GolfHos

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18766089/

The US really needs some gun laws.
Australia has very strict gun laws, so hopefully it is not so easy for a gun to get in the hands of "nutcases".
It is a privilege, not a right to hold a gun license over here. 

We like guns.

They make loud noises and can make holes in things.

It says what it says, for whatever reason: 'The rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'.

I know it's quaint, but that has just as much meaning as 'Secure from unreasonable search and siezure'.

Oddly, the people that seem to think the 2nd Amendment is important don't seem to have much respect for the other ones.

And as oddly, the people who prize the other Amendments don't seem to have much use for the Second.


Perhaps the difference stems from the US's genesis as a breakaway colony from British rule (fighting for its independence and ever mindful of the former master's return) v. Australia's penal outpost beginnings ... ?

 [sm_devil]

I don't really think that's as true as certain elements would like us to believe that it is, in all honesty.

Having been to Idaho numerous times, and many of those quite recently, I can certainly understand the need to go on a shooting spree.

That completely tasteless and inappropriate comment out of the way, the whole thing is quite sad. Not being an opponent of the 2nd amendment in any way, I agree that there are some truly sick individuals out there who don't deserve the right to keep and/or bear arms. If only there were a simple litmus test...

On the plus side, first office ever killed on the Moscow police department says something.

Yaaa, it says that the Moscow PD is apparently completely unprepared to deal with anything other than drunk college students from WSU and the University of Idaho.

Apparently, the gunman fired on the Sheriff's Department for 90 minutes before killing himself.

Perhaps we need to further define what "arms" means. AFAIK, the framers of the Constitution knew only about muskets, musket balls, and gunpowder. We're already arbitrarily limiting the definition to exclude such "arms" as surface-to-air or submarine launched ballistic missiles, so why not take it one step further?

I'm pretty sure they knew about pistols as well, and let's not forget that were state of the art military weaponry at a time when many Armies in Europe were still using pikes.

It says what it says. If we don't like it, we can change it.

The subject is closed at my end.

It says what it says, but the meaning of what it says is always subject to interpretation. That's the reason we have 9 justices on the bench of the Supreme Court.

Until the early thirties, the Supremes agreed that it says exactly what it says.

A private person could buy pretty much anything.

'Activist Judges' and all that...

You can pry my .38 and my Winchester rifle from my cold dead hands and as I've said before.
(http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l209/gvandel454/TV%20and%20Movie%20Stuff/val-doc.jpg)
"You're a daisy if you do"

My fear is that: King Georgies Boys, The Hessians, The Spanish,The Damn Krauts, The pesky Japs, The Stormtroopers, The VC Al-Qaida will come marching down my street any day now.  You really don't want me to give up my weapons, you want me on that fence, you need me on that fence.

I don't know the answer for psychos like this, someday science will allow us to pinpoint the "psycho gene", but until that day me giving up my weapons is not the answer.

Did he go into a church as a response to that 'Because I'm not allowed in Schools' email that was going round after the VA Tech shootings?

The truth is, well YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!  ;D


The truth is that the  right to bear arms has very, very little to do with The Japs, etc, etc...

What happened to the MFAWG that ???  I was being sarcaustic.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I know it's not as black and white as it appears, and I sure as hell ain't smart enough to get into a discussion on what the founding fathers were thinking when they drafted the Constitution, and just who the free state was supposed to regulating a militia for, and what exactly they thought a militia was, but what it's really morphed into is that I have guns and the crack head snoop dogg mofo the next block over has guns, and if he decides sometime to get jiggy with it and come into my house looking for whatever, his guns better be bigger than my guns and he better be really quick on the draw 'cuz I've got two notches on it and my head is clear.  It ain't pretty but it is what it is, and it's life in America 2007.

Unfortunately life in America 2007 still allows for psychos to get a hold of weapons and kill innocent men, women and children, and I'm sorry for that, I could click my heels and wish things were different but it ain't gonna change a thing.

Very sad. :sad3:

so sad :sad3:

The black market makes it pretty easy to get your hands on things that are illegal.  It's already too widespread here so I don't think that strict gun laws would inhibit the criminals as much as many would like to believe.
It's a privilege and not just a right over here, too.  I grew up thinking that way because there are other countries that have removed guns from the hands of law abiding citizens (as well as, hopefully, the criminals).  I feel extremely blessed and privileged to have the freedoms and rights that I do.

Well, it's actually Roberts' flip-flop in the Depression Era that preserved the number nine.  Otherwise, they'd have had enough for full-court ball with alternates.

I hope "and pray" that anybody is blessed, when they have the particular misfortune to be near a "nutcase" with a semi-automatic weapon, because of some "amendment"!

And again, the reality of living in America 2007 has forced me to carry my .38 almost everywhere I go because of "nutcases". It just is what it is Julie, with 300 million people you're going to get a few dogs that don't play well with the rest of the pack, with all due respect it still is probably the best place in the world to live, I can say that having the life experience of having traveled around the world, well...half way, our amendments are in place for a reason, it may not be perfect but then again nothing is.

Those Aussies.   ::)

They sing a different tune when they're looking for a gun for hire.

(http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MN44X46AL._SS500_.jpg)

Seamus, do you "really carry a gun around with you"!!!!

What, do you take one to work, or the shopping centre or golf!!!

The criminals will *ALWAYS* have access to guns.

When did you become so jaded, my young friend? I think somebody needs to have his access to the Internets reduced.

Sorry for giving my opinion. :)

I think it is really strange how an 18 year old boy, can bear arms and die for his country, but the poor bastard isn't allowed to have a beer until he is 21!!

That's funny, I was saying the same thing when I was in the Navy.

It cuts down on the marriages.

Please do not mock our Constitution and its Amendments.  You can disagree with it all you like, but please do not disrespect it.  I may or may not like all of Australia's laws and even express those thoughts, but I certainly haven't made a mockery of what it says nor will you find me doing so in the future.  And I'd appreciate you doing the same.  Maybe I have read a little too much into your post, Julie, but putting Amendments in quotation marks seems to show more than just disagreement.

Since those who have a permit to carry have the freedom to carry a weapon, it is very more possible that those who are armed and intent on wrong will come across someone who is also armed intent on protecting the innocent, and that armed citizen has more chance of protecting people than someone who isn't allowed to carry a gun.  I am grateful to have the option of carrying a form of protection, and someday I might very well do just that.

I think this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_alcohol_on_the_body#Effects_by_dose) could definitely be part of the reasoning there.  Shooting a gun doesn't cause you to loose control of your body, but drinking alcohol certainly can.

Sing it sister!



 [sm_anon] Although he can, if he works at it.  ;D

and he can't get a gay abortion without his parent's consent unless he is married, in masschuse*><><><*.

maybe she was just following glorious leader's example (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml) ?  ;)

Those America hating Marines are trying to change this.

18 year olds are allowed to vote as well.

Firstly Eagle, I do not disrespect America, she has always been Australia's best alliey.
Secondly Eagle, with no disrespect to you, but seeing that you are a young girl with no experience in "life" and who has never had a drink of alcohol, and who never intends to have a drink of alcohol, I feel you have "no idea what you are talking about"!!!!!!
I am just stating my opinion about what I think about your gun laws, the same as Torpedo stated his opinion about the gun laws.

I like this little nugget from Madison courtesy of wikipedia:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops"

Then Webster
"Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States"


These quotes make it pretty clear IMO the 2nd amendment was more about fighting a tyrannical gov't than protecting youself hence the well regulated militia to secure a free state mumbo jumbo.  I'd say these guys underestimated the power the federal gov't would have 200 some odd years away.  Does anyone really believe that the "people" could rise up and overthrow our gov't if they wanted?  I mean those slimmy bastages have already made it illegal for us to have explosives and bombs and such.  I'd say in this case Madison was way off.  A bunch of farmers with pitchforks, pistols or even sub-machine guns would just get themselves killed quickly trying to defeat our military.  So yes you could argue the 2nd amendment was also about the common law idea of the right to self-protection, but then why qualify as they did?  I say we overthrow the gov't guys and put the 2nd amendment to good use.  I mean did we really sign up for this bull*feces* representative republic they call a democracy any ways.  Who's with me? ::)

Drinking guns is bad for you.

AKA Cocked-tails.

AK-47 Shots to the head.

So is smoking guns.

<rimshot>

The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were fearful of a remote authority.  By maintaining a local militia it was reasonable to assume (at the time) that we could repel any such authority or aggression.  It was never about protecting yourself from the opium freak down the street.

These days the whole 'well regulated militia' has lost its luster.  Its not reasonable to assume that small arms could repel an attack from a foreign country, or oppression by our own military.  It is of course possible to fight a guerrilla war against an occupying force using such munitions though - so the idea isn't as completely outdated as it seems.

I have no guns and no plans to get one either (and my bow is in storage in the garage).  I do not like them, I believe we need better enforcement of how guns are sold, but I still cannot back complete banishment of them.  The second amendment still has merit, even though it has faded over the years.

Hobbits are peaceful creatures unless angered.

I hide my guns and my pikes in the thatch.

Why do you hate Middle Earth?

Since I'm the only one who mentioned anything remotely close to opium and freaks.
"Allow me to retort"
(http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l209/gvandel454/TV%20and%20Movie%20Stuff/SJpulp.jpg)

I didn't say that it did.

I'm thinkin' you don't have one down the street or maybe your bow would be out of storage.

Times may have changed just a bit from 1789. 

I'm guessing you've never been on the working end of a .45 caliber pistol or a knife held at your throat.

You just might rethink your stance.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[sm_rolling]

Karma.  Plus one for the shaft stiffness, etc., etc.  in the other thread.  Good times, Good times.

I don't want to get all Right Wing NutJobby on ya, but I would suggest that armed resistance to the ATF in particular and The Gubment in general at places like Ruby Ridge and Waco illustrated to alot of people that Federal Gubment was overstepping it's bounds, and The Gubment backed up in the wake of those incidents.

I'm just sayin'.

I wasn't singling anyone out with the opium freak comment (sorry if you felt that way) - it was an extremely general statement and I was just pointing out that the amendment was about foreign, and domestic, threats to freedom.  It wasn't about personal protection.  On this matter there is no stance to rethink - it says what it says.

I am also aware of how 'justice' was carried out in those days.  With most people being armed, there was a big deterrent to crime (and swift, harsh consequences).  There is no doubt that an armed civilian population can deter several crimes - even today.  There is also the danger of that same armed civilian population doing more harm than good.  Simple disagreements and arguments suddenly become deadly - anger is not always logical, and actions/decisions under such conditions suffer the same.


I was an opponent of a concealed carry proposal in Missouri several years ago.  My reason was this - if everyone I meet potentially has a gun, some disagreement ensues, and that person reaches into their jacket - what action am I now allowed to take?  I feel my life is in danger based upon that action - can I kill him?

If everyone is allowed to carry a gun (concealed), then I must assume that everyone IS in order to protect myself.  This opens up a huge problem - overreaction.  I kill him because I feel threatened, to find out later that he was reaching for a phone.  Or I give the benefit of the doubt, and end up dead because he did reach for a gun in anger.  I realize of course that anyone could carry now, breaking the law in most areas - but without an expectation of a gun, I'm less likely to overreact.

Crime deterrent = yes.  Threat to innocence = yes.  Where does the scale come to rest?  I do not know, but prefer the odds of limited criminal action to the many times people become enraged with each other.  I once had to subdue a friend of a friend (who had a gun) outside of a bar many years ago.  He got into a argument with someone inside, pushing and cussing ensued, and we grabbed him and left the bar.  He was so angered that he reached into his glovebox and got his 9mm out - determined to go back inside and shoot or threaten the guy with it.  Over a simple argument in a bar.  Had he the gun on him in the bar at the time - he would have drawn it.  What may have happened then I do not know, but its damn scary over such a trivial event - especially if the other guy(s) had guns too.  I simply cannot get such scenarios out of my head when looking at concealed carry - which may be a bit off topic and specific, but it is where my personal line is drawn.  So, now that I've made a stance of some sort you are free to question it.

MFAWG.... right wing nutjobby.....


Excuse me (looking over my shoulder and around the room)




Just had to see if Rod Sterling was about to do a voice over.

 :D

Well Regulated (Idaho) Militia

(http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/Potato.jpg)

I smited in anger, it shall be remedied after my 24 hours has elapsed.

I petition for smite control, they go off accidentally in the McDuff hand sometimes.

No concealed smite carry for you, 2 years.

Agreed  :sad3:

 [sm_shock]  [sm_shock] (http://www.mcgruff.org/fp/fp_bg_mcg.gif)