Supreme Court Upholds Gun Right

[Buffalo Roam]

Okay. Fair enough. But legalizing guns in Australia would mean that the rapist can also purchase a weapon. Again, tell me how that would reduce the levels of sexual assaults in a country like Australia?

Well a .38 is a great equalizer, it doesn't require strength, only a little practice.

In actuality just the presence of a Gun in many situations will end the threat, there are hundred of thousands of incidents on file with the NRA, as taken from Police reports were this is the case.

And in the end, there are hundreds of cases on file taken from Police reports were the rapist received his just deserts for failure to take the warning and leave.

Also, the fact that the greater majority of sexual assaults are by people known to the victim, how exactly would gun laws rectify that? For example, say a husband and wife are in bed and she says "no", tries to push him off and he rapes her anyway. Should she be sleeping with a gun under her pillow at all times just in case he decides to rape her?

Well that beg's the question? why did you marry him in the first place?
If she has to worry about being raped by her husband, she shouldn't be in the marriage.

As to some one you know, it still come back to the .38 is a great equalizer,

God did not make men/women, equal Col. Colt did.

Here is something many just don't seem to understand. The majority of the "honest citizens" in Australia like the gun laws as they are. It was public pressure that resulted in their being enacted in the first place.

I would love to see the citation of such fact.

We all have to give up some of our freedoms for the betterment of others and society. Gun laws in Australia is part of that.

Then why are you so upset by Guantanamo, We all have to give up some of our freedoms for the betterment of others and society, and GITMO is part of that.

 

[Echo3Romeo]

A lot of what you guys are arguing has to do with the laws every state has governing the lawful use of deadly force. Generally speaking, there are three occasions when one can lawfully apply deadly force:

1. Defense of yourself from death or serious bodily injury
2. Defense of another from death or serious bodily injury
3. Defense of the interior of one's dwelling from intrusion

A note about #3: Many states have what is called a Castle Doctrine law. The law states that your dwelling, the physical building itself, is your sanctuary from intrusion or assault, and that deadly force may be used to defend that sanctuary - not necessarily any persons in it - provided you can prove it was under assault at the time. Bad guy steps over the threshold of your front door and he's fair game, as long as he dies inside your home, and there is no requirement that the occupants be in serious danger.

Other states have a Castle Doctrine law, but include something called a "duty to retreat" clause, which requires that you run and hide in your back bedroom, then the closet, then a garmet bag...as far as you can get away from your assailant before being able to lawfully resolve the situation with deadly force. A duty to retreat clause does not require that #1 or #2 be in effect for deadly force to be lawful, however.

Then, there is Texas. Castle Doctrine is extended to include areas of work and inside your car, and rather than simply lacking a duty to retreat clause, these laws have "stand your ground" clauses that flatly say victims do not need to retreat from threat of harm before using deadly force to remove said threat. A bunch of other states have similar "stand your ground" clauses, but Texas and Florida are famous for them.

Okay. Fair enough. But legalising guns in Australia would mean that the rapist can also purchase a weapon.

Why? Rapists cannot purchase firearms in the US. No felon can. In fact, any domestic violence conviction, even if a misdemeanor, will keep you from being able to lawfully purchase a firearm. Again, the Gun Control Act of 1968 covers its bases pretty well.

Do you not need a criminal background check to buy a gun in Oz?

 

[Pandaemoni]

But his commentary on law and the Rights of a Free Man, are part and parcel of the Constitution, the debates and the construction, if you had truly read the SCOTUS, you would see reference to his thoughts on Law and Individual Rights reference through out the decision.

He is also reference through out the Federalist Papers which were written at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, so therefore he is very relevant to the discussion, and his writing are most germane.

That is one of the problems with the British and the Nations of the Empire, they have forgotten Blackstone, and the Right of the free man.

Now if you don't agree with the reasoning of the decision, how about you write a better decision and post it, I will await your brilliance with bate breath.

I don't disagree with the decision. I have said that. I would note that my happiness with the decision is a practical matter, not a legal one. I like guns, always have, and so like the decision. Those grounds for liking the decision are very different than legal grounds.

I do think that your knowledge of the law is third-hand and half digested, as I can't imagine the SCOTUS used the reasoning your cited, because you're presenbtation is filled with questionable conclusions. At some point when I have lots of time I will read the decision and the dissents, but in the meantime I am relying on your presentation of the analysis, and your presentation does not make for a strong legal argument, in my opinion.

I trust, though, that you are correct and the the SCOTUS's arguments do not rely on the questionable leaps in logic that your posts do. Likely they fill in the intervening facts needed for example to make it from "seven of the fourteen states expressly stated that there was a right to use firearms in self-defense" to "Therefore the Constitution does too, even though, unlike those seven states, it does not say so expressly."

Please note that Blackstone is a source that you have to parse heavily before applying him to the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote of him that he (together with David Hume) had "done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man than all the millions of men in arms of Bonaparte." Blackstone is a good source to turn to to figure out what the laws of Britain were in the mid to late 18th century, and his thoughts would have influenced the founders on that point. American law has British law, as expounded by Blackstone, as its base, but we did not adopt British law wholesale (nor was Blackstone's views on it adopted wholesale in every respect in every state).

He certainly did have a profound impact on American law (especially common law) and political theory, but to read his Commentaries as if he were writing about the American Constitution is not to understand him. In fact, it makes me doubt that you've read him at all. More likely you've read excerpts selected by others who have read him.

 

[Mr. G]

I have read the History of the Constitutional Debate.

I have read Blackstone on the Constitution.

I have read the Federalist Papers.

I have read the written History of America.

All were part and parcel of my grade school and high school education, and also part of my natural curiosity as to how our government was formed, and is suppose to function.

I have also read all 44 pages of the SCOTUS Brief.

Well, okay.

I take back "dude".

 

[Mr. G]

I have a life and that does not include going through every post you happen to make to try to gauge the context you happened to have made in another post.

I have a life and that does not include going through every post you happen to make to try to gauge the context you happened to have made.

Boy, that does work.

 

[lepustimidus]

Bells, I've snipped out most of your empty posturing.

What exactly is "an Orleander"?

An Orleander is when a poster continually misses the clue train, and demonstrates mind boggling obtuseness. For example, this...

What inconsistency? There have been zero massacres or mass shootings since the laws were implemented. Gun violence is down. *Sniff*.. I smell a correlation.

is an Orleander.

There were zero massacres or mass shooting 9 years prior to the Port Arthur incident, despite the absence of the ridiculous gun laws that were in existence after the Port Arthur massacre, which only prevented a mass shooting for 6 years.

Lax gun laws = No massacre for 9 years.

Tighter gun laws = No massacre for 6 years.

Tighter gun laws = Increase in homicide and robberies.

*sniff*.. I smell a correlation.

Again, gun violence and crimes associated with firearms is down.

Again, homicides and robberies are up. Oh, and let's not forget the smug little smiley face.

Wasn't he beating up on the woman when the two men approached to render her assistance?

That's right. And when they attempted to render their (unarmed) assistance, he shot the woman and the two men. Naturally they were sitting ducks since they were unarmed. But hey, you'd deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves against armed thugs.

So what should they have done? Pulled a gun on an armed attacker and then get into a shootout?

Correct. Their odds of survival would have increased.

The laws are not irrational. You can purchase a gun if you want to in Australia. You do know that, right?

You can only purchase a gun if you have a 'valid' reason for doing so, which is complete bullshit. Even worse, 'self-defense' isn't regarded as a valid reason. Such laws are a violation of basic autonomy. Any government which denies its law abiding citizens access to firearms (and hence the right to defend themselves) is totalitarian.

Again, what rights do the "law abiding citizens" have in regards to firearms in Australia?

All law abiding human beings have the right to purchase firearms without being treated like potential criminals by their government.

Of course there is.

Wait, stop the press! So you can commit a mass murder with an axe, machete or poison? So why don't we have stringent laws to regulate axes and machetes? Why don't we make every purchaser of a machete cite a valid reason for making their purchase?

Some of those pistols can still shoot sweetie.

Then regulate the pistols which can still shoot. Why impose ridiculous pistols which can't shoot, because they are just imitations? The pistol my relative purchased, and my mother bought back all the way from Poland (and through customs, which gave it the green light), could not fire. It was a dummy you hang on your wall.

In fact, why impose ridiculous laws on 16th century pistols, full stop? Single shot pistols are hardly in the same league as modern firearms, and you probably COULD kill more people with an axe. I'll tell you why they are regulated. Paranoia.

And they can still be used to rob a store or a bank.

You can rob a bank with a syringe, a machete, a knife, an iron bar, or even a toy gun. Why don't we have ridiculous laws to regulate cap guns? I know why: Paranoia.

After all, the person behind the counter does not know if it is real or not or whether it can shoot them or not.

The person behind the counter does not know if my syringe has AIDS contaminated blood. The person behind the counter does not know whether my cap gun is actually a real gun. The person behind the counter doesn't know if I have enough strength to break their bones with an iron bar. Yet bureaucrats don't give a shit about that. Why? Paranoia.

Oh, and I think a store tender would probably be able to distinguish your hot, sweaty little fingers to a real gun.

Would you take that risk, Bells? If I poked my two middle fingers into the small of your back and shouted at you that I 'had a gun', would you be able to tell the difference? Do you even know what a gun barrel feels like when it's poking into your back?

People have robbed stores by simply placing their hand in their pocket as if they are about to reach for a gun. Why don't we have legislation to regulate finger usage? Wait, I can guess. Paranoia.

The risk is not minimal at all. There have been occasions

'There have been occasions.' Thanks, so you admit that the risk is minimal. 'There have been occasions' when people have been struck by lightning. That doesn't mean I'll legislate for a curfew during lightning storms, unless I'm... wait for it... paranoid.

Different issue. Rosa Parks was fighting for human rights and civil rights. You are saying that Australians somehow have a "right" to bear arms, which we do not.

According to the American government, blacks didn't have human or civil rights. Guess Rosa Parks should have just shut the fuck up, hey? Got on her knees and worshipped her white masters?

The whole point of fighting for particular rights is so that those particular rights are acknowledged by your government.

It's a valid question. Do farmers need automatic or semi-automatic firearms to defend their properties? Isn't a shotgun enough?

Lives in remote area =/= farmer. Remember, you can't buy firearms for self-defense, which puts those living in rural and remote areas at a disadvantage when they must defend themselves against interlopers.

No darling. It can hardly be considered an equaliser if the men are also allowed to own guns. Get it now?

Wow, you really are being obtuse, Bells. Do you know what 'equalisation' means?

Strong unarmed man vs. weak unarmed woman = Unequal, in favour of the man.

Strong unarmed man vs. weak armed woman = Unequal, in favour of the woman.

Strong armed man vs. weak armed woman = Equal, as both are armed.

Get it now, sweetheart? Or do I need to speak in grunts?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

I don't disagree with the decision. I have said that. I would note that my happiness with the decision is a practical matter, not a legal one. I like guns, always have, and so like the decision. Those grounds for liking the decision are very different than legal grounds.

I do think that your knowledge of the law is third-hand and half digested, as I can't imagine the SCOTUS used the reasoning your cited, because you're presenbtation is filled with questionable conclusions. At some point when I have lots of time I will read the decision and the dissents, but in the meantime I am relying on your presentation of the analysis, and your presentation does not make for a strong legal argument, in my opinion.

I trust, though, that you are correct and the the SCOTUS's arguments do not rely on the questionable leaps in logic that your posts do. Likely they fill in the intervening facts needed for example to make it from "seven of the fourteen states expressly stated that there was a right to use firearms in self-defense" to "Therefore the Constitution does too, even though, unlike those seven states, it does not say so expressly."

Please note that Blackstone is a source that you have to parse heavily before applying him to the U.S. Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote of him that he (together with David Hume) had "done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man than all the millions of men in arms of Bonaparte." Blackstone is a good source to turn to to figure out what the laws of Britain were in the mid to late 18th century, and his thoughts would have influenced the founders on that point. American law has British law, as expounded by Blackstone, as its base, but we did not adopt British law wholesale (nor was Blackstone's views on it adopted wholesale in every respect in every state).

He certainly did have a profound impact on American law (especially common law) and political theory, but to read his Commentaries as if he were writing about the American Constitution is not to understand him. In fact, it makes me doubt that you've read him at all. More likely you've read excerpts selected by others who have read him.

Well then read the decision.

Oh yes, The hours I have spent reading Blackstone, went to a parochial School for My education, and the Nuns and Priest, are not to be circumvent, in their assignments.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.

And as referenced:

4 Commentaries on the Laws
of England 55 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone);

From the SCOTUS:

Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted
the preeminent authority on English law for the
founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715
(1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one
of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone
136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot
possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service.
It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and selfpreservation,”
id., at 139, and “the right of having and
using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140;

And our laws are nothing, if not the common laws of England, which sadly the
the English have surrendered in the common age.

 

[Bells]

Well a .38 is a great equalizer, it doesn't require strength, only a little practice.

In actuality just the presence of a Gun in many situations will end the threat, there are hundred of thousands of incidents on file with the NRA, as taken from Police reports were this is the case.

And in the end, there are hundreds of cases on file taken from Police reports were the rapist received his just deserts for failure to take the warning and leave.

And if the rapist is armed with a firearm, that "equalizer" goes straight out the window.

Well that beg's the question? why did you marry him in the first place?
If she has to worry about being raped by her husband, she shouldn't be in the marriage.

I doubt any woman would be in fear of being raped in her own home by her male partner or male relative or friend. After all, no woman would want to imagine that her husband could one day rape her. But here is a point that keeps being missed. Seeing that the majority of rapes are usually perpetrated by people known to the victim, the thought that women should buy a gun to protect themselves from sexual assault means just that. That she's having to buy a gun just in case a man in her life decides to rape her. Can you see what I am getting at?

As to some one you know, it still come back to the .38 is a great equalizer,

God did not make men/women, equal Col. Colt did.

And if he is also armed, that equalizer goes right out the window. And if it is the spouse who rapes her, he will undoubtedly know she has a gun and might take that gun before he does rape her and uses it against her. That great "equalizer" then becomes the one thing that helps him make her a victim.

I would love to see the citation of such fact.

I think the fact that there was overwhelming support and demand for gun reform in Australia after the mass shootings is citation enough. The States did not want to implement the gun laws as ordered to by the Howard Government. But the States quickly changed their minds when massive public opinion demanded it. The State Governments faced the prospect of either implementing the laws or face a loss at the next election. At the end of the day they decided to go with what the greater majority of the population wanted and demanded.

You can still buy guns in Australia. You just need to have a damn good reason to have one. And it takes a long time to be able to get a license because your history and records are searched so thoroughly. For example, farmers and sports shooters can still buy guns for their needs. If I want to take up shooting as a sport (say at a range or hunting), I can obtain a license and a firearm after being checked thoroughly by the police. The main restriction is where the gun is kept and how it is transported at all times.

Then why are you so upset by Guantanamo, We all have to give up some of our freedoms for the betterment of others and society, and GITMO is part of that.

So you're equating restrictive gun laws as being akin to human rights violations in GITMO?

Why? Rapists cannot purchase firearms in the US. No felon can. In fact, any domestic violence conviction, even if a misdemeanor, will keep you from being able to lawfully purchase a firearm. Again, the Gun Control Act of 1968 covers its bases pretty well.

Do you not need a criminal background check to buy a gun in Oz?

Of course we do. But the sales are basically restricted to sporting weapons and collectors have to undergo stringent background checks and update their license. The issue in Australia was that it was too easy for someone to acquire a semi-automatic weapon.

 

[lepustimidus]

Bells:

And if he is also armed, that equalizer goes right out the window.

WTF? Are you fucking a retard?

 

[S.A.M.]

How many people are carrying a firearm ready with the expectation of meeting a rapist or burglar?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Bells, I've snipped out most of your empty posturing.



An Orleander is when a poster continually misses the clue train, and demonstrates mind boggling obtuseness. For example, this...



is an Orleander.

There were zero massacres or mass shooting 9 years prior to the Port Arthur incident, despite the absence of the ridiculous gun laws that were in existence after the Port Arthur massacre, which only prevented a mass shooting for 6 years.

Lax gun laws = No massacre for 9 years.

Tighter gun laws = No massacre for 6 years.

Tighter gun laws = Increase in homicide and robberies.

*sniff*.. I smell a correlation.



Again, homicides and robberies are up. Oh, and let's not forget the smug little smiley face.



That's right. And when they attempted to render their (unarmed) assistance, he shot the woman and the two men. Naturally they were sitting ducks since they were unarmed. But hey, you'd deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves against armed thugs.



Correct. Their odds of survival would have increased.


You can only purchase a gun if you have a 'valid' reason for doing so, which is complete bullshit. Even worse, 'self-defense' isn't regarded as a valid reason. Such laws are a violation of basic autonomy. Any government which denies its law abiding citizens access to firearms (and hence the right to defend themselves) is totalitarian.



All law abiding human beings have the right to purchase firearms without being treated like potential criminals by their government.



Wait, stop the press! So you can commit a mass murder with an axe, machete or poison? So why don't we have stringent laws to regulate axes and machetes? Why don't we make every purchaser of a machete cite a valid reason for making their purchase?



Then regulate the pistols which can still shoot. Why impose ridiculous pistols which can't shoot, because they are just imitations? The pistol my relative purchased, and my mother bought back all the way from Poland (and through customs, which gave it the green light), could not fire. It was a dummy you hang on your wall.

In fact, why impose ridiculous laws on 16th century pistols, full stop? Single shot pistols are hardly in the same league as modern firearms, and you probably COULD kill more people with an axe. I'll tell you why they are regulated. Paranoia.



You can rob a bank with a syringe, a machete, a knife, an iron bar, or even a toy gun. Why don't we have ridiculous laws to regulate cap guns? I know why: Paranoia.



The person behind the counter does not know if my syringe has AIDS contaminated blood. The person behind the counter does not know whether my cap gun is actually a real gun. The person behind the counter doesn't know if I have enough strength to break their bones with an iron bar. Yet bureaucrats don't give a shit about that. Why? Paranoia.



Would you take that risk, Bells? If I poked my two middle fingers into the small of your back and shouted at you that I 'had a gun', would you be able to tell the difference? Do you even know what a gun barrel feels like when it's poking into your back?

People have robbed stores by simply placing their hand in their pocket as if they are about to reach for a gun. Why don't we have legislation to regulate finger usage? Wait, I can guess. Paranoia.



'There have been occasions.' Thanks, so you admit that the risk is minimal. 'There have been occasions' when people have been struck by lightning. That doesn't mean I'll legislate for a curfew during lightning storms, unless I'm... wait for it... paranoid.



According to the American government, blacks didn't have human or civil rights. Guess Rosa Parks should have just shut the fuck up, hey? Got on her knees and worshipped her white masters?

The whole point of fighting for particular rights is so that those particular rights are acknowledged by your government.



Lives in remote area =/= farmer. Remember, you can't buy firearms for self-defense, which puts those living in rural and remote areas at a disadvantage when they must defend themselves against interlopers.



Wow, you really are being obtuse, Bells. Do you know what 'equalisation' means?

Strong unarmed man vs. weak unarmed woman = Unequal, in favour of the man.

Strong unarmed man vs. weak armed woman = Unequal, in favour of the woman.

Strong armed man vs. weak armed woman = Equal, as both are armed.

Get it now, sweetheart? Or do I need to speak in grunts?

OUTSTANDING!!!!!
:worship::bravo::yay:

 

[lepustimidus]

Wait, I've worked it out!

Bells must believe that women are too retarded to load a gun. So when they empty the clip, they would stand there with their mouth open scratching their head going ???, giving the man the chance to shoot them.

 

[John99]

The genie came out of the bottle when gunpowder was invented and it is never going back. I think the idea is that not only the government and criminals should posses firearms.

And really the most direct conclusion is comparing Australia to U.S is impossible. Mainly because the U.S has borders and the guns would come over the border or tunneled underground or if the price was righ inside of peoples rectums.

 

[lepustimidus]

How many people are carrying a firearm ready with the expectation of meeting a rapist or burglar?

Not many in Australia, since we aren't allowed to. Why should a bunch of bureaucrats be allowed to deny us the choice to do so?

BTW, from memory Buffalo carries a gun on his person, and it has saved his life on more than one occasion. But according to the anti-gun lobby, such cases don't exist. He must be making it up.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

How many people are carrying a firearm ready with the expectation of meeting a rapist or burglar?

That is not the question, the question is how lucky the criminal is, in a armed society, in his ability to pick a unarmed victim?

Or even a victim not in range of armed assistance.

And yes, I commonly carry a fire arm.

Twice in my life I have had to draw it, and that was all that was needed to end the threat, and put the scumbag in retreat.

 

[Bells]

Again, homicides and robberies are up. Oh, and let's not forget the smug little smiley face.

And yet, again... gun violence is down. And yes, just for old time's sake, here it is.

That's right. And when they attempted to render their (unarmed) assistance, he shot the woman and the two men. Naturally they were sitting ducks since they were unarmed. But hey, you'd deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves against armed thugs.

He pulled the gun after they interfered. Tell me, should they have pulled their guns on him in the hope he was not armed and would simply back away? Real life is not like in the movies MH. They didn't know he was armed when they approached him and asked them if there was a problem. By your reasoning, they should simply have pulled a gun on a person they assumed was unarmed.. just in case..

Correct. Their odds of survival would have increased.

And all the other passer's by? You know what it's like in Melbourne during peak hour? Or should everyone else have pulled a gun as well?

You can only purchase a gun if you have a 'valid' reason for doing so, which is complete bullshit. Even worse, 'self-defense' isn't regarded as a valid reason. Such laws are a violation of basic autonomy. Any government which denies its law abiding citizens access to firearms (and hence the right to defend themselves) is totalitarian.

So you don't think you need to have a valid reason to buy a gun?

Your basic autonomy is not affected by your inability to purchase a firearm.

All law abiding human beings have the right to purchase firearms without being treated like potential criminals by their government.

So you don't even think there should be background checks at all?

Wait, stop the press! So you can commit a mass murder with an axe, machete or poison? So why don't we have stringent laws to regulate axes and machetes? Why don't we make every purchaser of a machete cite a valid reason for making their purchase?

Because they aren't firearms.

Then regulate the pistols which can still shoot. Why impose ridiculous pistols which can't shoot, because they are just imitations? The pistol my relative purchased, and my mother bought back all the way from Poland (and through customs, which gave it the green light), could not fire. It was a dummy you hang on your wall.

In fact, why impose ridiculous laws on 16th century pistols, full stop? Single shot pistols are hardly in the same league as modern firearms, and you probably COULD kill more people with an axe. I'll tell you why they are regulated. Paranoia.

And?

The reasoning behind the legislation behind imitations is that they can be used to rob others. As for single shot pistols.. You can still purchase antique one's if you are a collector. What exactly are you trying to say here? You just need to have a license to do so.

Again, you can purchase a firearm in Australia. In fact, the pro guns groups in Australia are mostly concerned with hunting and sporting rights, not the right to self defense with a firearm. But if you wish to hunt or shoot for sport, you can still purchase a weapon. You just need to have undergo a background check. Or is that the issue with you? That the police will check your criminal record to ensure you can acquire a gun. You do realise such limitations are also in place in most areas of the US, don't you? Or are you of the idea that all and sundry should be able to have access to a firearm simply because they think it is somehow their god given right to have one?

You can rob a bank with a syringe, a machete, a knife, an iron bar, or even a toy gun. Why don't we have ridiculous laws to regulate cap guns? I know why: Paranoia.

The person behind the counter does not know if my syringe has AIDS contaminated blood. The person behind the counter does not know whether my cap gun is actually a real gun. The person behind the counter doesn't know if I have enough strength to break their bones with an iron bar. Yet bureaucrats don't give a shit about that. Why? Paranoia.

How can I put this. It is still illegal to rob someone, regardless of your weapon of choice. Guns are illegal, as are carrying knives and machetes (yeah.. you didn't know about that either I take it).. many types of knives are illegal in this country. Carrying around a syringe filled with blood is also illegal as it can be used for the purpose of robbing or causing someone else harm.

Would you take that risk, Bells? If I poked my two middle fingers into the small of your back and shouted at you that I 'had a gun', would you be able to tell the difference? Do you even know what a gun barrel feels like when it's poking into your back?

People have robbed stores by simply placing their hand in their pocket as if they are about to reach for a gun. Why don't we have legislation to regulate finger usage? Wait, I can guess. Paranoia.

Hmmm lets see.. Your soft and sweaty pudgy finger(s) compared to a hard metal object. Ya.. I think I'd be able to tell the difference. My father used to own guns MH. I know how to shoot, load, clean and store hunting rifles. I learnt how since I was a little girl. My father made sure I knew the dangers of his hunting rifles and how to check to make sure a gun was unloaded. I also had uncles and cousins in the police department. It was a right of passage for the children in my family to know how to check and unload a gun. I learned to shoot when I was 7 years of age.. shooting tin cans basically.. So ya, I think I could tell the difference between your grotty fat fingers and a gun.

And again, using whatever to rob a person is a crime because robbery is a crime in this country. Or did that fact also escape you?

The whole point of fighting for particular rights is so that those particular rights are acknowledged by your government.

Human rights and your right to bear arms are not the same in any way whatsoever.

Lives in remote area =/= farmer. Remember, you can't buy firearms for self-defense, which puts those living in rural and remote areas at a disadvantage when they must defend themselves against interlopers.

Why would they be? And honestly now, you really think a farmer needs a fully automatic or semi-automatic weapon against a person trying to steal their sheep or possibly trying to rob them? People in rural areas do have guns.. used for farming and sporting purposes. I can assure you, not a single one of them would be arrested if they were confronted with a small army or masked men trying to steal their women and their sheep and they opened fire to defend themselves.

Get it now, sweetheart? Or do I need to speak in grunts?

Only if you stick your pudgy fingers up your nose.. shecsay beast!

 

[Bells]

Twice in my life I have had to draw it, and that was all that was needed to end the threat, and put the scumbag in retreat.

Really? I just jammed my keys in his nuts. To each their own.

 

[S.A.M.]

That is not the question, the question is how lucky the criminal is, in a armed society, in his ability to pick a unarmed victim?

Or even a victim not in range of armed assistance.

And yes, I commonly carry a fire arm.

Twice in my life I have had to draw it, and that was all that was needed to end the threat, and put the scumbag in retreat.

Yeah and soon every scumbag will carry one and will be ready to shoot before you draw.

 

[TW Scott]

Yeah and soon every scumbag will carry one and will be ready to shoot before you draw.

Actually criminals tend to be a cowardly lot. They carried guns becuase it gave thema huge leg up. Now that 72 year old gramps might be packing a .45 they are gonna find less violent ways to get what they want.

 

[TW Scott]

MH your an idot. Most gun deaths are suicides or domestic vilonce.

All too true and in to put it bluntly it eliminating guns would not save a single one of those people, just postpone the date of death by a short time.