2nd Amendment

[superstring01]

Actually it is not.

Don't bother. Asguard has been on a tissy since he declared that the US didn't contribute enough to the Pacific war and since his grandfather was killed by an American nuke. Very little of what he says is rational or truthful.

In this particular case, you see a desperate man, desperately attempting to lecture Americans on American law. This is all wrapped up in his attempt to retell how our laws should be interpreted and make us all think that somehow his opinions matter or should be included in how we act according to the US Constitution.

Never mind the fact that the US Supreme Court has already interpreted and applied the specific amendment as mentioned.
Never mind the fact that most US elected officials already accept the basic nugget (Americans have the right to own fire arms within some, rather vague limitations, like: No WMD's or tanks, etc).
Never mind the fact that most US states also enshrine the right to bear arms as part of their unique constitutions.

None of that matters.

All that matters is that Asguard continue his petulant tirade against anything American (especially those things that he cannot comprehend).

~String

 

[John99]

Don't bother. Asguard has been on a tissy since he declared that the US didn't contribute enough to the Pacific war and since his grandfather was killed by an American nuke. Very little of what he says is rational or truthful.

~String

I think he should spend more time reading about the bombings in Europe and Asia long before the U.S even got involved in WW2. Makes you wonder exactly what they are teaching their children. Does he even know who started that terrible war? WW2 was well documented.

That said, i dont think he understands how federal laws and state laws work in the U.S. Do they have this where he is from?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

As for my country i suggest you look at the country of origion of this website again, if memory serves it is still owned by a canadian company (Dave definitily was) and run out of the UK i belive. In other words its an international website, if you dont like that people other than US citizians are talking about the US then go join a nationalist US website. Furthermore i have posted ALOT of Australian threads and they disapear and if i can rember the quote from mad "there just isnt any interest in discussing Australian issues". So we get used to discussing US ones and you get your nickers in a twist about that too. Guess you are like that texian who thinks the world is US shaped

Settle down, Beavis! I'm just having a little fun. Nonetheless, considering how difficult it is for Americans with law degrees to understand two centuries of the Supreme Court's inconsistent interpretation of our Constitution, I do think it's perfectly fair to laugh when a foreigner who's not even a lawyer takes a crack at it.

And BTW, don't ever call a Texan a "Texian." They all have guns, I think it's a state law.

And the constitution only means what the Supreme Court interprets it to mean, and they have interpreted it to mean an individual right to own guns.

It's interesting to note that they have consistently supported our right to own handguns and semiautomatic rifles: the kinds of weapons that are most often used to commit crimes; yet they do not allow us to own fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc.: the kinds of weapons that would actually be useful against an invading army.

I see this as a clear focus on maintaining the ability to fight off an overbearing government, rather than foreign invaders. We've never forgotten King George.

 

[spidergoat]

...It's interesting to note that they have consistently supported our right to own handguns and semiautomatic rifles: the kinds of weapons that are most often used to commit crimes; yet they do not allow us to own fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc.: the kinds of weapons that would actually be useful against an invading army.

I see this as a clear focus on maintaining the ability to fight off an overbearing government, rather than foreign invaders. We've never forgotten King George.

We do have to balance rights and public safety. Semi-auto rifles are still useful in war, you could use them to take over an armory, for instance, and take the guns you do need.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

ummm, 2008 the US court was openly right wing so how is it NOT a right wing issue?

Because all parties (right, left, centrist) have a minority population against personal firearms and majority for. I am guessing that you probably don't want to hear this, but most liberals I know have guns.

A side issue, we were talking about using cases from other countries to surport cases in Australia. The comment was made (by the law lecturer) that cases from all common law countries (NZ, Canada and the UK ect) are often used quite successfully in our courts. US cases on the other hand are banned "because you could find a case in a US court to surport any possition", ie the US courts arnt consistant in there rulings and are more likly to be politically motivated than motivated by the law. Ie Miller doesnt actually invalidate the premis of this thread, as the court was stacked with right wing republicans at the time (and as far as i know still is)

None of this matters. The judiciary already finalized the interpretation. What you think, like it or not, is utterly irrelevant.

 

[chimpkin]

are you serious? you seriously think you and a rable could stand up to a proffessional, equipt, moden army, navy and airforce?

Vietnam.

Hell, the American Revolution.

A bunch of drunken rabble tossed over one of the best armies there was through guerrilla warfare tactics.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I am guessing that you probably don't want to hear this, but most liberals I know have guns.

There is a bit of a bias. I think the percentage of right-wingers who own guns is far higher than leftists. Most of the liberals I know who have guns are either women in down-scale neighborhoods who worry about being assaulted, or people who live in rural areas where there's no effective police protection and no neighbors to hear them scream.

For rural homeowners who are leftists the shotgun is a popular choice. It's not very good as an offensive weapon so they don't worry that one family member will get drunk or angry and blow away the others, and it doesn't require a lot of practice, or even good aim. The guys with rifles and gun racks who go hunting and do target practice, those are usually the rightists.

 

[John99]

Fraggle, the genie is out of the bottle anyway. How do we pretend that guns done exist?