Australians Have A Warning For Americans

[KB]

There is a whole of difference from imagination clairvoyance,

 

Come on this is a ridiculous attempt to try and assume the 2nd was meant to cover every weapon that was to come.

 

And it is still based on one sides reading of the 2nd.

 

Ken

[JoeyB]

There is a whole of difference from imagination clairvoyance,

 

Come on this is a ridiculous attempt to try and assume the 2nd was meant to cover every weapon that was to come.

 

And it is still based on one sides reading of the 2nd.

 

Ken

I am of the opinion the the 2nd Amendment was meant to cover every weapon that still is to come. If guns go away and phasers come, it would cover them. 

[maxman]

This thread is just getting looney..Everyone deserves the same protection as the head of state...no they don't that comes with the job just as the head of your bank makes 10 X your wage.

 

The Bad thing involving Senator Feinstein (if you go back a few pages) is the gun lobbyist who want to hang her for reintroducing a bill that expired in 2004, despite the fact that Half of all mass shootings in the history of the USA has happened since it expired.

 

To believe the founding fathers would have invisualised machine guns, grenade launchers etc etc when when the drew up the 2nd amendment is just so far out there it doesn't deserve comment.

 

Come guys if you want a debate then debate with facts.

 

Ken

You didn't answer the question Ken. Do dishonest rich politicans who could you could give a [censored] about your  rights deserve more protection than your family?

 

You may think that this video has nothing to with nothing. I suggest you read between the lines.

 

RIP George

 

[KB]

Mike what you are saying is a very leading question because our own Prime Minister gets the same kind of protection and yes she should.

 

Do you feel the President should not have that protection?

 

My family simply does not need that kind of protection, you need to be an Australian to understand that, but in 50 years I have never been in a situation where I have said "Gee I wish I had a gun"

 

Ken

[maxman]

Mike what you are saying is a very leading question because our own Prime Minister gets the same kind of protection and yes she should.

 

Do you feel the President should not have that protection?

 

My family simply does not need that kind of protection, you need to be an Australian to understand that, but in 50 years I have never been in a situation where I have said "Gee I wish I had a gun"

 

Ken

"but in 50 years I have never been In a situation where I have said "Gee I wish I had a gun". I sincerely hope that never changes Ken. But remember only takes one bad night to change all that.

 

But fair enough Ken...you feel the way you do and I won't try to change your mind.

 

Mike

[freddy333]

My family simply does not need that kind of protection, you need to be an Australian to understand that, but in 50 years I have never been in a situation where I have said "Gee I wish I had a gun"

Ken

 

Ken - I see your point, which is the same 1 I used to make myself. The parents of those kids in Newtown thought they were safe too. Trouble is that we are all safe...........until we aren't.

[rrari1]

I am of the opinion the the 2nd Amendment was meant to cover every weapon that still is to come. If guns go away and phasers come, it would cover them. 

Should it cover chemical and biological weapons also?

[rrari1]

Ken - I see your point, which is the same 1 I used to make myself. The parents of those kids in Newtown thought they were safe too. Trouble is that we are all safe...........until we aren't.

The thing that makes you less safe in the states might however be easy access to guns

[KB]

Ken - I see your point, which is the same 1 I used to make myself. The parents of those kids in Newtown thought they were safe too. Trouble is that we are all safe...........until we aren't.

 

Freddy I hope this doesn't sound insulting as it is not meant too but honestly it does seem a case of jumping at shadows.

 

Yes something like Sandy Hook can happen again even here in Australia but I can tell you 2 things 1. If it does ever happen my owning (or not owning) a gun will make not one bit of difference 2. If I want to keep my daughter safe I would do far more good teaching her safe driving when she gets a licence.

 

Ken

[JoeyB]

Should it cover chemical and biological weapons also?

Nope. Just small arms.

[rrari1]

Many of the pro gun freedom members seem to argue that the issue is not guns, but the treatment of the criminally insane in the USA. They equally claim that these people should either be locked up, or have their access to guns limited.

 

I believe that in the USA a private gun sale does not require the seller to collect ID or to do any background checks the way a gun dealer would have to do.  I believe that the majority of guns sold in the States are sold at gun shows, where most of the sellers are not licensed gun dealers, and thus the mentally ill are unrestricted in their access to guns.  They do not need to even have a gun collecting mother to steal them from.

 

When a car is bought and sold in the States, it is registered in the name of the owner.  Why is this not the case with guns?

 

While people are saying that the NRA is against the mentally ill buying weapons, I am sure they would flip out at the idea of gun and bullet registration.  Non criminals should be quite happy with such rules, as they would harm the bad guys more than law abiding citizens, who are either collectors or hunters.

 

All new bullets could be tagged and traceable which might reduce the likelihood of them being used in a crime. I'm guessing the NRA would not like laws like these even if they had a huge effect on public safety.  The NRA of course are not funded by hunters, or people defending their homes, they are funded by the people selling guns and bullets.

[kbh]

The NRA of course are not funded by hunters, or people defending their homes, they are funded by the people selling guns and bullets.

Bingo!

 

 

And, of course the pro gun extremists would feel that registering guns would be the first step towards confiscation.

[rrari1]

maybe there could be a law where if you could show that you only plan to use the gun for the purposes of overthrowing the government you could be exempt from registration, as it appears that is the main reason people need assault rifles with high capacity clips.

[freddy333]

Yes something like Sandy Hook can happen again even here in Australia but I can tell you 2 things 1. If it does ever happen my owning (or not owning) a gun will make not one bit of difference 2. If I want to keep my daughter safe I would do far more good teaching her safe driving when she gets a licence.

 

The point is that having an armed guard at your daughter's school (as is already the case for schools where most politicians' & celebrities' send their children) will deter all but the truly insane. And, with an armed guard on premesis, your daughter would have a better chance of surviving an attack by the truly insane.

Again, because criminals who commit crimes, by definition, do not follow laws, there are no perfect solutions. But I have been convinced that having the ability to protect oneself & ones' kin is a better alternative than relying on the government to take legal/political action after lives have been lost.

[freddy333]

The NRA of course are not funded by hunters, or people defending their homes, they are funded by the people selling guns and bullets.

That is completely inaccurate. The NRA is funded by gun owners, some of whom may sell firearms or defend their homes/businesses or hunt or shoot for sport or just collect guns. According to the NRA's own stats, the majority of its members are simply private citizens who own guns.

[tomhorn]

And so it begins ....

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187.html?hp=t1_3

 

 

“I think everybody acknowledges that the assault weapons ban is a challenge, but other things — like the size of the magazines, the background checks, straw purchases — are all things that have a good chance of passing,” Scott said.

 

Speier said she told Biden the White House should do as much as it can on its own. “I urged him to do as much by executive order as possible,” she said. “Frankly, I don’t have a lot of confidence that this Congress is going to do anything significant.”

 

And Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Democrats’ Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, said the magazine ban and universal background checks would be far more effective than an assault weapons ban without the political cost.

 

 

And the truth finally comes out ... It's all about political gain. Has nothing to do with whether it's the right thing to do, or even the legal thing to do (from a Constitutional standpoint). The Congress knows they are never going to get it passed, because everyone is afraid of what happens to their jobs come the next election. They just want to throw it all on Obama's head. He's never running for anything again so it doesn't matter. Hypocrites ... and these are all members of his own party.

 

And how nice of the President to skip naming a permanent head of the ATF in all of this ....

Edited January 15, 2013 by tomhorn

[kbh]

That is completely inaccurate. The NRA is funded by gun owners, some of whom may sell firearms or defend their homes/businesses or hunt or shoot for sport or just collect guns. According to the NRA's own stats, the majority of its members are simply private citizens who own guns.

 

As usual, it's just more pro gun BS that you're regurgitating. I'd strongly suggest you read the report:

 

"Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA." The report found that between 2005 and 2010, contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA totaled between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners" -- both gun industry and non-gun industry -- for the same time period totaled between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds -- 74 percent -- contributed to the NRA from "corporate partners" came from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products. Many of these "corporate partners" are honored in the NRA's Ring of Freedom, with the Golden Ring of Freedom "reserved for those who have given gifts of cash or assets to the NRA totaling one million dollars or more."

[dieselpower]

OK folks. Its quite simple. Allowing the general public to arm themselves on mass was a bad idea - I think all sane people would agree with that. However, the Americans (and others) have allowed this to happen. Big mistake. But, it's a mistake that can not be reversed. Silly to even contemplate it. Sorry guys but you're stuck with it. Acknowledge the stupidity of it, also acknowledge the fact that its not the fault of anybody who is now living so you don't need to feel guilty about the carnage. Just live (and die) with it, you've got no choice.

[maxman]

I wouldn't wipe my ass on this rag of a paper.....or maybe I would. One of the worst/best examples of irresponsible journalism I have ever witnessed. They have lost more than half of their subcribers and more than 50% of their advertisers.

 

These cowards won't even talk to the media to support there position. They have hired armed guards to protect themselves from the angry public. Armed guards. All they have done Is Invade peoples privacy and put there lives In danger. One law abiding citizens house was already broken Into because of there Interactive map.

 

I hope this pos excuse of a "news paper" go's right the [censored] out of business and there sued to hell and back for putting peoples lives In danger.

 

Not to change the subject. But I wouldn't mind spending some time In Judge Pirro's chambers

 

[KB]

That is completely inaccurate. The NRA is funded by gun owners, some of whom may sell firearms or defend their homes/businesses or hunt or shoot for sport or just collect guns. According to the NRA's own stats, the majority of its members are simply private citizens who own guns.

 

Sorry but the NRA is 56% (and growing) funded but arms manufacturers, membership makes up the other 44%

 

Freddy no school in Australia has armed guards what they do is go into lock down if an intruded enters the grounds, this is not armed intruders or even angry looking people but anyone who should not be there.

 

No it is not foolproof but then we do not have these mass shootings at school, also like mentioned before, an armed guard will probably just be the first one shot.

 

Ken

 

I see kbh has different figures than mine but the fact is the NRA is the voice of the manufacturers and only speaks for gun owners if they are in accord with those statements.

[Ronin]

The point is that having an armed guard at your daughter's school (as is already the case for schools where most politicians' & celebrities' send their children) will deter all but the truly insane. And, with an armed guard on premesis, your daughter would have a better chance of surviving an attack by the truly insane.

Again, because criminals who commit crimes, by definition, do not follow laws, there are no perfect solutions. But I have been convinced that having the ability to protect oneself & ones' kin is a better alternative than relying on the government to take legal/political action after lives have been lost.

 

I am still failing to see the "armed guard" logic.  For years, banks have had armed guards, and banks still get robbed.  Short of "Secret Service" level protection, the "rent-a-cop" armed guard will just be the first target of the crazy person.

 

You also have situations like Aurora Theater shooting where he was wearing body armor.  A non-body armored guard would not stand a chance, other than possibly seeing them coming. 

[freddy333]

As usual, it's just more pro gun BS that you're regurgitating. I'd strongly suggest you read the report:

 

I just did. Now let me suggest that regurgitating commentary from the likes of the VPC, whose public & unconstitutional statements include the likes of 'Handguns should be banned from future sale except for military and law- enforcement personnel' & '(the ATF should) take immediate action to stop the sale and distribution of firearms', tends to delegitamize your point.

[JoeyB]

OK folks. Its quite simple. Allowing the general public to arm themselves on mass was a bad idea - I think all sane people would agree with that.

I am quite sane and completely disagree with you. 

However, the Americans (and others) have allowed this to happen. Big mistake.

No, it was not allowed to happen. It was legislated. I do not think it is a mistake at all. 

But, it's a mistake that can not be reversed. Silly to even contemplate it. Sorry guys but you're stuck with it. Acknowledge the stupidity of it, also acknowledge the fact that its not the fault of anybody who is now living so you don't need to feel guilty about the carnage. Just live (and die) with it, you've got no choice.

It's not a mistake, it could be reversed, we will always contemplate every angle and avenue of every issue of government, we chose it, it is not stupid, it is the responsibility of every American - living and dead -  there is nothing to feel guilty about, and we obviously have far more choice than other nations. 

[freddy333]

 

A couple of points -

For 1 thing, banks contain money, which criminals want. This differs from schools & movie houses, which only contain targets. A successful bank robber leaves the bank with money that he can use to buy things. A successful mass murderer always loses his life or ends up spending the rest of his life in prison. Point being that the goals are different, so, in comparing arming schools/movie houses to banks, you are comparing apples & oranges.

Still, the reason banks have guards & spend alot of time, effort & money to implement other anti-crime defense strategies is because banks learned long ago that if they continued to rely on the police to foil bank robberies, they would all end up with empty safes.

The way I see it, you have 2 options - either you take away ALL guns, which would require a constitutional amendment & result in an insurrection or you grant the innocent the option to protect themselves. Enacting more laws & regulations that abridge lawful citizens' rights to keep & bear arms does little to stop criminals & the insane (who, by definition, ignore laws & regulations).

 

 

 

Like I keep saying, there are no perfect solutions when dealing with imperfect human beings. Like choosing rep watches, you have to select the option that contains the fewest warts & work from there.

[JoeyB]

 but then we do not have these mass shootings at school

Monash University