Supreme Court Upholds Gun Right

[TW Scott]

Another aspect to consider is the notion of having a gun turned against its owner. In order to prevent that, how should a woman view the threat of rape? At what point will people start shooting at one another for looking at each other wrong?

Well since you're already being raped, something most women consider worse than death, I guess having the gun turned on you is a miniscule risk.

Just becuase something can be turned against you is no reason to abandon a piece of technology that might also just save your life. Just becuase your car could throw a tie rod and cause you to plummet off a cliff is not a good reason to abandon driving altogether. It's a benefit/risk balancing game.

After all perhaps a rapist sees the odd bulge of your concealed holster and decides that tobight he's gonna go home and just chill. That's much more likely than him snatching it away and using it on you.

 

[Challenger78]

tiassa, bells.

Dont you guys know, we should all carry M16's around and shot anyone who looks at us funny.

I'd have a trail of bodies behind me..

 

[Asguard]

TW Scott your stupid

if someone tried to commit suicide by cutting there wrists or by pills then the ambo's have time to get them to hospital. If they blow there brains out there is NO chance.

If a gun is avilable to kill a spouce then the chance of death is MUCH greater than if they are have to catch them with a knife or whatever and the chance in that case is MUCH greater that they will escape or call help than if they are just shot in the back

 

[Buffalo Roam]

TW Scott your stupid

if someone tried to commit suicide by cutting there wrists or by pills then the ambo's have time to get them to hospital. If they blow there brains out there is NO chance.

That depends on how you cut you wrist, if you cut down the artery, not across, case closed.

As for pills, 20 tablets of Tylenol are lethal in a hour or so, not much of a window.

Acetaminophen is also known as Panadol or Paracetamol in some countries. Typical dosage is up to 1000mg up to four times per day for an adult and for children give 10-15 mg per kg up to four times per day (you can use the mg/kg calculation for adults too if you wish).

Caution: Overdosing on acetaminophen is a great way to ensure that you die of liver failure. This is one of the lesser known dangers of Panadol/Tylenol. You only need about 10 grams or so (not a lot of tablets) of the stuff over a short period of time (within a day or so) to ensure that you need to be admitted to a hospital emergency room to have some chance of survival.

This is serious stuff. It means that an adult could have liver failure just by ingesting 20 tablets of Tylenol or Panadol or Paracetamol containing 500mg of acetaminophen each. A child or infant will need an even smaller dose to cause a similar problem.

It is precisely because this common painkiller can be lethal when a small multiple of the normal dose is taken that hospitals will always include a blood acetaminophen level if a patient who attempted suicide by ingestion of pills is brought in. Even if the story sounds reasonably clear that the pills taken were some other substance, just the possibility that the patient could have taken a big bunch of these tablets is a death sentence if the antidote, N-acetylcysteine is not given within a few hours of the lethal dose.

Treatment for overdose involves inducing vomiting (emesis), laxatives and activated charcoal. The antidote given is intravenous N-acetylcysteine. Most overdoses are of children who take adult doses with parental ignorance or without parental knowledge.

Despite its lethality in large doses, acetaminophen toxicity is not recommended as an avenue for suicide, unless you take heaps of sedatives to go along with it because dying from liver failure can be extremely painful.

If a gun is avilable to kill a spouce then the chance of death is MUCH greater than if they are have to catch them with a knife or whatever and the chance in that case is MUCH greater that they will escape or call help than if they are just shot in the back

How about a car? Pouring gasoline on the bead and victim, and setting it alit? How about just mixing 20, Tylenol or Panadol or Paracetamol containing 500mg into the targets drinks through the night, there are a lot of ways to insure non-survival if you want some one dead

 

[Echo3Romeo]

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

I have a license to carry because it means I can transport my handguns from my house to the range without having to lock them up. Also, there's a "just because I can" factor.

Do I carry all the time? No. In most cases it is a hassle, because you are always making sure the weapon is completely out of sight ("concealed carry" is legal but carrying openly is forbidden in most areas of the US) so it doesn't offend the delicate sensibilities of the soccer mom in line behind you at Kroger. Usually I only carry when I'm going to and from the range, sometimes just because I feel like it. I keep a handgun and two magazines in a small safe in my nightstand, and another behind the driver's seat in my pickup. My wife has a license to carry as well, and she carries a ladysmith in her purse when she isn't at work (she's a teacher and guns are not allowed on any school property).

I haven't ever had to draw down on someone, but when something goes bump in the night, it is nice to know I have a weapon in reach that tilts the odds of an encounter strongly in my favor.

 

[spidergoat]

I heard if you are in a wilderness area, you can also carry a gun without a permit, but it must NOT be concealed.

 

[lepustimidus]

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

THAT'S your response? Instead of addressing my comment that homicides and armed robberies are up, you just repeat the same old debunked argument like a broken record?

I'll put this very simply. Even if a decrease in gun violence was correlated with these new laws (something which remains speculative), that is not evidence of causation. And even if such a thing were true, you need to explain why an increase in homicides and robberies is a good trade off for a decrease in gun violence.

I have a funny feeling you won't address this indiscrepancy in your argument.

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..

By your logic, they should not have interfered in the first place, as that just made the situation worse. Because of their interference, the thug shot the woman he was car jacking, as well as the two interveners.

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?

Or perhaps the woman getting jacked could have pulled a gun and shot him. Your notion that every man and his dog would pull a gun and start shooting aimlessly into a crowd in response to a car jacking suggests that YOU have been watching to many movies.

Personally, if I were attacked by a thug, I'd rather be armed than unarmed. Don't you feel the same way?

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

Correct.

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

False. But it's clear that we are not going to agree on this. For some strange reason, you think that disarming a population and hence nullifying their ability to defend themselves is not a violation of their basic autonomy.

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

Did I say that? A check of a purchaser's history to determine if they have a history of violence is sensible and fair. Requiring them to have a valid reason to purchase a firearm is not.

Because they aren't firearms.

So? The fact of the matter is that many objects can be used to commit mass murders, yet all of this paranoia is focused on guns. I find that inconsistent, yet for some strange reason you don't.

The reasoning behind the legislation behind imitations is that they can be used to rob others.

And as I've already explained, imitation guns aren't the only objects that can be used to rob others. Yet these other objects aren't regulated to the same degree that imitation guns are.

Oh, I also notice that you failed to address my observation regarding toy guns. Fancy that.

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.

You have no idea. You need to be a member of a collector's club for 12 months, you need to go through numerous checks and bullshit paperwork, you need to pay a fee, you need to lock your imitation away in a safe, etc. Why go through all that bullshit to maintain something that's simply going to rust in a safe, out of sight, out of mind?

And again, you have failed to provide a reasonable counter-argument to justify why single-shot pistols are so tightly regulated, whereas far more destructive weapons (ie. axes) are not.

Again, you can purchase a firearm in Australia.

Again, you need to declare intent. Why isn't that sinking in, Bells?

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.

Umm, you need to undergo a little more than just a background check.

How can I put this. It is still illegal to rob someone, regardless of your weapon of choice.

No shit, Bells. Way to miss the clue train.

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.

So you admit that knives, machetes and syringes can be used to rob stores. Excellent. So why aren't they regulated to the same degree that imitation pistols are?

Hmmm lets see.. Your soft and sweaty pudgy finger(s) compared to a hard metal object.

My fingers are far from soft, sweat and pudgy. They are the fingers of Superman, made of steel!

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.

But wait, for all that experience, you've never had a gun barrel pressed against the small of your back? So how on earth would you know what it feels like?

And how on Earth would the millions of Australians who have far less experience than you know what having a gun pressed into their back feels like? I know I sure as hell don't. If someone pressed anything into my back and told me they had a gun, I'd play it safe and assume that they did.

For all of your bluster, you really do have a habit of failing to actually type a response which answers the actual issues being discussed.

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?

Wait... so now 'whatever' can be used to rob a person?! So why isn't 'whatever' regulated to the same degree as imitation pistols?

You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper, Bells.

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

That's a matter of opinion. Since I .consider the option to own a firearm part of basic autonomy of the individual, I'd class it as (at worst) analogous to human rights

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.

*sigh*

I'll put this in real big letters, Bells.

RURAL =/= FARMER

I repeat, living in rural and remote areas does not mean that one is a farmer. For example, my family live in the countryside, yet we do not have a farm. It's not hard to fathom, Bells, lots of people live in the scrub.

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

Well since you're already being raped, something most women consider worse than death, I guess having the gun turned on you is a miniscule risk.

Interesting. So much for the gun being used to prevent the rape, eh?

Just becuase something can be turned against you is no reason to abandon a piece of technology that might also just save your life. Just becuase your car could throw a tie rod and cause you to plummet off a cliff is not a good reason to abandon driving altogether. It's a benefit/risk balancing game

What a curious diversion. You've managed to avoid the question altogether.

Think of it this way: If your gun is turned against you, we can conclude you failed to use it properly.

One way to make sure your gun isn't turned against you is to shoot before the perp is close enough to take it from you.

Which brings us back to the issue: In order to prevent that, how should a woman view the threat of rape? At what point will people start shooting at one another for looking at each other wrong?

• • •​

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.

Doesn't sound like you had to draw it.

Of course, that's something I noticed when I carried a knife; one can come to depend on the weapon. It's all too easy to decide you need that kind of force in any given situation.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Doesn't sound like you had to draw it.

Of course, that's something I noticed when I carried a knife; one can come to depend on the weapon. It's all too easy to decide you need that kind of force in any given situation.

Tiassa, it's called situational awareness, and just maybe I didn't have to draw, but when you leaving a clients home, it is after dark, your car in a block down the street, and you are being boxed by three individuals, and the closest one to you is the one fully aware of the fact that you are armed, and retreats, and then other two do the same, what would you think? how would you asses the situation in the after action report? The other point is that it wasn't reported by the individual to the police, so again the after actions says my gut was right, and my actions were proper.

The day will come when you find out that you have brought a knife to a gun fight, and you will wish that you were a little more dependent on technology.

The other thing is that there is a prejudice view among law enforcement when a knife is used as a defensive weapon, we have just had three case's here of people claiming self defence with a knife, and all three are now under murder charges.

 

[Asguard]

BR yes of course there are exceptions and paraciatomol is leathal vertually as soon as it gets absorbed in the most painful way possable (we had a very young girl who we were transfering for exactly this reason and would probably be dead with in a week, very very sad). However concidering that SOMETIMES you catch people before they are in iriversable shock through blood loss and that some people who OD can have there stomics pumped compared to ZERO chance with a bullet to the brain i will take the chance.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

BR yes of course there are exceptions and paraciatomol is leathal vertually as soon as it gets absorbed in the most painful way possable (we had a very young girl who we were transfering for exactly this reason and would probably be dead with in a week, very very sad). However concidering that SOMETIMES you catch people before they are in iriversable shock through blood loss and that some people who OD can have there stomics pumped compared to ZERO chance with a bullet to the brain i will take the chance.

And not just some times, but the majority of times, the presence of a gun keeps someone from getting killed or even injured, I don't have the actual numbers, but some where it was reported that for every time a gun is use, there are thousands of time were it ends up not being used, just the presence keep bad things from happening.

I have two personnel examples of that in my life, just the presence of my Gun, saved me from great harm, and the scumbag, because they didn't want to get hurt either.

I had to nothing more than show that I was armed, and they decided to look for a easier victim.

Someone who wasn't armed.

 

[madanthonywayne]

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

No, it doesn't. The situation is, if they're both unarmed, the rapist (being a man) has the advantage. If they're both armed, the situation has been equalized.

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?

You are equating two very different situations. The husband comes home drunk and won't take no for an answer verses some stranger abducts her, beats her, rapes her, kills her. In the first situation she can leave him, maybe even have him arrested. (The majority of US states won't even charge a man with "marital rape", but rather spousal abuse or something else. Especially if they're living together.). In the second scenario, she's dead.

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.

Few men need a gun to overpower a woman. Men are stronger than women. HE DOESN'T NEED THE GUN!

 

[spidergoat]

I'm still trying to figure out how you would use a gun for "farming purposes".

It's kind of pointless to outlaw guns now, there are so many of them everywhere.

 

[Bells]

THAT'S your response? Instead of addressing my comment that homicides and armed robberies are up, you just repeat the same old debunked argument like a broken record?

I'll put this very simply. Even if a decrease in gun violence was correlated with these new laws (something which remains speculative), that is not evidence of causation. And even if such a thing were true, you need to explain why an increase in homicides and robberies is a good trade off for a decrease in gun violence.

I have a funny feeling you won't address this indiscrepancy in your argument.

I didn't address it sweetheart because I assumed you had the ability to figure it out. It seems I misjudged you. An increase in homicides and robberies is not directly attributed or caused by Australia's gun laws.

Now, unless you have some proof that gun restrictions somehow equals more homicides and robberies in Australia, your point is quite moot.

On the contrary, if guns were more widely available in Australia, there would most probably be more homicides and robberies, not less.

By your logic, they should not have interfered in the first place, as that just made the situation worse. Because of their interference, the thug shot the woman he was car jacking, as well as the two interveners.

He wasn't carjacking her MH. It was a domestic and he was abusing her after getting out of a taxi with her. The two gentlemen stopped to render assistance and he pulled a gun and shot them.

Or perhaps the woman getting jacked could have pulled a gun and shot him. Your notion that every man and his dog would pull a gun and start shooting aimlessly into a crowd in response to a car jacking suggests that YOU have been watching to many movies.

Personally, if I were attacked by a thug, I'd rather be armed than unarmed. Don't you feel the same way?

Again, it wasn't a carjacking. Don't you even read your own links?

Early in the morning on June 18, a man was involved in the assault of an exotic dancer, Autumn Daly-Holt, who worked in the nearby Spearmint Rhino club[6]. After seeing her dancing erotically the man assaulted Ms Daly-Holt in a King Street bar called Barcode. Following the assault, the man was alleged to have caught a taxi with Kaera Douglas (a 24 year-old Sydney model and travel consultant) who was a friend of Ms Daly-Holt. The man and Ms Douglas who were said to be involved in an apparent relationship[7], became involved in an argument in which caused the taxi to pull over on the corner of Flinders Lane and Williams Street[8]. Two male bystanders came to the assistance of Ms Douglas after noticing she was in distress. As a result, the two men and Ms Douglas were shot by the male involved.

From your own link
​

Get it now?

You are saying it would have been better if the three victims had been armed. Firstly the dispute between the shooter and the woman began in a taxi. After he pulled over and ordered them out of his car, the dispute continued on the footpath. The two bystanders, seeing she was upset, approached and attempted to calm the situation down. The shooter than pulled out his gun and shot them. So how exactly would this situation have been made better with guns? She pull the gun on him in the cab? The two bystanders approach with guns drawn, ordering her away from the distressed woman? Can you see now what I was getting at?

Correct.

Why?

False. But it's clear that we are not going to agree on this. For some strange reason, you think that disarming a population and hence nullifying their ability to defend themselves is not a violation of their basic autonomy.

No we won't agree on this issue. Nothing new since we rarely agree on anything. Personally, I believe that arming a population will result in more deaths. Domestic violence would be a bigger issue if there were firearms in the house, for example.

Did I say that? A check of a purchaser's history to determine if they have a history of violence is sensible and fair. Requiring them to have a valid reason to purchase a firearm is not.

I disagree. For example, would you sell a gun to someone who answered thus to a question about why he might want a firearm?

I have/want a gun to fulfill certain peoples' destinies.​

I would say no, personally. How about you? Now we can imagine he was joking. At least I hope he was. But what if you simply could not tell if they were or not. You'd still sell that individual a gun?

And as I've already explained, imitation guns aren't the only objects that can be used to rob others. Yet these other objects aren't regulated to the same degree that imitation guns are.

Oh, I also notice that you failed to address my observation regarding toy guns. Fancy that.

The "other objects" are regulated to a certain degree. Certain knives are illegal in this country for example.

And yes, I believe I did address your observation about toy guns. Do I think it's gone too far? Maybe. But the fact of the matter is we have had incidents where toy guns were pulled on police. Toy guns have also been used in robberies. The police demanded that such toy imitation guns not be made available. Hence why they were pulled from the market.

You have no idea. You need to be a member of a collector's club for 12 months, you need to go through numerous checks and bullshit paperwork, you need to pay a fee, you need to lock your imitation away in a safe, etc. Why go through all that bullshit to maintain something that's simply going to rust in a safe, out of sight, out of mind?

And again, you have failed to provide a reasonable counter-argument to justify why single-shot pistols are so tightly regulated, whereas far more destructive weapons (ie. axes) are not.

And? So you need to have a thorough background check to own one. Boo hoo frankly.

As for weapons like axes, they are not more deadly than a single-shot pistol.

Again, you need to declare intent. Why isn't that sinking in, Bells?

Oh it has sunk in. What's not sinking into your skull is why is it such an issue for you?

Umm, you need to undergo a little more than just a background check.

And? You need a firearm? You should be responsible and state quite clearly why you need one. Your personal details and records should have a thorough going over to ensure the safety of the general public. I still don't understand why you think this is such a horrible idea.

I'll get to the rest of your post later. Baby's flu just deteriorated into stomach flu and we need to take him to the doctors.

 

[S.A.M.]

What would Jesus do?

 

[iceaura]

Which brings us back to the issue: In order to prevent that, how should a woman view the threat of rape? At what point will people start shooting at one another for looking at each other wrong?

Not a big worry. It hasn't been happening in any of the hundreds of cities that specifically allow concealed carry, for example.

I'm still trying to figure out how you would use a gun for "farming purposes".

Shooting varmints and killing animals. Trimming trees. Accessorizing one's outfit when greeting salesmen and missionaries at the door.

This Supreme Court ruling doesn't make much difference to the current state of gun ownership in the US. There is no flood of guns waiting for this permission to happen.

And if read closely there's a strange feel to it - in addition to the 5/4 vote on a no-brainer, some of the language seemed a bit weak, when I read it.

You should be responsible and state quite clearly why you need one. Your personal details and records should have a thorough going over to ensure the safety of the general public. I still don't understand why you think this is such a horrible idea.

No one should have to explain to a government official why they need to do something that is within their Constitutional rights.

Case in point: Minnesota's concealed-carry permits were issued on a "prove you need one" basis until recently. So any white man who carried cash on his job could get one. And guys like one of my co-workers could get them - he told his local sheriff that he sometimes had to park his work truck in a neighborhood with a lot of niggers. But nonwhite nonmen without money to protect, such as the hotel maids waiting for buses at 2AM ? No permit for them. They might shoot somebody, it was feared.

 

[Bells]

My apologies MH. Sick child takes precedence.

So you admit that knives, machetes and syringes can be used to rob stores. Excellent. So why aren't they regulated to the same degree that imitation pistols are?

Knives are regulated in this country. It is illegal to own or buy certain types of knives. And if you are spotted walking around with a machete or a knife in a public place, you can be arrested.

Same with a gun. If you are spotted walking around with a gun, you'll probably be stopped by the police. As goes for a syringe or machete, or an axe.

My fingers are far from soft, sweat and pudgy. They are the fingers of Superman, made of steel!

Have to use an angle grinder to trim the nails?

But wait, for all that experience, you've never had a gun barrel pressed against the small of your back? So how on earth would you know what it feels like?

I think I could tell the difference between a hard metal object and a finger. I doubt they make spongy guns.

And how on Earth would the millions of Australians who have far less experience than you know what having a gun pressed into their back feels like? I know I sure as hell don't. If someone pressed anything into my back and told me they had a gun, I'd play it safe and assume that they did.

For all of your bluster, you really do have a habit of failing to actually type a response which answers the actual issues being discussed.

If you can't tell the difference between a finger and a gun, then you have issues MH. Another hard object like a thin piece of pipe, yes, then I'd agree with you, it would be hard to tell the difference. But a finger? Dude..

Wait... so now 'whatever' can be used to rob a person?! So why isn't 'whatever' regulated to the same degree as imitation pistols?

You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper, Bells.

Refer to above.

That's a matter of opinion. Since I .consider the option to own a firearm part of basic autonomy of the individual, I'd class it as (at worst) analogous to human rights

I disagree.

*sigh*

I'll put this in real big letters, Bells.

RURAL =/= FARMER

I repeat, living in rural and remote areas does not mean that one is a farmer. For example, my family live in the countryside, yet we do not have a farm. It's not hard to fathom, Bells, lots of people live in the scrub.

You referred to farmers above.. those who live in highly remote regions. If your parents wish to apply for a firearms license for shooting game or sick livestock for example, they may be able to acquire one. You can always ask at your local police station.

---------------------------------------------------------------

No one should have to explain to a government official why they need to do something that is within their Constitutional rights.

lepustimidus was discussing the regulations regarding firearms in Australia. And in Australia, the right to own a gun is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Ergo, it is not a Constitutional right as far as Australia is concerned.

---------------------------------------------------------------

What would Jesus do?

Gunned down those against him of course. 'You wanna crucify me?.. Crucify this!!'.. *Boom*

 

[Asguard]

bells i always used to worry about being arested on the train on the way home from work because i always had to take my knives to and from work

 

[Buffalo Roam]

You referred to farmers above.. those who live in highly remote regions. If your parents wish to apply for a firearms license for shooting game or sick livestock for example, they may be able to acquire one. You can always ask at your local police station.

may be able to acquire one.

They have to justify a need, and then hope that the Authorities agree?

lepustimidus was discussing the regulations regarding firearms in Australia. And in Australia, the right to own a gun is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Ergo, it is not a Constitutional right as far as Australia is concerned.

But it is a right under English Common Law, and the English Bill of Rights, Read Blackstone, and History.

By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had
become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm
122–134. 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;

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution,
the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in
using select militias loyal to them to suppress political
dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J.
Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter
Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights,
1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game
Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general
disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant
enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences
caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated
military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their
arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William
and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was
codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed:

Austrilian law, after all is nothing if not English Law, and as ex Englishmen you had the right to keep and Bear arms, in a The English Bill of Rights, which transfer to You when Austrilia became a independent State.

Some where you allowed these right be taken from you, and no have to wait for the authorities to come to you rescue, and the authorities have no compulsatory duty to defemd you as a individual, only the peace of the public at large.

Even in Austrilia That is the Law.

Gunned down those against him of course. 'You wanna crucify me?.. Crucify this!!'.. *Boom*

:bugeye::crazy:

Matthew 26:53 Or do you think that I couldn't ask my Father, and he would even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?

 

[Bells]

They have to justify a need, and then hope that the Authorities agree?

In short, yes.

For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence isn't accepted as a reason for issuing a licence.
From the idiots guide to gun laws in Australia

That site is actually a fairly good breakdown to Australian gun laws and why we have them. It gives arguments for both sides basically.

But it is a right under English Common Law, and the English Bill of Rights, Read Blackstone, and History.

------------------------------------------------------

Austrilian law, after all is nothing if not English Law, and as ex Englishmen you had the right to keep and Bear arms, in a The English Bill of Rights, which transfer to You when Austrilia became a independent State.

Some where you allowed these right be taken from you, and no have to wait for the authorities to come to you rescue, and the authorities have no compulsatory duty to defemd you as a individual, only the peace of the public at large.

Even in Austrilia That is the Law.

Doesn't work that way BR. You need to understand the concept of common law and its acceptance in Australia.

Firstly, while Australia has a common law system, statutes will trump common law in the Australian legal system. And while the right to bear arms may have been mentioned in the English Bill of Rights, Australia did not accept said "Bill" when we became an independent nation. We formed our own constitution without a Bill of Rights. Any precedents that may have existed under common law in regards to the right to bear arms was trumped by the gun laws that the State Government and the Federal Governments in Australia decided to adopt. You also need to take into account that the framers of Australia's Constitution rejected the idea of incorporating a Bill of Rights into the Constitution, preferring instead for rights and protection to be conferred by the States and Federal Parliament.

Another thing you need to realise is that the laws of the UK have absolutely no bearing in Australia. And the English Bill of Rights is a law enacted by the British Parliament in 1689. The laws of the UK ceased to have any bearing in Australian law in 1986, when Australia cut its final legal ties with Britain with the passing of the Australia Act 1986.

I hope that has cleared up some of your confusion in regards to the Australian legal system.