and personal, then sticks you before you can make your move. Ranges on shooting are really not that much more, except in movies.

[TacoDelRio]

I agree with Hollis.

That, and when someone is armed with a knife... well, they don't need to aim and such, just kinda tackle you and flail and such. You catch my drift. Use your own vocabulary, stab, cut, slash, whatever.

[-stk-]

Worse than that, the people think of themselves as little children and expect the government to protect them. And will violently and angrily confront you if you say otherwise. Seriously, try to have a sane conversation with anyone in Sydney about guncontrol. Its like talking to a brickwall.

I'm living in Sydney as well, so I know exactly where your coming from. And as you say the saddest thing of all, is that people here actually like being sheep. The good news at least is that Australians are starting to wise up. As I have mentioned in another thread, Since 2000, firearm ownership has skyrocketed, more Pro-Gun politicians are gaining power (e.g. Rudd) and we have the Shooters Party gaining support at a rate thats really freaking out the anti's. Who knows Calanen, maybe there is light at the end of this tunnel.

Anyway, I thought I would share this article. It might educate a few.


ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D.,author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so
because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy
things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that
may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,
even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth
dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the
United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive
creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the
murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate
is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans
are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent
crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record
rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which
means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one
in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are
committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably
less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation:
We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still
remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people
who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme
provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the
pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow
into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue
shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and
someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For
now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves
feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there
who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil
men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget
that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in
denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to
protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive
citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy
for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But
what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow
citizens?
What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking
the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the
universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep,
wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes
them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the
world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire
extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids'
schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police
officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely
to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the
sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone
coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the
path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the
wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is
that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep
dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished
and removed.
The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative
democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that
there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them
where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our
airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much
rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to
hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough
high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not
have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had
nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT
teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel
those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs
feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded
hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt
differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how
many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a
sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a
funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the
breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a
righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous
battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move
to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep
pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After
the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America
said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said,
"Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I
could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a
warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there.
You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but
he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able
to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the
population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals
convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious,
predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast
majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped
walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like
big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able
to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be
genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most
people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans
are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was
honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the
man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an
operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other
three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone
and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to
the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a
transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business
people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves,
ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible
evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of
police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real
sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves.
They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be
whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay,
but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your
loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If
you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt
you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want
to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious
and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive
in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are
well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt
holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of
religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer
in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your
place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the
break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other
cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I
asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at
a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally
deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen
people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day
if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do
was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the
eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself
after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer
was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and
would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for
"heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective,
or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids'
school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can
happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often
their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog
quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with
yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there
helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically
destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is
counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and
horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth
when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't
train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy.
Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you
are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at
your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11
book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to
terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an
insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it
isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more
unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in
small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some
level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of
his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you
step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that
the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime.
Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you
walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to
yourself...
"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no
dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees,
a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on
the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the
other.
Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America
took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps
toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started
taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that
continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

[Calanen]

mm...I would prefer my chances with a crim armed with a knife over a gun. I am fit and I can run away from someone with a knife (effective range of a knife is within arms reach). A gun on the other hand has a bit more range.

Criminals dont care what you want. And banning guns doesn't mean they wont have guns. Did you see the articles I posted about Sydney?

[Calanen]

Btw STK, I liked your sheep article. It's spot on. I was talking to a group of attorneys about guns, one was the daughter of a NATO Commander, she was the only one who supported people owning firearms. The rest were saying how you need to loudly ask people to leave your home, or offer to give them money - because they are really only poor desperate people who need some cash, forced to commit crimes because of their desperate circumstances, and they really dont want to hurt anyone......and it would be a heinous crime to kill such a person

Yeah, they really were saying this to me....

[lider_r]

rally your government to let more guns be sold to the public then


im not sure either side will listen to you after they've been presented with data showing a decline in gun violence following the restrictions.

[lider_r]

The problem is the guy with the knifes knows that too, so he gets up close and personal, then sticks you before you can make your move. Ranges on shooting are really not that much more, except in movies.


i dont know weather to laugh or cry at that

[D-gin]

i dont know weather to laugh or cry at that

And just why is that?

[Calanen]

rally your government to let more guns be sold to the public then


im not sure either side will listen to you after they've been presented with data showing a decline in gun violence following the restrictions.

You did see the article I posted from the UK Journal of Criminology which showed it has made no difference at all.

[velvet-cream]

Criminals dont care what you want. And banning guns doesn't mean they wont have guns. Did you see the articles I posted about Sydney?

WTF? Are you putting words in my mouth?

All I said was I prefer my chances on the streets with a criminal armed with a knife over one armed with a gun.

As for relaxation of gun control (for self-defence purposes), don't hold your breath.

[Laconian]

mm...I would prefer my chances with a crim armed with a knife over a gun. I am fit and I can run away from someone with a knife (effective range of a knife is within arms reach). A gun on the other hand has a bit more range.

Then you have never faced an attacker with a knife. Turning your back on an armed adversary is bad ju-ju. Especially when you have to guess as to your attackers intent.

FYI, recovery rates from handgun rounds (short of CNS hits) with medical care received in the golden time (less than 60 min) is about 95%. For knife wounds, it falls to about 70%

[velvet-cream]

Then you have never faced an attacker with a knife. Turning your back on an armed adversary is bad ju-ju. Especially when you have to guess as to your attackers intent.

FYI, recovery rates from handgun rounds (short of CNS hits) with medical care received in the golden time (less than 60 min) is about 95%. For knife wounds, it falls to about 70%

You're right, I've never had to face someone directly threatening me with a knife. Don't forget, I live in a state where it is illegal to carry a knife in public, let alone a firearm.

As for your stats, ok I accept the golden time qualification as I will be in hospital within 60 minutes of anything happening (My local hospital is less than a kilometer away). However do your above stats encompase all knife wounds in general, or only ones that are in the torso or head? I'm just curious (not disputing you), 'cause I thought there would be a lot of less severe wounds to arms etc in such instances, which would dilute the statistic. A 30% mortality rate for knife wounds sounds high. (I made that deduction as the opposite to "recovery rate". Does "recovery" mean survive the wounds, or a "full recovery".). Conversely if I was shot by a handgun, and only had a 1 in 20 chance of being killed or permanently injured, those odds aren't bad!

Oh yeah, of course it's bad ju-ju to turn your back from an adversary. But if (circumstances permitting of course), I am a few meters away from the crim and he/she had a knife, I would run for it as I am fit enough to outrun most crims. And since I don't really mix with a bad crowd, the only circumstance i can really envisage someone threatening me with a knife is to rob me. And in those circumstances, I doubt they would chase me for several kilometres just for a wallet (though I would probably surrender the wallet in the first place. A hundred bucks and some cancelled credit cards is not worth my life). But that's a lot of assumptions, and who knows, someone out there might genuinely want to kill be because they think I'm an A$$.

If the person had a gun on the other hand, I would tend to do what they tell me, even if they were 10 metres away from me.

I included "she", as I've seen a woman hold a broken bottle to a guy. I was only 3 or 4 meters away, and cautiouslyavoided the situation

One other thing, if I was with a bunch of mates walking down the streets I doubt a lone criminal would want to rob us with a knife. And if that crim was more than 2 metres from us, we would laugh in his face. However if the crim had a handgun, we would probably submit to his demands.

[Durandal]

Woot about time.

I think they need to register all the PVC skirt wearing freaks out there, not because I dislike them or anything, but people that wear black are more likely to commit crimes.

Thus, anytime a crime is committed, we can go down the list and make sure they were not the perps.


Lists, regardless of reason suck when it involves law abiding citizens.

End of discussion.

I expect better from you next time Min. p-)

[Geezah]

You're right, I've never had to face someone directly threatening me with a knife. Don't forget, I live in a state where it is illegal to carry a knife in public, let alone a firearm.



I onced livedin a country where it is illegal to carry a knife and stab people with knives. For some reason the person that stabbed me for got about that, granted we were all 16 and it happened in the Waitrose changing rooms, I don't think it was ever deemed legal.

[TacoDelRio]

I onced livedin a country where it is illegal to carry a knife and stab people with knives. For some reason the person that stabbed me for got about that, granted we were all 16 and it happened in the Waitrose changing rooms, I don't think it was ever deemed legal.

You should have shown him a piece of paper with the law on it. He would have stopped dead in his tracks. p-)

[lider_r]

Criminals dont care what you want. And banning guns doesn't mean they wont have guns. Did you see the articles I posted about Sydney?

How will allowing more guns to be sold prevent criminals from getting them?

[velvet-cream]

I onced livedin a country where it is illegal to carry a knife and stab people with knives. For some reason the person that stabbed me for got about that, granted we were all 16 and it happened in the Waitrose changing rooms, I don't think it was ever deemed legal.

Obviously people do nasty things, even if its illegal. All I was trying to get at is that people holding people up with a knife is not a common thing in my neighbourhood. The reference to the knife laws is because it is a law that is enforced over here. When I was a younger lad, i remember my mates telling me police searching and confiscating swiss army knives and scissors from them. Hopefully by actively enforcing that law, it reduces the instances of thugs walking around with knives. In particular drunken youths who get into fights/stabbing over a few words or bruised egos. If youths are actively discouraged to carry knives, then they won't be inclined to use them for the occassional street fight/scuffle. However I know it won't eliminate all stabbings completely, especially aggrevated robberies or other crimes with intent.

It's a little bit (but only a little) analogous to drink driving. People are going to drink and drive no matter what (well short of banning driving altogether). But if the police actively do random breath tests (ie enforcing the law), people would be less inclined to drink and drive. I doubt many people would argue against the effectiveness of random breath testing.

[General Cockroach]

All the talk of sheep here reminds me of this fable, maybe its old news and have allready been posted here before but here we go.

Parable of the sheep by Charles Riggs

Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of wolves would prey upon the flock.
One day a group of sheep, bolder than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. "Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one and the wolves are many.
The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand. What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!" One sheep spoke up, saying "It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it,




....but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we could fight back, and stop this savagery." The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them into weapons.

That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them, crying, "Begone! We are not food!" and drove off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth? It was unthinkable!
The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached the flock to ****ounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out, "Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things! You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!"
The brave sheep stopped, amazed. "But we are your brethren!" they cried. "We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves, they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!"
"Baaaaaaad!" cried the flock, "the things are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock!" So the armed sheep resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.
In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from which more than one wolf did not return.

Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep’s weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in terror again, "Baaaaaad! You still possess these evil things!
We must ban you from our presence!"

And so they did. The great chief sheep and his council, encouraged by the words of their advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested before the council, saying, "It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!" But the flock drowned them out with cries of "Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!"
Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying "Baaaaddd! Bad things!"
That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep’s totems and signs, and said, "Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth! Brothers, let us feed!" And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the slaughter.




It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, only to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so again. This they did, and do still.
In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, "See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!" But the flock cried out, more feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, "Baaaaaaaad! These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaad!"
So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.
They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!

[WKD]

How will allowing more guns to be sold prevent criminals from getting them?

How has banning them lowered the crime rate? Or have you not read the entire thread?

No, you haven't read the entire thread, only your own posts it seems.

The answer is it probably won't, and that them having more guns makes *absolutely no difference* to the crimes they commit, it just means they commit the same crimes and the same number of crimes without guns. The advantage is? The advantage is you just get killed with a knife instead, which makes absolutely no ****ing difference whatsoever. Except you've just spent a lot more money (confiscation!) for the privilege of being stabbed to death instead of being shot. I guess that makes it a better way to die, because we all know the more money you spend on something the better it's got to be. Or something. I don't understand where you get the idea that being robbed at knife point is somehow better than being robbed at gun point, but hey, guns are just uniquely evil and bad and ****. If you stand next to one you might get pregnant or something, maybe catch the AIDS or the Gay. Who knows.

[Calanen]

How will allowing more guns to be sold prevent criminals from getting them?

It doesn't make any difference at all. Criminals dont care what the law is, that's why they're criminals. Allowing citizens to own guns, can protect them from the criminals, when law enforcement cannot. Which is most of the time.

[Durandal]

How will allowing more guns to be sold prevent criminals from getting them?

Wrong question.

How will LESS guns being sold PREVENT violent crime?

Every time you pose a question you are requiring that I sacrifice both a lifestyle and a RIGHT.

I do not need to defend it.

You need to PROVE that taking away guns, or at least reducing the number sold, reduces (not gun related crime) VIOLENT crime (for the purposes of this discussion: murder, rape, assault).

Now, try it.

[velvet-cream]

Another thing to consider when talking about gun crime, is the break up of firearms used in crime.

Most people distinguish gun crime into two categories, that is:
1. Crime where the firearm used is possessed legally, or obtained from a legal source. (such as a personal firearm or a firearm belonging to someone else in the household).
2. Crime where the firearm was illegally possessed.

I would like to break it down to at least 3 categories:
1. Crime where the firearm used is possessed legally, or obtained from a legal source. (same as No. 1 above)
2. Crime where the firearm was legally imported/manufactured in the country and was legally owned at some point in time. However the firearm at present is no longer legally registered/possessed. Examples are cases where the guns have been stolen/lost from the police, Army, gun dealer, or a private citizen who had legally owned the firearm.
3. Crime where the firearm has never been legally possessed in the country. Examples been crude backyard weapons, or illegally imported weapons.

Stronger gun control would affect firearms used in crime in the first two categories. The third category would not be affected by gun control whatsoever as the possession of those weapons have always been illegal.
Don't have stats, as these are categories I just made up. But I have a sneaking suspicion that in Australia, the bulk of gun crime comes from guns in the first two categories.

[velvet-cream]

BTW, I'm not totally anti-gun. I enjoy shooting and blowing sh|t up.

But to me (I know I am culturally different to other people, especially those in the US), I treat firearms as a privilege rather than a right. And without extensive training, I don't think ordinary citizens should use firearms for self defence. I believe it is reckless to allow someone to possess a firearm, for any purpose (especially for using it against another human being, such as self defence) without having first checking they are a fit and proper person to own the firearm, and ensuring they are properly trained to use it.

Since every citizen is not forced to undergo firearm training, nor is every citizen a fit and proper person, firearm ownership cannot be a universal right by default. It should be a privilege that you earn.

[Durandal]

And without extensive training, I don't think ordinary citizens should use firearms for self defence.

So using that argument cops should not have guns.

[velvet-cream]

So using that argument cops should not have guns.

Well if you're saying cops in your local area aren't well trained in firearms, then I'm not going to argue with you. That's your problem that you can take up with your mayor/member of parliament/senator.

Perhaps my use of the word "extensive" was ill defined and open for interpretation. But I would sincerely hope police in general are trained to a competent standard.

So i'll reword it. Unless a citizen is trained and can demonstrate a competent standard in the use of firearms and defensive shooting tactics, they should not be licenced to possess firearms for the purposes of self defence.

Happy?

[Durandal]

WSo i'll reword it. Unless a citizen is trained and can demonstrate a competent standard in the use of firearms and defensive shooting tactics, they should not be licenced to possess firearms for the purposes of self defence.

Ah, in that case, most States require courses or conceal carry.

It includes class room time and a qualification of sorts, including some many rounds on target.

You act as if we do not have that here in the States.

[velvet-cream]

It's a bit like driving. If you want to drive, prove to the public that you know what you are doing (through driving exams/licence etc). Why, 'cause if you don't know what your doing, you can kill someone.

Similarly with guns, lives are at stake if you don't know what you are doing. I still believe it is fair, and in the public interest in general that people with guns should have some training to its use. And for self defence, where part of the purpose is to actually shoot another human being, and possibly take a life, that threshold of competency should be higher.

[velvet-cream]

Ah, in that case, most States require courses or conceal carry.

It includes class room time and a qualification of sorts, including some many rounds on target.

You act as if we do not have that here in the States.

I'm not acting as if I don't think there are any courses for things like that. And like you said "most" (but not all) states require courses for CCW.

But, say I want to buy a shotgun to defend my home. There are some states out there that will allow me to do that without having gone through a defensive shooting course. (and as I understand, there are still states out there that don't require a licence for me to buy a pistol. Correct me if I'm wrong).

What I'm saying is that if any firearm should be used for defensive purposess, training and testing should be mandatory (in all jurisdictions).

[velvet-cream]

Ah, in that case, most States require courses or conceal carry.

It includes class room time and a qualification of sorts, including some many rounds on target.

You act as if we do not have that here in the States.

And in any case, you would be agreeing with me. Because if what you said above is true that CCW requires qualification, and demonstration of competency, then CCW is a privilege that a citizen earns.

Which was what I was getting at:
1. Firearms use for certain purposes is a privilege.
2. Firearms for defensive purposes should require demonstration of competency in that area.

[Hollis]

But, say I want to buy a shotgun to defend my home. There are some states out there that will allow me to do that without having gone through a defensive shooting course. (and as I understand, there are still states out there that don't require a licence for me to buy a pistol. Correct me if I'm wrong).

What I'm saying is that if any firearm should be used for defensive purposess, training and testing should be mandatory (in all states).


Velvet, sort of a paradox in the states is individual determination....... The state does not always set restriction on doing something, by requiring the person to learn first than do. Like Mountaineering/Climbing/extreme sports, a person can just walk up and do it. People die every year from their own stupidity.

I would really recommend, that a person who buys a fire army take some training with a QUALIFIED instructor. Check your instructor credentials. Some idiots can get certification to teach and will falsify their experiences in their advertisements.

[Durandal]

It's a bit like driving. If you want to drive, prove to the public that you know what you are doing (through driving exams/licence etc). Why, 'cause if you don't know what your doing, you can kill someone.

Similarly with guns, lives are at stake if you don't know what you are doing. I still believe it is fair, and in the public interest in general that people with guns should have some training to its use. And for self defence, where part of the purpose is to actually shoot another human being, and possibly take a life, that threshold of competency should be higher.

The problem is you are comparing the PRIVILEGE of driving with the RIGHT of defense, in this case, with a firearm.

The entire licensing process is simply a tool for the State to regulate something AND attain more tax money (in the form of tags and permits).

If you are using driving as an example (something not as important as gun ownership) then by your logic cars should be treated as firearms. They certainly kill and injure more people, more innocent people, more children, and thus also cause more wasted money in medical expenses.

Now, I will not be so silly to make this comparison, because obviously you did not mean to compare the two...one a guaranteed RIGHT and the other an obvious PRIVILEGE.


I'm not acting as if I don't think there are any courses for things like that. And like you said "most" states require courses for CCW.

Yeah, some States do not allow conceal carry and thus make no requirements at all since you cannot carry a gun concealed legally (unless you are part of the elite, politician, or cop...then this who thing becomes a class issue which is NOT good at all)


But, say I want to buy a shotgun to defend my home. There are some states out there that will allow me to do that without having gone through a defensive shooting course.

Umm, I thought we were talking about conceal carry. If not then no, of course no one requires you take a course. The gun comes with safety instructions, the basic ones that matter AND you are not carrying it concealed into the public. There are also laws that you must follow in how you transport and use the weapon.

Not too sure what else there needs to be.

Do I need to take a safety course every time I purchase a propane tank and a grill because they are dangerous IF I do not read the safety directions...like anything else.


(and as I understand, there are still states out there that don't require a licence for me to buy a pistol. Correct me if I'm wrong).

There is no federal law requiring a license. That would be unconstitutional. Its infringing on a right.

Sort of like you being required to get a license to be able to speak freely or worship.

Which also puts you on a LIST. Lists, by their very nature and purpose are bad.


What I'm saying is that if any firearm should be used for defensive purposess, training and testing should be mandatory (in all states).

Silliness.

We do not make a requirement for people to take a test to use such firearms for offensive uses.

To me its simply ANOTHER layer of BS bureaucracy that is not necessary.


So let me ask you this.

Why do you think we NEED this?

Accidental deaths are down to an all time low.

There are less households with firearms than there were 100 years ago.

Or do you simply think, without reasoning or proof that because firearms CAN be dangerous that EVERYONE should HAVE to be forced to take safety courses to make sure they can use them.

Do we use this logic then to apply to EVERYTHING, including criminal penalties similar to existing gun laws, for every form of negligence?

[Durandal]

And in any case, you would be agreeing with me. Because if what you said above is true that CCW requires qualification, and demonstration of competency, then CCW is a privilege that a citizen earns.

Which was what I was getting at:
1. Firearms use for certain purposes is a privilege.
2. Firearms for defensive purposes should require demonstration of competency in that area.

EXCEPT I am not agreeing with you. I am simply pointing out that we have a level of bureaucracy that you demanding we have.

I thinks its silly we have such things.

I think a person should be able to conceal carry anytime, anywhere, and without restrictions.

I can purchase a firearm without a license. I can carry it openly (though in some areas they will call the cops, and you get nailed for inciting panic...even though its completely legal to open carry.

But for some reason, a concealed gun requires a level of BS cost and paperwork.

Completely illogical in a free and open society, but completely logical for a society where a small number of people (either as a result of ignorance or a result of deliberate tyranny) want to control the majority.

[Mastermind]

Grr....Gun ownership/possession falls into several categories in the US.

1) Pistols and long guns are treated completely differently....pistols are classified as "Weapons that are easily concealed on one's person" and are thus much more controlled than long guns...rifles and shot-guns. In most jurisdictions in the US, pistols must be registered with the police dept, while long guns are not so required.

2) To purchase any firearm legally from a licensed dealer...you will fill out the back ground form and, after the form has been submitted to the authorities of the jurisdiction, you will be allowed to purchase the fire arm.

3) CCW (concealed) permits are issued to law abiding citizens after they have successfully completed a competency and CCW law class...this is an 8 hour class that is mostly lecure with a firing range demonstration by the applicant that he/she can competently handle the weapon...the weapon is specifically named on the carry permit. If you replace the weapon with another, you must re-qualify with the new weapon and a new carry eprmit will be issued. You can carry as many conealed weapons on your person as you are permitted for...each weapon has a separate permit that must be on your person when you are carrying the weapon. (although each state has separate laws covering this...some states it is much easier to get the CCW while in others it is almost impossible). If/when you are stopped by the police, you must immediately tell them you are carrying a concealed weapon and show them the permit. Most usually, they will disarm you during your "visit" and then, if all is correct, they will return your fire-arm to you and let you on your way. I have been stopped and told them I was carrying and the officers did not disarm me or ask for my permit...go figure.

4) You can be refused permission to own a hand gun and/or a long gun if, *you have a felony on your criminal record...felons lose their right to keep and bear arms. * Have a history of mental illness...although "mental illness" is seldom entered into the federal data base due to doctor/patient privleges of privacy (I cite the Cho-VT case), or * have a record of domestic violence....if you and the wife or even a room mate have a tiff and they complain that you have become violent and the police make a report of the incident ...your right to keep and bear arms is permanently denied for life. You may not even have to go to court and be proven violent...just the police report based on the unsworn comments of the complaintant is enough to strip you of this constitutional right.

5) Long guns fall into essentially three categories (for common ownership and unlicensed possession purposes)...Rifles, shot guns which are futher categorized into semi automatic, and manually charged...and "hunting" or sport, collector-curio vs the dreaded "Assault rifle" category. Generally speaking, you need no permit to own or possess any long gun so long as it is not classified as a fully automatic...such as the Browning BAR and machine guns...including sub-machine guns, like the Thompson or the UZi.

You may own as many long guns (and legally owned pistols for that matter) as you wish. This includes military weapons, such as the Mauser, the SKS, AK-47 (semi auto only) and the M-1 Garand. Any pump or semi-auto loader shotguns are allowed without almost no reservation.

Some states have re-classified some long guns as "Assault Rifles". these are generally classified, often vaguely, according to magazine capacity...anything capable of holding more than about ten rounds and with poor accuracy may be classified as an "assault rifle"...no good for hunting purposes....and thus are banned in a few of the US States. Most states have no "Assault Weapons" ban.

In some city/county jurisdictions, you may own a long gun or a pistol...but you may not transport it without a special permit....and this ban may even be for gun parts! This is supposed to prevent the actual use and ownership of fire arms...that is, to criminalise the use or transportation of the weapons rather than out right ban them....with the usual left-oid thinking that if they make it onerous to use/transport one, most citizens will just get rid of them. If you have a legally owned fire arm, but are found in possession of it within certain limits of a school, you may be charged with a felony...these limits can sometimes be quite large...like one thousand meters...or even up to a mile. This is just another way the gun-grabbers use to "sterilize" entire neighborhoods of fire-arms. These limitations have even been included in school planning to gain fire-arm control over specific "troublesome" areas.

The laws are varied, and in may states, they have quite serious penalties for violation, which includes the threat of being convicted of a felony.

I hope that helps clarify things for discussion purposes...however, be aware...my little dissertation is only a brief touch on the basics...believe me, there is much more to gun ownership/possession in the US than meets the casual glance.

[Durandal]

We know this Mastermind...well, at least those of us that own firearms and participate in these discussions on the pro-ownerhsip side do.

I am trying to get away from details of the laws and get down to what exactly is achieved by demanding people take classes in order to own a firearm or out right prohibition. Ultimately any arguments we have heard with regards to government control of the people (totalitarianism) are fallacies.

You want to achieve something that is more important than a RIGHT. In the U.S. Gun Ownership and its part in our society is a RIGHT.

So I need, an argument that is LOGICAL and NOT a fallacy.

Fallacy is defined for the purpposes of this discussion as follows:


A fallacy is a component of an argument that is demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument invalid in whole

So, for all you pro-gun control types out there.

Discuss this with me and do so without using a fallacy.

You cannot.

[velvet-cream]

Durandal, it's your country not mine. So it's fair enough that your constitution guarantees it as a right. So enjoy it.

To me, in my situation (outside the military of course), I don't see an absolute need for a firearm. And I consider my privilege to drive a lot more useful than carrying a firearm for defensive purposes. I've lived in my current country for 20 years, and I have never been in a civilian situation where I thought carrying a firearm would have been appropriate. Conversely, although I consider myself competent with weapons (I've never UD/ND'd) I think there is a greater chance of me accidently discharging a weapon had I carried a weapon every day for 20 years. So for my circumstance I am better off without one. But your situation may be vastlly different to mine.

btw, you mentioned treating cars like firearms. Well in a sense, cars are regulated pretty much like firearms. Both require a licence and registration, and both are routinely inspected (over here, the police with prior notice can request to inspect the security of your gun safe etc). But this is already taking the analogy too far.

And as for the instructions that come with civilian firearms. Yeah, they are basic instructions on operation and use. But most of the ones I've seen say "do not point it at another person" or other words to that effect. I don't think any of them go into any detail about how to use the firearm for defensive purposes.

As for items that are dangerous. Yes, a lot of things can be dangerous, such as a dog, or a beer bottle when used for an unintended purpose.
But when you use a firearm for defensive purposes, there is intent to cause harm to someone. Guns for defensive purposes are designed to kill/incapacitate another human being. And if someone is not trained to identify threats and using appropriate escalation of force, things can get pear shaped very quickly. For example, you mentioned:

I think a person should be able to conceal carry anytime, anywhere, and without restrictions
Well what happens if you see someone walking up your driveway at night, and catch a glimpse of a concealed weapon under their flapping coat? Well you, with an obvious interest in firearms and tactics would probably switch on a light and try to identify the person in question, or verbally challenge them etc. But say it wasn't you in that situation. Say it was a person who had just split up from an abusive relationship, or someone who had a stalker harrassing them. And the person in fear had gone out and bought a firearm for protection. Without proper training on defensive situations, there may be a homicide on an innocent neighbour or friend.
Ok, I'm making a lot of assumption in the above scenario. But I wouldn't want to walk up to a neighbour's front door and get shot by them because they didn't take appropriate firearms training.

There are a couple of places where I won't want people to be carrying firearms regardless of constitutional rights. The sensible one is in clubs/bars, and many states in the US have banned weapons there. Too much drugs, alcohol, testosterone and egos to mix with weapons. And if the bar/club have bouncers that know how to use metal detectors properly, there is no need to have a weapon there either. Another obvious one we can all agree on is airports/airplanes. Same goes for courts, prisons, police stations, legislature etc. They are adequately protected by LEO.

I understand your constitution gives you right. And with your interpretation, it gives you the right to bear arms for defense of yourself, your family and property. But I still believe it is a reasonable balance (of individual rights vs public safety) to require citizens who choose to exercise their rights, to adhere to some safety standards. You mentioned CCW courses and with a quick search on the net, I found most of them can be completed in a few days. I'll assume most people who can read, write and have an IQ over 70 should be able to pass those courses without a problem. For those who can't, they are the type of people who should not be owning guns (ie people with mental problems/ learning deficiencies). I wouldn't want to trust their judgement of hostile situations and use of firearms if I was standing in the same street as them.

[joe mama]

...

You make a huge assumption: you assume that because someone has obtained firearms training, they will then use what they have learned along with using good judgement if they ever have to use their firearm in a defensive situation.
Take a good hard look at how people drive. Most of them are trained, or at least passed a driving test. Yet many drive like total idiots.
Also, you make an error - the constitution doesn't give rights. The constitution says what rights the government shall not infringe. The rights are given by...whatever you personally believe. God, nature, whatever. We, as Americans, collectively believe people have the right to, for example, free speech. Why do we have this right? Because we do. Period. The 1st amendment doesn't GIVE the right, it says the government shall not infringe upon the right. The right, clearly, exists regardless of the government.

[Hollis]

Also, you make an error - the constitution doesn't give rights. The constitution says what rights the government shall not infringe. The rights are given by...whatever you personally believe. God, nature, whatever. We, as Americans, collectively believe people have the right to, for example, free speech. Why do we have this right? Because we do. Period. The 1st amendment doesn't GIVE the right, it says the government shall not infringe upon the right. The right, clearly, exists regardless of the government.


Well said. I just like reading that part of again. I really hope those who are confused about where rights come from, will read it again too.

Thanks.

H.

[akd]

Durandal, it's your country not mine. So it's fair enough that your constitution guarantees it as a right. So enjoy it.

To me, in my situation (outside the military of course), I don't see an absolute need for a firearm. And I consider my privilege to drive a lot more useful than carrying a firearm for defensive purposes. I've lived in my current country for 20 years, and I have never been in a civilian situation where I thought carrying a firearm would have been appropriate. Conversely, although I consider myself competent with weapons (I've never UD/ND'd) I think there is a greater chance of me accidently discharging a weapon had I carried a weapon every day for 20 years. So for my circumstance I am better off without one. But your situation may be vastlly different to mine.

btw, you mentioned treating cars like firearms. Well in a sense, cars are regulated pretty much like firearms. Both require a licence and registration, and both are routinely inspected (over here, the police with prior notice can request to inspect the security of your gun safe etc). But this is already taking the analogy too far.

And as for the instructions that come with civilian firearms. Yeah, they are basic instructions on operation and use. But most of the ones I've seen say "do not point it at another person" or other words to that effect. I don't think any of them go into any detail about how to use the firearm for defensive purposes.

As for items that are dangerous. Yes, a lot of things can be dangerous, such as a dog, or a beer bottle when used for an unintended purpose.
But when you use a firearm for defensive purposes, there is intent to cause harm to someone. Guns for defensive purposes are designed to kill/incapacitate another human being. And if someone is not trained to identify threats and using appropriate escalation of force, things can get pear shaped very quickly. For example, you mentioned:

Well what happens if you see someone walking up your driveway at night, and catch a glimpse of a concealed weapon under their flapping coat? Well you, with an obvious interest in firearms and tactics would probably switch on a light and try to identify the person in question, or verbally challenge them etc. But say it wasn't you in that situation. Say it was a person who had just split up from an abusive relationship, or someone who had a stalker harrassing them. And the person in fear had gone out and bought a firearm for protection. Without proper training on defensive situations, there may be a homicide on an innocent neighbour or friend.
Ok, I'm making a lot of assumption in the above scenario. But I wouldn't want to walk up to a neighbour's front door and get shot by them because they didn't take appropriate firearms training.

There are a couple of places where I won't want people to be carrying firearms regardless of constitutional rights. The sensible one is in clubs/bars, and many states in the US have banned weapons there. Too much drugs, alcohol, testosterone and egos to mix with weapons. And if the bar/club have bouncers that know how to use metal detectors properly, there is no need to have a weapon there either. Another obvious one we can all agree on is airports/airplanes. Same goes for courts, prisons, police stations, legislature etc. They are adequately protected by LEO.

I understand your constitution gives you right. And with your interpretation, it gives you the right to bear arms for defense of yourself, your family and property. But I still believe it is a reasonable balance (of individual rights vs public safety) to require citizens who choose to exercise their rights, to adhere to some safety standards. You mentioned CCW courses and with a quick search on the net, I found most of them can be completed in a few days. I'll assume most people who can read, write and have an IQ over 70 should be able to pass those courses without a problem. For those who can't, they are the type of people who should not be owning guns (ie people with mental problems/ learning deficiencies). I wouldn't want to trust their judgement of hostile situations and use of firearms if I was standing in the same street as them.

You do not have to discharge a firearm at another person to use it for defensive purposes. It may simply deter. You have as much of a right to deter a threat on your life or the lives of your family members as you do to respond to such an attempt with force. In fact, in the interest of preserving human life, it would be foolish not to do so with the means you have at hand. Your reasoning is flawed.

[velvet-cream]

You make a huge assumption: you assume that because someone has obtained firearms training, they will then use what they have learned along with using good judgement if they ever have to use their firearm in a defensive situation.
Take a good hard look at how people drive. Most of them are trained, or at least passed a driving test. Yet many drive like total idiots.
Also, you make an error - the constitution doesn't give rights. The constitution says what rights the government shall not infringe. The rights are given by...whatever you personally believe. God, nature, whatever. We, as Americans, collectively believe people have the right to, for example, free speech. Why do we have this right? Because we do. Period. The 1st amendment doesn't GIVE the right, it says the government shall not infringe upon the right. The right, clearly, exists regardless of the government.

Yeah, I made an assumption that if people are trained and assessed on something, they will use it. There are going to be idiots and maniacs in this world. But I thought it was a safe assumption that driving lessons and driving tests results in better drivers compared to a system without any regulation. That assumption is for whoever wants to read this forum to judge.

As for the characterisation of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. If you want to interpret those amendments in that way, its fine with me. So the rights as defined in your constitution are actually pre-existing rights that US citizens have had all along, and the Bill of rights is merely there to remind the government that any legislation with respect to those rights are ultra vires.

Tell me, where in the constitution does it mention the circumstances where those pre-existing rights will be extinguished? (for example, certain prohibition on firearm ownership people who have been convicted of a felony in the past, etc). It's not so black and white now is it? Legislation that restrict those "untouchable" rights have been passed, because the constitution needs to be interpreted in a reasonable (and workable) way. Of course, when I say reasonable, it opens another can of worms, but the point is - those rights aren't as rigid as you wish they were.

And as for your first amendment right... Well your government has violated that right plenty of times. The one that always strikes me is the motto "In God We Trust", which meddles state with religion. But this is another issue.

[Skutatos]

Thats because there actually is no guarantee of 'separation of church and state' its just something that people were socially engineered to believe.

[Durandal]

...and I have never been in a civilian situation where I thought carrying a firearm would have been appropriate.

Ok, the problem with this conversation is that YOU keep jumping back and forth between carrying a gun (which less than 2% of Americans do) and OWNING a weapon, which 90+million Americans do.

Which is it?

You also throw around key terms such as NEED, APPROPRIATE, WANT, and NECESSARY.

I own GUNS because I WANT to own guns since there are no laws REQUIRING me to own a gun I do so using free will. I NEED a gun on my farm, rare but NECESSARY sometimes.

THese are VERY important terms.

1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded.

2. Never allow the muzzle to point at anything you are not willing to see destroyed.

3. Be sure of your target and know what lies behind it.

4. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are aligned on target.

5. Be sure your guns are never accessible to unauthorized or untrained individuals.




I think there is a greater chance of me accidently discharging a weapon had I carried a weapon every day for 20 years. So for my circumstance I am better off without one. But your situation may be vastlly different to mine.

Considering the number of Americans that do carry firearms (LEO and private) I think your fear here while maybe valid for yourself (I/we cannot prove or disprove that) is irrational for the general population.

Your argument can be summed up like this: the more a firearm is "carried" = more chances of accidental discharge = more chances of negligent manslaughter or accidental deaths.

Yet, in the last decade there have been a massive increase in the carried firearms with a decrease in accidental deaths and injuries.


btw, you mentioned treating cars like firearms.

No, you did, I simply responded.


Well in a sense, cars are regulated pretty much like firearms. Both require a licence and registration, and both are routinely inspected (over here, the police with prior notice can request to inspect the security of your gun safe etc). But this is already taking the analogy too far.

Part of the problem is that "over there" where ever that is, is NOT the United States and does not have a gun culture. We do not have inspections and the ONLY time the LE can violate/trespass to search or inspect is in direct relation to a crime that has been committed or an inspecting of NFA registered firearms (full auto, short barreled, or suppressed weapons).

Nor do I need insurance, a drivers license, or permit to purchase a car. I need them to drive the car on the streets.

I have 320 acres of farmland I could drive there all I want.

The license and permits are there to TAX me on the use of public streets (which I already pay taxes for in the first place) and to control me...simply more hoops.


And as for the instructions that come with civilian firearms. Yeah, they are basic instructions on operation and use. But most of the ones I've seen say "do not point it at another person" or other words to that effect. I don't think any of them go into any detail about how to use the firearm for defensive purposes.

Here is the safety manual for a Lever Action Winchester Model 1894 rifle (mine is chambered in .357 Mag): http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/om/02227_wfa_94_om_s.pdf

Page 3 contains the safety information and IF the owner of the rifle follows those safety features printed in this operator's manual they will (within reason) safely operate the firearm.

Not too sure what other SAFETY precautions a firearm owner needs. I'll argue that some of those are there simply to avoid lawsuits more than offering safety.


But I wouldn't want to walk up to a neighbour's front door and get shot by them because they didn't take appropriate firearms training.

Not too sure what a person's mental state has to do with proper threat ID. No matter how much training you have mistakes can be made. Look at accidental LE deaths and weapons discharge.

If the police can do it anyone can...regardless of training.

But, that is why we have laws. A person that does mistake someone and shoot them faces charges and is put on trial and rightfully so.

The point is just because a small number of events happen this does not mean, out of fear, we regulate everything. The number of defensive firearm uses in the U.S. is hard to map out. We know its in the hundreds of thousands, but the exact number os sketchy. What is important in that number is that the number of dead as a result of firearms used in crimes (around 11K) is a fraction of that number (250K to 500K per year est).

[velvet-cream]

You do not have to discharge a firearm at another person to use it for defensive purposes. It may simply deter. You have as much of a right to deter a threat on your life or the lives of your family members as you do to respond to such an attempt with force. In fact, in the interest of preserving human life, it would be foolish not to do so with the means you have at hand. Your reasoning is flawed.

I know you can defend yourself with a firearm without discharging it. However when you want to effectively deter someone, you need to:
1. Show them the threat of force.
2. Actually have the capability of force.
3. Have your opponent actually believe you will use that force.

If you want to deter someone, you need to be prepared to fire that weapon, and I'm sure people over in the US fire weapons in self defence, every day.

If you think all you need to do to deter someone is to show a weapon... Well you might as well buy an airsoft pistol.

My point was to suggest a requirement of defensive shooting/weapons training for those who intend to use firearms for defensive purposes. I don't see how my reasoning is flawed. Do you think a gun owner that has to face a self defence situation is better off without the training than with it?

[Durandal]

I'd like to point out that again, you have yet to provide a LOGIC, well founded, well supported reason other restrict firearms all you have provided so far is:

A) You cannot handle a weapon for 20 years repeatedly without an accidental discharge.

B) We, as a society, regulate one thing, and thus using that regulation you determine that we need to regulate something else.

Not good reasons at all.

[akd]

Yeah, I made an assumption that if people are trained and assessed on something, they will use it. There are going to be idiots and maniacs in this world. But I thought it was a safe assumption that driving lessons and driving tests results in better drivers compared to a system without any regulation. That assumption is for whoever wants to read this forum to judge. Drop the driving metaphor. It is not relevant. You do not have to have a drivers license to own a car or keep a car on your own property. The license is to operate a vehicle on public roads, and it does not protect you from criminal or civil punishment if you use it improperly. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights says nothing about transportation on public roads.


As for the characterisation of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. If you want to interpret those amendments in that way, its fine with me. So the rights as defined in your constitution are actually pre-existing rights that US citizens have had all along, and the Bill of rights is merely there to remind the government that any legislation with respect to those rights are ultra vires. It is not an interpretation. It is stated quite explicitly. And it does not apply only to legislation. Anything else would be a creative interpretation.


Tell me, where in the constitution does it mention the circumstances where those pre-existing rights will be extinguished? (for example, certain prohibition on firearm ownership people who have been convicted of a felony in the past, etc). It's not so black and white now is it? Legislation that restrict those "untouchable" rights have been passed, because the constitution needs to be interpreted in a reasonable (and workable) way. Of course, when I say reasonable, it opens another can of worms, but the point is - those rights aren't as rigid as you wish they were.

The Constitution presumes lawfulness, but there are extensive protections for those accused of unlawfulness.


And as for your first amendment right... Well your government has violated that right plenty of times.So the Constitution is instantly null and void if the government infringes upon it?


The one that always strikes me is the motto "In God We Trust", which meddles state with religion. But this is another issue.

That is a very murky area in Constitutional law that the courts struggle with daily. It could hardly be considered a black and white infringement.

[Hollis]

And as for your first amendment right... Well your government has violated that right plenty of times. The one that always strikes me is the motto "In God We Trust", which meddles state with religion. But this is another issue.


Velvet, I like reading your posts, But you should stay in areas in which you are knowledgeable.

I could express views of where you live and how your country operates. What I would effectively do, is demonstrate how little I really know about your country.

A little knowledge is deadly, especially if you do not realize it is a Little Knowledge, often people will assume that is all there is to know.

I have owned firearms for over 52 years. I was 7, when I was given my first rifle. My kids have been shooting most of their lives. My wife has been shooting longer that we have been married, (29 Years). We have over 100 years of shooting in this household, with out any of YOUR accidents.

We have been Burglarized, car accident, assualted, etc But we have never shot each other in accident. I have never shot a person in accident. I also been in some pretty hostile situations and countries.

When you commented you would not own a firearm, all I can say, is Good for You, people need to know their limitations. I do not want my government mistaking me for you and placing your limitation on me. I think, you probably feel the same about me.

A lot of these arguments/discussion is about other people feeling they have the right to tell other people what to do and to be able to enforce it.

A favorite picture of mine, my daughter (at age 9) working out with the 1919 Browning belt fed.... beast (it is very legal).

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/Lena1919.jpg

[joe mama]

...

The idea behind our system is that people have certain rights. Period. It's that simple. The Constitution defines how the government works, and that part of it's job is to protect those rights from threats without and within. AND in defining how the government works, the Constitution attempts to place limits on the government so that it will not infringe upon those rights. It also defines how the pieces of government work to try to ensure things work as intended. So if congress says no guns, the supreme court can say unconstitutional. And if congress says no guns for convicted felons, the supreme court can say that's infringing on the right or it can say that's a reasonable restriction (like locking up a criminal infringes on his rights, but it is generally accepted as reasonable). So, while attempting to protect certain rights, the entire document allows for a process whereby the will of the people can be expressed about what "protect" means, which may allow some infringement. AND most importantly, the free speech, free press, right to bear arms, protections all attempt to protect a doomsday scenario capability for the people to resist the government if it isn't responsive to their will.

A good way to look at the rights is that they are absolute - but not at the expense of the rights of another individual. I can exercise my free speech - but not to yell fire in a crowded theatre, causing a riot that gets people hurt. The restriction is a balance of my rights against theirs. When it comes to guns, you get the anti gun people who think that my simply having a gun infringes on them somehow. Uh, how, exactly? If you protect the freedoms of individuals, you protect the freedoms of everyone. Show me where my freedom infringes on yours, and then, MAYBE, you'll have a reasonable argument for infringing on my freedom.

[joe mama]

...

AWESOME pic!
I had one of my ex girlfriend firing a supressed MP5 on full auto. I was even nice enough to let her think she was better than me with it...
:)

[velvet-cream]

I'd like to point out that again, you have yet to provide a LOGIC, well founded, well supported reason other restrict firearms all you have provided so far is:

A) You cannot handle a weapon for 20 years repeatedly without an accidental discharge.

B) We, as a society, regulate one thing, and thus using that regulation you determine that we need to regulate something else.

Not good reasons at all.

Durandal. What I meant about the 20 year thing was this. I subjectively believe I will have have a higher chance of accidental discharge from carrying a weapon every day, than my chances of needing to use a firearm for self defence. I'll reiterate once again it is a subjective comparison between my chances of having an accident and my chances of having to use a firearm for self defence.

There are two main factors to this comparison:
1- The level of firearm competency. During my service, I have never ever had a ND/UD or a safety breach. I believe I my weapon handling skills are good. However, I understand accidents do happen, and I've seen other soldiers who I thought were competent have ND/UDs.
2 - The level of safety in the places you frequent/live. This really depends on where you live, but where I live, I feel pretty safe.

This is just me, your situation may be totally different. You may have an immaculate firearms record, and you may live in a dangerous place. Therefore you may have a need for your weapon.

If you read my post before, I said I do like shooting weapons.
I'm not some bloody hippy screaming for the banning of guns. I'm not saying your country should limit the number of firearms you own, or even the type of firearm you own. My main point is people who use guns should be properly trained in their use, especially if they intend to use it for self defence.

The part about privilege vs rights. Well I can accept your country recognises gun ownership (to a certain extent) is a right. It's a privilege in my country, and I'm happy with that too.



The Constitution presumes lawfulness, but there are extensive protections for those accused of unlawfulness.

My point there about your constitution (ok, it's foreign a foreign constitution to me), is that it is not entirely black and white. You have admitted certain presumptions are required when interpreting it.



So the Constitution is instantly null and void if the government infringes upon it?
Of course not. I never even suggested that. Don't put words in my mouth. If a government infringes on a constitution, it certainly does NOT make the constitution null and void. Otherwise the constitution has no effect whatsoever. That's simply illogical. In general (for all countries with constitutions), if a government passes a law that infringes upon a constitution (ie acts ultra vires), then a private citizen, company, organisation, or even another government in the federation such a local/state government would run a test case against a government representative (such as the Attorney General). Usually for constitutional matters, the challenge will go to the superior court of that country (such as a High Court or Supreme Court). If the court finds the legislation or conduct of the government breaches the Constitution, the court will strike it down. And I suppose in rare circumstance, in your country the second amendment would allow the people/militia to challenge it if the courts fail (but I'm no expert on your constitutional laws).



That is a very murky area in Constitutional law that the courts struggle with daily. It could hardly be considered a black and white infringement.
I mentioned the First amendment and "in god we trust" as an illustration of the difficulties in reading the bill of rights. Even you say the courts find this murky, and I agree it is not black and white. Which goes to show you can't rely on the constitution letter by letter. I'm sure there are many laws that conflict with the constitution if one reads it in a strict literal sense. Instead, governments need to make presumptions, and apply a bit of reasonableness when reading the constitution.

I'm not going to go any further with this, as I'm not well read on your constitution (I'm taking a hint from Hollis here). However, I don't believe requiring people to undertake training before they use firearms for purposes of self defence as incompatible or in violation of your right to bear arms.


Velvet, I like reading your posts, But you should stay in areas in which you are knowledgeable.

I could express views of where you live and how your country operates. What I would effectively do, is demonstrate how little I really know about your country.

A little knowledge is deadly, especially if you do not realize it is a Little Knowledge, often people will assume that is all there is to know.

I have owned firearms for over 52 years. I was 7, when I was given my first rifle. My kids have been shooting most of their lives. My wife has been shooting longer that we have been married, (29 Years). We have over 100 years of shooting in this household, with out any of YOUR accidents.

We have been Burglarized, car accident, assualted, etc But we have never shot each other in accident. I have never shot a person in accident. I also been in some pretty hostile situations and countries.

When you commented you would not own a firearm, all I can say, is Good for You, people need to know their limitations. I do not want my government mistaking me for you and placing your limitation on me. I think, you probably feel the same about me.

A lot of these arguments/discussion is about other people feeling they have the right to tell other people what to do and to be able to enforce it.

A favorite picture of mine, my daughter (at age 9) working out with the 1919 Browning belt fed.... beast (it is very legal).

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/Lena1919.jpg

Thanks for your patience over my intercontinental rants. I'll try to keep myself under control from now on.

However I would like to clear something up.

I've never caused a firearms accident in my life. I've carried and used them (in the Army), but I have never had any safety breaches. I am confident with the weapons I've used, but I've seen people who I had confidence in accidently discharge a weapon. That's where my personal concern comes from... accidents do happen.

I'm not having a go at you here - you said you've never shot someone by accident. But have you accidently discharged a weapon? Once again, I'm not insulting you, it's just that I recognise accidents do happen.

ps. Yeah, the .30 cal is fun. However it's quite a bit to handle for a 9 year old!

Our army is so archaic, my unit was still using it until a couple of years ago.

[velvet-cream]

The idea behind our system is that people have certain rights. Period. It's that simple. The Constitution defines how the government works, and that part of it's job is to protect those rights from threats without and within. AND in defining how the government works, the Constitution attempts to place limits on the government so that it will not infringe upon those rights. It also defines how the pieces of government work to try to ensure things work as intended. So if congress says no guns, the supreme court can say unconstitutional. And if congress says no guns for convicted felons, the supreme court can say that's infringing on the right or it can say that's a reasonable restriction (like locking up a criminal infringes on his rights, but it is generally accepted as reasonable). So, while attempting to protect certain rights, the entire document allows for a process whereby the will of the people can be expressed about what "protect" means, which may allow some infringement. AND most importantly, the free speech, free press, right to bear arms, protections all attempt to protect a doomsday scenario capability for the people to resist the government if it isn't responsive to their will.

A good way to look at the rights is that they are absolute - but not at the expense of the rights of another individual. I can exercise my free speech - but not to yell fire in a crowded theatre, causing a riot that gets people hurt. The restriction is a balance of my rights against theirs. When it comes to guns, you get the anti gun people who think that my simply having a gun infringes on them somehow. Uh, how, exactly? If you protect the freedoms of individuals, you protect the freedoms of everyone. Show me where my freedom infringes on yours, and then, MAYBE, you'll have a reasonable argument for infringing on my freedom.

Well i was trying to get at that. I (personally/subjectively) think it is reasonable to require citizens to undertake firearms training/defensive tactics before being allowed to use firearms for defence. Does that infringe on their right to bear arms? I didn't think so, as it I didn't say they can't own weapons outright. It's just that they need to show that they can use them properly so they don't kill someone by accident (ie someone else's right to live).

Somehow that got lost in this thread.

Note- I also said people should be licenced and that it is a privilege. I recognise now that view should only to apply to my country. Firearms ownership is a right given to US citizens, so I'll leave that point aside.

[sct1886]

Woot about time.

I generally don't care about firearms. (Against CCW nothing will change) Although I would consider myself a anti-gun type person. I still believe normal everyday responsible person should be able to own firearms. (except full auto-matic or semi-automatic "military styled" firearms)

But gun registration is something that should be compulsory. Just because the government knows what type of weapon you have have doesn't actually infringe your rights now does it?

Also and this is something I bet non of you have thought of. Lets just say in a conflict for some reason the US Navy has suffered a massive defeat and is facing invasion. Now on the massive call up of all able bodie males they have a huge weapon shortage. Now instead of trying to manufacture super high tech weapons which can take time and money. why not go through a register see what people own and direct the arms factories to pump out the ammo of weapons already in stock?

See Gun Registration can be of benifit to national security!!!!!!1

Have you ever read a history book? Your post speaks volumes for your intellect. Hitler, Stalin amongst many used the lists for forced confiscation and executed the owner.

[Macs.]

Have you ever read a history book? Your post speaks volumes for your intellect. Hitler, Stalin amongst many used the lists for forced confiscation and executed the owner.

Without taking sides in this discussion, but I find that argument really weak.

Hitler and Stalin also both had beards.

[akd]

The part about privilege vs rights. Well I can accept your country recognises gun ownership (to a certain extent) is a right. It's a privilege in my country, and I'm happy with that too.

...

My point there about your constitution (ok, it's foreign a foreign constitution to me), is that it is not entirely black and white. You have admitted certain presumptions are required when interpreting it.

Two things, you are confusing your own justifiable feelings with an attempt to persuade us to feel the same. There is no logical argument for whether or not it is okay for you to feel the way you do, and frankly, few of really care. It is completely different to suggest we should feel the same way as you.. No one is saying that you don't have a right to feel the way you do, they are saying that the reasoning behind your feelings you are expressing is flawed. The confusion between the two is the number one cause of threads that will never die.

Second, regarding our Constitution, you are clearly way out of your depth. That the rights extended to citizens do not apply in full to criminals is not a vague feeling garnered from someone's interpretation of the document. The Constitution was not intended to provide a comprehensive set of laws for all times, and therefore does not provide a universal answer for what is and is not lawful. Consequently, the Constitution does not tell us who criminals are. However, that the Constitution recognizes criminality and its consequence of reduced rights (first and foremost, to liberty) is abundantly clear in the protections the Constition affords both criminals and accused criminals.

The Constitution does, however, say some very specific laws that shall not be made. For example, laws against citizens bearing arms.


Of course not. I never even suggested that. Don't put words in my mouth. If a government infringes on a constitution, it certainly does NOT make the constitution null and void. Otherwise the constitution has no effect whatsoever. That's simply illogical. In general (for all countries with constitutions), if a government passes a law that infringes upon a constitution (ie acts ultra vires), then a private citizen, company, organisation, or even another government in the federation such a local/state government would run a test case against a government representative (such as the Attorney General). Usually for constitutional matters, the challenge will go to the superior court of that country (such as a High Court or Supreme Court). If the court finds the legislation or conduct of the government breaches the Constitution, the court will strike it down. And I suppose in rare circumstance, in your country the second amendment would allow the people/militia to challenge it if the courts fail (but I'm no expert on your constitutional laws).

Great. Now how is whether or not the government has infringed upon the 1st Amendment relevant to whether or not the government should infringe on the 2nd? If you throw out "examples" without logical connections and explanations, you should expect "words to be put in your mouth."


I mentioned the First amendment and "in god we trust" as an illustration of the difficulties in reading the bill of rights. Even you say the courts find this murky, and I agree it is not black and white. Which goes to show you can't rely on the constitution letter by letter. I'm sure there are many laws that conflict with the constitution if one reads it in a strict literal sense. Instead, governments need to make presumptions, and apply a bit of reasonableness when reading the constitution.

I would love to hear your succinct definition of the contradiction between "in god we trust" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It should be as clear as the contradiction between "the right of the government to decide which citizens may be allowed the privilege to keep and bear arms" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If you can provide this, many years of legal argument may be brought to an end.

[sct1886]

Massacres have ended and firearms deaths have declined.



i think it was more about protecting the people than protecting guns.



Call me crazy but I think most service station attendants would rather be robbed by someone with a crow bar than someone with a gun.

Why? You cant run from a bullet....

I think this just comes down to certain people not being able to accept that strict gun laws can make a difference, as they have in this case.





You cannot see the forest through the trees. There are bigger fish to fry than the evil guns. Look at overall death rates for th 20th century. More people were killed by thier governments than crimminals by far. Other causes of death are substantially higher. Habitual Violent Crimminals should be incarcerated or executed. Yes, you cannot run from a bullet. That is why they are handy when some meth head has a knife. BTW: Last I read your overall crime rates went up dramatically in Australia after the gun confiscation.

[velvet-cream]

Two things, you are confusing your own justifiable feelings with an attempt to persuade us to feel the same. There is no logical argument for whether or not it is okay for you to feel the way you do, and frankly, few of really care. It is completely different to suggest we should feel the same way as you.. No one is saying that you don't have a right to feel the way you do, they are saying that the reasoning behind your feelings you are expressing is flawed. The confusion between the two is the number one cause of threads that will never die.

Well if you read between the lines, my statement meant- you can regard firearms ownership as your right in your country, and I'm not going to try to persuade you any more that it is not a right (becuase it is a recognised right in your country). That's what I meant by the two quotes from my previous posts below


The part about privilege vs rights. Well I can accept your country recognises gun ownership (to a certain extent) is a right. It's a privilege in my country, and I'm happy with that too.



Note- I also said people should be licenced and that it is a privilege. I recognise now that view should only to apply to my country. Firearms ownership is a right given to US citizens, so I'll leave that point aside.



Second, regarding our Constitution, you are clearly way out of your depth. That the rights extended to citizens do not apply in full to criminals is not a vague feeling garnered from someone's interpretation of the document. The Constitution was not intended to provide a comprehensive set of laws for all times, and therefore does not provide a universal answer for what is and is not lawful. Consequently, the Constitution does not tell us who criminals are. However, that the Constitution recognizes criminality and its consequence of reduced rights (first and foremost, to liberty) is abundantly clear in the protections the Constition affords both criminals and accused criminals.

The Constitution does, however, say some very specific laws that shall not be made. For example, laws against citizens bearing arms.

I agree with you regarding the part where the constitution (in any country) is "not intended to provide a comprehensive set of laws for all times". To me, that's why there are amendments. Secondly, to me, that's why the constitution needs to be interpreted differently from time to time to take into account of differing circumstances, such as during times of War, (eg, GWOT and dodging around of the 6th amendment. Granted, those at Gitmo are not US citizens, so it doesn't apply. But a righteous person/govt would have applied the infallible guiding principles in the Bill of Rights to subjects under there control.) My point in this paragraph -> The constitution is alive and how law makers interpreted it 100years ago, is not the same as it is now.

However I fail to see how you can make certain presumptions on some parts of the constitution, yet boldly state that the 2nd Amendment is very specific in saying that certain laws shall not be made. What makes the 2nd amendment so special that it should be treated differently to other parts of the constitution?


Great. Now how is whether or not the government has infringed upon the 1st Amendment relevant to whether or not the government should infringe on the 2nd? If you throw out "examples" without logical connections and explanations, you should expect "words to be put in your mouth."

If I was unclear, then you can ask me to clarify a point. But to read my comment:

And as for your first amendment right... Well your government has violated that right plenty of times

And then to respond to that statement with this:

So the Constitution is instantly null and void if the government infringes upon it?

You are making many assumptions in leaps and bounds. I fail to see how my statement saying a government has infringed a constitution, can be construed to mean the constitution is null and void...



I would love to hear your succinct definition of the contradiction between "in god we trust" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It should be as clear as the contradiction between "the right of the government to decide which citizens may be allowed the privilege to keep and bear arms" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If you can provide this, many years of legal argument may be brought to an end.

Well here you go. On one hand, you say the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms is very specific (dare I say clear?):

The Constitution does, however, say some very specific laws that shall not be made. For example, laws against citizens bearing arms

Whilst on the other hand you compare the clarity of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment with the first amendment:

.....contradiction between "in god we trust" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It should be as clear as the contradiction between "the right of the government to decide which citizens may be allowed the privilege to keep and bear arms"......
And as you've already said, the "in god we trust" and the first amendment is:

That is a very murky area in Constitutional law that the courts struggle with daily. It could hardly be considered a black and white infringement.

So what's it going to be, is the second amendment clearly defined, or does the second amendment identify a right that is unclear, and which needs interpreted from time to time with regard to certain circumstances. I'm not the only one out there who thinks the latter. If I was, then there won't be the "many years of legal argument", that you have mentioned. Let's put this constitutional stuff to rest. Clearly, I do not know enough about your country's constitution (nor do many lawyers in the US either, else they won't be litigating on such issues).

But hey, we are getting way off track now. As I have said at the end of all my recent posts. My issue is about weapons training and defensive skills for those who want to defend themselves, not whether citizens should have guns. I've already acknowledged your right to own a firearm. My issue does not directly fall into the 2nd amendment, it is ancillary to it.

[akd]

I agree with you regarding the part where the constitution (in any country) is "not intended to provide a comprehensive set of laws for all times". To me, that's why there are amendments. Secondly, to me, that's why the constitution needs to be interpreted differently from time to time to take into account of differing circumstances, such as during times of War, (eg, GWOT and dodging around of the 6th amendment. Granted, those at Gitmo are not US citizens, so it doesn't apply. But a righteous person/govt would have applied the infallible guiding principles in the Bill of Rights to subjects under there control.) My point in this paragraph -> The constitution is alive and how law makers interpreted it 100years ago, is not the same as it is now.

Wow. No. You totally missed the point. (However, I will agree that if viewed only through the lense of the past, some amendments can be twisted and abused. For example, one could claim that the First Amendment applies only to the printed word and actual, unamplified speech, not to telephones, radio, video, the internet or megaphones. That's what this form of "reinterpretation" that strips rights, rather than broadens them, leads to.)


However I fail to see how you can make certain presumptions on some parts of the constitution, yet boldly state that the 2nd Amendment is very specific in saying that certain laws shall not be made. What makes the 2nd amendment so special that it should be treated differently to other parts of the constitution?

What? Are actually saying that because something was done by the US government in the recent past or the present it is automatically supported by the majority of Americans, including myself and the others here, thus rendering our views on the 2nd Amendment contradictory. You have an interesting take on the independence of individual vis-a-vis their government, but this is not particularly surprising. See above for an example of how easily the Constitution could be abused if the government is allowed to run rampant with disregarding rights as "only applicable to the 18th century."


So what's it going to be, is the second amendment clearly defined, or does the second amendment identify a right that is unclear, and which needs interpreted from time to time with regard to certain circumstances. I'm not the only one out there who thinks the latter. If I was, then there won't be the "many years of legal argument", that you have mentioned. Let's put this constitutional stuff to rest. Clearly, I do not know enough about your country's constitution (nor do many lawyers in the US either, else they won't be litigating on such issues).


Wait. Are you saying that because you can't answer my question, and because there have been many years of debate regarding the relevance of that single clause, that this means it is a clear infringement of the rights protected by the Constitution?

[velvet-cream]

I'm not going to (and cannot) succinctly answer the question about the first amendment/"in god we trust" as you have requested because even law makers and judges in the US have difficulty answering that question. If I were to be able to answer that question without a lot of research and a PhD. If I could answer that question I would be a genius and win a nobel peace prize.

If they (law makers, lawyers and judges) see it as a murky issue (as you have described it), then I don't have a chance in hell to answer that question.

I guess the last point in my previous post is, pretty much all your rights have some regulation to it.... within reason. Whether or not you like it, all your rights have a caveat or limitation to it. Government regulation is nothing new. I just don't see it as a gross violation of your "rights" if the govt requires you to undertake some firearms training and qualifications before you use weapons for self defence. Do you see this as a gross violation to the right to bear arms? It has nothing to do with how many or type of guns you use or own. I think requiring training is reasonable for public safety. Tell me how this is unreasonable and a gross violation of your rights.

And as to your reference about progressiveness in technology, which requires reinterpretation. Well, self loading arms weren't around back then. But that's not an issue to me. I'm not really interested in the quantity or type of firearm a person should/can own. I'm only interested in making sure only competent and mentally fit people should have access to firearms.

[akd]

I'm not going to (and cannot) succinctly answer the question about the first amendment/"in god we trust" as you have requested because even law makers and judges in the US have difficulty answering that question. If I were to be able to answer that question without a lot of research and a PhD. If I could answer that question I would be a genius and win a nobel peace prize.

If they (law makers, lawyers and judges) see it as a murky issue (as you have described it), then I don't have a chance in hell to answer that question.

I guess the last point in my previous post is, pretty much all your rights have some regulation to it.... within reason. Whether or not you like it, all your rights have a caveat or limitation to it. Government regulation is nothing new. I just don't see it as a gross violation of your "rights" if the govt requires you to undertake some firearms training and qualifications before you use weapons for self defence. Do you see this as a gross violation to the right to bear arms? It has nothing to do with how many or type of guns you use or own. I think requiring training is reasonable for public safety. Tell me how this is unreasonable and a gross violation of your rights.

And as to your reference about progressiveness in technology, which requires reinterpretation. Well, self loading arms weren't around back then. But that's not an issue to me. I'm not really interested in the quantity or type of firearm a person should/can own. I'm only interested in making sure only competent and mentally fit people should have access to firearms.

You just don't get it. If the government is deciding who is "competent" to bear arms, it is no longer a right, but a privilege granted by the government, and likely one that is dependent on a certain level of money to access the required training and meet the government's standards (as is already the case with concealed carry laws).

What I don't understand is how abundantly clear it would be that a right was being eroded if the government said you only have the right to free speech if you can speak in a clear and enunciated manner and can use proper spelling and grammar at level set and certified by the government, yet you can't see the fundamental problem with the above.

[StukaJr]

And as to your reference about progressiveness in technology, which requires reinterpretation. Well, self loading arms weren't around back then.


... and neither was the internet nor the market driven media - does that require re-interpretation of freedom of speech then? Using the same tactic, freedom of speech can be abolished from anything that's not a spoken word - so let's not keep on sneaking the progress in technology as means of restricting constitutional rights.



But that's not an issue to me. I'm not really interested in the quantity or type of firearm a person should/can own. I'm only interested in making sure only competent and mentally fit people should have access to firearms.

If that's not an issue - then why bring it up? But sure, mentally ill people should have no access to firearms... And that's why you would argue that nobody should have a firearm. And if a mentally ill person is guilty of vehicular manslaughter - then you would expect citizens to give up their privelege to drive... Or get down to the real problem and take a look at the condition of mental healthcare in US or complete lack of.

One really can't complain if a mentally ill person commits a crime if their condition was left untreated and the symptoms went undiagnosed for quite some time.

[lider_r]

A favorite picture of mine, my daughter (at age 9) working out with the 1919 Browning belt fed.... beast (it is very legal).

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k226/Hollis6475/Lena1919.jpg

I feel sorry for your daughter.

[deadtired]

Me too, those things are a pain in the ass to carry. p-)

[velvet-cream]

... and neither was the internet nor the market driven media - does that require re-interpretation of freedom of speech then? Using the same tactic, freedom of speech can be abolished from anything that's not a spoken word - so let's not keep on sneaking the progress in technology as means of restricting constitutional rights.


Well people (at least one person on this thread) speak of the second amendment as abundantly clear. One question, what does "arms" mean?
The most simplistic way to describe it is weapons. So where should that definition stop? Since the drafting of the bill of rights, "arms" has progressed significantly (below list is by no means in chronological order)

*Muskets
*Rifles
*Machine guns
*Grenade launchers/Rocket launchers
*Other "small arms" (ie capable to be carried by an individual) (ATGM, MANPADS)
*Artillery (with live rounds)
*Tank (with live weapons/rounds)
*Fighter/bomber (with live weapons)
*Warship (with live weapons)
*Nuclear Arms or WMD (including "backpack nukes/wmd")

Firstly, before you criticise me, I have no problems, nor do I make it an issue on what type of small arms you can or should own as a civilian in the US (except maybe the more destructive ones like RPGs, MANPADS etc).

But if you look at the above list, which roughly goes into an increasing scale of firepower, surely one must put a limit on the definition of arms for the purposes of the Bill of Rights. For the lawmakers back a couple of hundred years ago, (though I'm sure they expected technological advances in military equipment) probably didn't forsee nuclear arms. And I'm making a big assumption here (though I'm sure a lot of people will agree with me), I don't think the drafters of the constitution would want to have an ordinary individual citizen to own a nuclear weapon that can destroy a city.

Do you want any ordinary person (by default) to have access to nuclear weapons or even a live artillery piece? I'm going to preempt your response and say "No". (but tell me if you disagree). Why not? I'll assume most people will say "public safety" or national security reasons among other things.

My point here is reasonabless. Without looking at strict literal meanings, perhaps in interpretation of the constition one should look at what the intent of the drafters of the constitution. Obviously we cannot ask them, as they have long passed away, but sit back, try to put yourself in their position and ask what they would have thought in the present day.

*Should an individual right to bear arms be free from any limitations? Even if it means an individual will have the power to kill everyone in a city.

*Should the right to bear arms, only go so far as weapons sufficient for a private citizen to protect themselves, their family and property?

*Should public safety be a consideration?
The bill of rights recognises certain rights of US citizens. But to give reasonable effect on the recognition of those rights especially the right to bear arms, should public safety be a consideration? Well for nuclear weapons, it most certainly is. What if we slide that question down the scale to lesser weapons. Should consideration for public safety apply to less destructive weapons such as small arms?


Obviously, I'm answering this question in the affirmative. And to effect that public safety consideration, it is reasonable to require those using firearms for defensive purposes to undertake training in firearms and defensive tactics.


If No, why not?

Here's a solution. If the US makes it part of their curriculum at school to include firearms training, safety and defensive tactics then I'll be happy. It's just teaching kids how to use and exercise their fundamental rights, like free speach, and to an extent *** education (though I don't think *** is a recognised right in the Bill of rights).




But sure, mentally ill people should have no access to firearms... And that's why you would argue that nobody should have a firearm. And if a mentally ill person is guilty of vehicular manslaughter - then you would expect citizens to give up their privelege to drive... Or get down to the real problem and take a look at the condition of mental healthcare in US or complete lack of.

One really can't complain if a mentally ill person commits a crime if their condition was left untreated and the symptoms went undiagnosed for quite some time.

See you brought in an example of vehicular homicide. Firstly, mental illness can occur to anyone (including yourself and myself) at any point in our lives. So in many cases it is hard to detect and prevent crimes commited by people with mental illness in all forms (ie by firearms, cars, axe, etc). However, with vehicles people drive on roads, they need a licence. And when you get a licence they screen out certain categories of people who are mentally or physically unfit to drive. It's not comprehensive, but it reduces the risk, primarily for the interest of public safety.
Similarly, if firearms training/defensive tactics, or licencing is required, then an instructor/registrar can identify a certain class of people who may be unfit to use a firearm, and refer the individual to someone else more qualified to make the judgement on mental/physical condition and their suitability for firearms. It won't catch everyone who is mentally unfit for a weapon, but it would reduce the risk to the public. (note the above suggestion has big brother issues that I recognise and will discuss below)

As a note- I don't believe everyone who wants a firearm needs to see a psychologist/psych assesment etc. But it's a hard balancing act. As you have recognised, mentally ill people should not have access to firearms. For a gun dealer who may see a customer for 10 minutes, how does he/she know whether or not a person is unfit? And if the dealer suspects the person is mentally unstable, can they inquire into their mental history or status, or would that violate that individual's privacy?

Say I was a US citizen, and I didn't have a criminal record or been institutionalised for mental illness. By default, in some states I should be able to purchase a firearm without a licence. Say I then started suffering from severe depression, and started seeing a psychologist / psychiatrist. Is there anything stopping me from going down to the local gun store to buy a weapon? I don't want to get into the specifics of each state, but privacy issues prevent the link between the gun dealer and the psychologist to stop me purchasing the weapon. A solution would be requiring firearms licencing to be linked with the health system and requiring all psychologists/psychiatrists to report cases to a database. But that would be too much of a big brother/police state for the US, so I'm not going to go there.

So on the point regarding mental illness and firearms, it's a hard issue. On one hand, universal access of weapons to citizens is a right by default. On the otherhand you want to restrain access to those who are mentally unfit. But the only way to restrain access to those people is to violate either privacy rights of the individual (such as mandatory reporting by mental health practitioner), or by violating the universal firearms right of the whole (such as requiring screening/registration/training for all firearm users).

It all boils down to what is reasonable to the public, and this may at times interfere with your personal "rights".

[velvet-cream]

Me too, those things are a pain in the ass to carry. p-)

Go Armoured, then you won't have to carry them!

Driver advance..

[akd]

Well people (at least one person on this thread) speak of the second amendment as abundantly clear. One question, what does "arms" mean?
The most simplistic way to describe it is weapons. So where should that definition stop? Since the drafting of the bill of rights, "arms" has progressed significantly (below list is by no means in chronological order)

*Muskets
*Rifles
*Machine guns
*Grenade launchers/Rocket launchers
*Other "small arms" (ie capable to be carried by an individual) (ATGM, MANPADS)
*Artillery (with live rounds)
*Tank (with live weapons/rounds)
*Fighter/bomber (with live weapons)
*Warship (with live weapons)
*Nuclear Arms or WMD (including "backpack nukes/wmd")

Firstly, before you criticise me, I have no problems, nor do I make it an issue on what type of small arms you can or should own as a civilian in the US (except maybe the more destructive ones like RPGs, MANPADS etc).

But if you look at the above list, which roughly goes into an increasing scale of firepower, surely one must put a limit on the definition of arms for the purposes of the Bill of Rights. For the lawmakers back a couple of hundred years ago, (though I'm sure they expected technological advances in military equipment) probably didn't forsee nuclear arms. And I'm making a big assumption here (though I'm sure a lot of people will agree with me), I don't think the drafters of the constitution would want to have an ordinary individual citizen to own a nuclear weapon that can destroy a city.


An 18th Century ship-of-the-line packed an enormous amount of firepower into a small space and there was a great variety of artillery already in common use, including weapons capable of projecting explosive charges. However, "bearing arms" was clearly intended to mean at a minimum personal arms on par with the military of the time. There is plenty of context to bear this out, and the Supreme Court affirmed as much in the 20th Century. "Arms" and explosives were typically addressed separately. However, they did not seem to have a problem with private ownership of cannon, horse or warships either. There is no need to ask the framers as we have extensive records of their contemporary thoughts and opinions. That you are unaware is the fault of your own ignorance or inability to inform yourself before making broad statements, not a lack of historical record.

Very high-power xplosives are a different issue as even if properly used, they carry an immense danger to the public and innocents. A handgun stored safely in your home is virtually harmless. A bomb stored in the same conditions could take out half the block unintentionally. Obviously, a nuclear weapon takes that to a whole new level.

Certain weapon systems are not restricted in and of themselves. I don't believe it is illegal to own a tank. It is probably illegal to drive it on a public road. And the explosives that would be required for it to function as a complete weapons system may be regulated for the reasons above. But to own a tank with a .50 cal. machine gun does not require more licensing than the .50 cal. machine gun without a tank. What prevents the average person from owning an M1 probably related to the defense department and the industry, not the Constitution.

All in all, you are raising questions that were answered at the time and argueing with yourself.


Why can't I own nuclear weapons
Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!
This argument comes up from time to time during gun control arguments. An anti-gun person who intends to use it as a strawman argument usually offers it facetiously or sarcastically. A strawman is a logical fallacy in which a debater exaggerates an opponent's position, directs arguments at this exaggerated position, and claims to have defeated the opponent's real argument.
The Second Amendment guarantees individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Even professors who can only be described as extremely left-wing have come to this conclusion. For example, the prominent law professor Laurence Tribe, has reluctantly concluded that this Amendment explicitly upholds the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.1 (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/scholar_angers_liberals.htm)

The writings of our Founding Fathers reveal that there were two sociological reasons to uphold this natural right: To prevent crime, and to defend against a rogue domestic government. As example of the Founders thoughts on the crime-deterrent effect of civilian firearms possession, I give you Thomas Jefferson:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."2 (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html)

And as an example of how the Founders felt about civilian firearms possession as regards keeping our government 'honest and upright', I give you, again, Thomas Jefferson, who warns:

And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.3 (http://iresist.com/cbg/ramble/jefferson.html)

And from John Adams:



To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.4 (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html)

Therefore, we can reasonably suppose that the Founders intended us to have access to every manner of weapon for defense of home and of liberty. However, therein lies the rub: Does every manner of weapon mean access to nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons?
Our Founders were just men, men of proportion. They drew their ideas for our constitution from the writer and philosopher John Locke. Locke puts forth that we own our own bodies, and thusly we have the right to own and control ourselves.
THE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE

If you have the right to own, then you also have the right to assert ownership -- otherwise known as "protect" -- that which is yours. The right of self-defense flows naturally from this right, and is enshrined by our Founders as the Bill of Rights, and even is quite prevalent in the Declaration of Independence. If you have the right to self-defense, then it naturally follows you have the right to effective tools to exercise that right. In simple terms, it makes no sense to say you have the right to drive on highways, but then ban automobiles. Again, the learned Mr. Jefferson agrees:

"The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless." 5 (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm)

THE RIGHT TO BE UNMOLESTED
Another right flows from John Lockes principles: You also have the right to be undisturbed. You have the right of 'quiet enjoyment' of your belongings, including your body, so long as you do not molest or act aggressively or violently to another. Nor, of course, do you have the right to disturb anothers quiet enjoyment of his or her belongings by molesting, acting aggressively, or acting violently to another person.
Take these two rights together: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (and effective tools to defend yourself), and YOU MAY NOT MOLEST OR ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU FIRST.
Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent. Clearly, the following tools are capable, with a minimum of care, of being directed against an attacker without jeopardizing innocents:

Knife
Club
Sword
Dirk
Mace
Pistol
Rifle
Shotgun
Cannon shooting ball shotThe following tools are slightly more questionable, since they are somewhat less able to be directed with great accuracy, and thusly are less discriminating. They have a larger chance of violating an innocent persons 'quiet enjoyment' of his property during the suppression of a criminal attack:

Machine gun
Machine pistol
Small explosive
Satchel charge
Antitank rocketThe following tools are completely indiscriminate, and can harm innocent people decades after their use. These tools are completely inappropriate for your right of self defense, since they will certainly violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property.

Nuclear device
Large explosive device
Fuel-air explosive
Biological weapon
Land mine
Chemical weapon
****y trapHopefully, this will lay to rest once and for all the straw man offered by so many antigunners. Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.

[StukaJr]

So on the point regarding mental illness and firearms, it's a hard issue. On one hand, universal access of weapons to citizens is a right by default. On the otherhand you want to restrain access to those who are mentally unfit. But the only way to restrain access to those people is to violate either privacy rights of the individual (such as mandatory reporting by mental health practitioner), or by violating the universal firearms right of the whole (such as requiring screening/registration/training for all firearm users).

It all boils down to what is reasonable to the public, and this may at times interfere with your personal "rights".

A valid driver's license or identification card is required to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer in all of 50 States - an instant background check is run at the time of the firearm purchase and flags anything that would make the purchaser ineligible for the purchase... Restrictions set by crimes, restraining orders, spousal abuse, involuntary commitment for mental health reasons and few others would stop the purchase from completing. The same reasons would require the individual to surrender the weapons to the Law Enforcement Agency or transfer them to another party.

Is that what you want? Because these are the basic requirements for firearm ownership from the Federal side and have been such for years... I don't get what you are trying to prove to me? If a person is identified to be a danger to themselves or others, that would lead to seizure of their firearms - psychiatric science is not magic, however, and neither is the legal system.

[deadtired]

Go Armoured, then you won't have to carry them!

Driver advance..

yeah, but I can buy a semi auto like Hollis's for $1200. Tanks are 'spensive.

[Durandal]

Durandal....I'm not some bloody hippy screaming for the banning of guns. I'm not saying your country should limit the number of firearms you own, or even the type of firearm you own. My main point is people who use guns should be properly trained in their use, especially if they intend to use it for self defence.

I never claimed you were a hippy, just irrational or illogical (illogical probably fits better since rationale can be subjective).

Ultimately, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think a firearm owner has an obligation to learn how to use their weapon properly, but I simply do not see it as necessary to purchase.

THe more THINGS you put on the front end to control something the more likely it will be controlled permanently. For instance, there were several Democrats and even a Republican or two that suggested that firearm sales should cease when the terror rating is yellow or higher.

Of course, its NEVER been been below yellow since it was created.

You can see where I am going here.


The part about privilege vs rights. Well I can accept your country recognises gun ownership (to a certain extent) is a right. It's a privilege in my country, and I'm happy with that too.

Me too. At no time during this am I suggesting that anyone else's society change their gun laws to match ours (though I will argue that newer gun laws to limit ownership has done nothing in some nations to lower violent crime, but that is a separate argument).


My point there about your constitution (ok, it's foreign a foreign constitution to me), is that it is not entirely black and white. You have admitted certain presumptions are required when interpreting it.


I mentioned the First amendment and "in god we trust" as an illustration of the difficulties in reading the bill of rights.

I'll argue that our Constitution is VERY black and white and a quick research done on the language of the time as well as the writings of the men that wrote the Constitution and built our government were pretty damn specific.

The Constitution becomes "grey" when people want to change things.

For example, you bring up "In God We Trust" as a violation of the 1st Amendment and I agree full heartedly. Just like the pledge of allegiance.

Neither were around during our founding father's days. Oh, you saw a WHOLE lot of God, because the general public were god fearing people at the time, but in public documents the word you saw most was "LIBERTY". It was on the money, for instance, no where was God mentioned till around the Civil War. There was no silly pledge, because this was a nation of STATES, not a single nation simple territory, but a nation of semi-autonomous States, that made much of their own laws, while the Federal government played the role of international protector, mediator, money press, and commerce control.

That's it.

But things change as things do and people THINK, wrongly that Amendments like the first can be interpreted as anything but a WELL defined separation of Church and State (in both regards). The Founding fathers (most, not all) were social experimenters, the were deists and intellectuals (and bad asses too). It is VERY clear in their writing that even folks as hard core as Samuel Adams KNEW that relgion was a spark in the hay barn. They all were products of the 1600s, where religion was at the VERY center of Europe's problems be it the wars it wrought (specifically the 30 Years war, all the the small uprisings of the time and English Civil War).

I'm starting to go off topic here...so I'll reel it back in.

The point is, we have people, mainly on the right (though there are certain left leaning folks that are just as nuts) that think the State cannot control religion, but its ok, if the Church has its hands on the State.

Likewise, we have a bunch of people mainly on the left (though these days we are seeing more Republicans come to the call of banning firearm ownership) who want to eliminate firearm ownership OF THE PEOPLE (not including movie stars, the military, law enforcement, politicians, and corporate CEOs).

Both Amendments are quite clear in what the original intent of the founding father's was. Both Amendments taken literally are VERY black and white.

The Constitution of the UNited States of America does one thing VERY well. Tell us how to do it right in ABSOLUTE terms and prevent this nation from imploding into Civil War.

Hell, THAT IS the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Nothing more and nothing less.

I'll argue that with the exception of the women's voting rights and the slave 3/5ths vote issues the document on a whole is probably the best document, forming a government, ever written.

The founding fathers were smart dudes. They were NOT politicians and they did it right AND the understood change and built a document that would be elastic enough to handle that change.

Even you say the courts find this murky, and I agree it is not black and white. Which goes to show you can't rely on the constitution letter by letter. I'm sure there are many laws that conflict with the constitution if one reads it in a strict literal sense. Instead, governments need to make presumptions, and apply a bit of reasonableness when reading the constitution.

I'm not going to go any further with this, as I'm not well read on your constitution (I'm taking a hint from Hollis here). However, I don't believe requiring people to undertake training before they use firearms for purposes of self defence as incompatible or in violation of your right to bear arms.



Thanks for your patience over my intercontinental rants. I'll try to keep myself under control from now on.

However I would like to clear something up.


accidents do happen.

But do you subjugate an entire population of 300+ million people to a broad group of laws limiting a very well defined freedom because of the rare event?

THis is where I am going to go slightly off topic again.

A perfect example of change. The founding father's ORIGINALLY required that a Supreme Court nominee require a UNANIMOUS vote. This meant everyone got strict Constitutionalists (that's their job after all, not interpreting the Constitution but interpreting the bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President and how it relates to the Constitution). There were no liberal judges or conservative judges. They were just judges. Neutral people that EVERYONE agreed to have rule over everyone as to the legal merit of a law.

But we change things. Its too hard to get a Supreme Court elected (meaning politics started coming into play...power...which corrupts) so lets reduce the number needed to 2/3s (super majority) and then a couple years back we heard that people just wanted a SIMPLE MAJORITY.

Its nothing more than a slow erosion of what America WAS.

Restriction of firearm ownership is just one more thing that destroys this nation.

Personally I want to retain as much as possible. If there are changes that are made they should involve MORE freedoms not less, less laws not more, less taxes AND less spending, more non-paritsan and less special interest.

And yes, less gun laws, not more.