Supreme Court Upholds Gun Right

[Buffalo Roam]

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Buffalo, I wouldn't worry about Bells and Asguard. A lot of my fellow Australians have been brainwashed into believing that guns are of the devil.

I think it is also appropriate for me to point out that anti-gun laws are discriminatory against those who live in rural areas. But hey, who cares about those jerks in the country?

But it is fun to blow them out of the water.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

 

[Mr. G]

sounds like the origional drafter wouldnt have expected normal citizans to have weapons at all

You always skip over the "well regulated" portion of that which means that the STATE regulates the millarty and who is armed

Well regulated means well aimed.

Why are your lips still moving?

 

[lepustimidus]

bells your never going to win this argument. I have tried and even tiassa seems to be what we would concider a right wing gun nut here on this issue.

for some reason in the US they dont seem to see being politically informed as the real protection against tirany rather than how many AK's one has. The political optunity that howard used after port authur was one of the best decisions he ever made. To manipulate public sentiment like that for the good of the country rather than (as he usually did) for his own good was amazing to watch.

give thanks every day that we live in a country where the worst vilonce to ever happen against the state was the eurica stockade. We have always found solutions through politics rather than through vilonce

Yeah, I think it's great when politicians take advantage of public hysteria to limit the rights of citizens.

Ever stop to think that if concealed carry were allowed, one of those victims at Port Arthur might have just pulled out a handgun and blown that murdering fucker's head off, hence stopping the massacre? We would have also been spared of wasting taxpayer money on giving him a trial, and then imprisoning him.

Granted, what I have proposed is a bit hypothetical (although a reasonable one, IMHO). Yet I think we both agree that if the victims had been armed, they would have fared a better chance of survival.

Anti-gun laws are a joke. Although it sounds cliche, the observation that anti-gun laws disarm law abiding citizens, while leaving criminals armed is grounded in fact.

If people like you and Bells don't like guns, DON'T BUY THEM. But don't go meddling on my right to own one.

 

[Asguard]

really, since when could a 6 year old carry a handgun in ANY country?

he hunted down CHILDREN like animals and the laws of the country alowed him the weaponry to do it. No i dont agree with you and howards move was one of about 2 decisions i actually CHEER him for.

The other being the protection of timor

 

[Bells]

Yeah, I think it's great when politicians take advantage of public hysteria to limit the rights of citizens.

Ever stop to think that if concealed carry were allowed, one of those victims at Port Arthur might have just pulled out a handgun and blown that murdering fucker's head off, hence stopping the massacre? We would have also been spared of wasting taxpayer money on giving him a trial, and then imprisoning him.

Granted, what I have proposed is a bit hypothetical (although a reasonable one, IMHO). Yet I think we both agree that if the victims had been armed, they would have fared a better chance of survival.

Anti-gun laws are a joke. Although it sounds cliche, the observation that anti-gun laws disarm law abiding citizens, while leaving criminals armed is grounded in fact.

If people like you and Bells don't like guns, DON'T BUY THEM. But don't go meddling on my right to own one.

You do realise the drastic changes in the gun laws in Australia happened after Port Arthur, don't you?

And tell me MH, how many massacres have there been in Australia since those laws were changed?

You're missing the point of today's lesson.

The 2nd Amendment specifically was written to permit us to protect ourselves from morons who would argue the belief that we really don't need the 2nd Amendment.

Some people 200 years ago were way smarter than you. They could see you coming.

So can we.

Feeling lucky?

You left out "punk". If you're going to take a quote out of context, at least have the decency to get the stupid quote correct.

Oh yeah, I'd trust you with a gun about as much as I'd trust my two year old with a bowl of chocolate biscuits. You do realise that you are not exactly representing the side for pro-gun ownership in a good light when you make such comments, don't you?

Now Tiassa do some research into the Islam, it is a religion of conquest, it has always been so.

Dar'al Harb (or Dar'ul Harb -arab. House of War): All countries and areas, in which Moslems do not have the power yet. In Islam the world is uncompromisingly divided between dar al-Islam, the House of Islam, and dar al-Harb, the House of War, where infidels have not yet been subjugated to Islam. The Jihad is the “struggle” to expand Islam, to create the conditions where Moslems may rule, and Islam may prevail. It has no end, until its goal is reached, whatever periods of quiescence must be observed. The deceptive Islam means Peace is thus part of the Jihad.

Dar'al Islam (or Dar'ul Islam -arab. House of Peace): All countries in the present or in the past to be Islamic controlled. Therefore also Spain, the Balkans and Israel belong to dar-al-Islam. Whenever Moslems talk about Islam as peaceful, they really mean the entire world ruled by Allah, nothing less. Places or lands of infidels aren't so pacified until they are ruled solely by the Sharia.

Dawa (Dawad or D'awa): Request to join Islam, last ultimatum before 'legitimate' conquest by force.

Which has what to do with your constitutional rights to bare arms again?

Is there a link between that right and Islam in general? Or are you one of those people who live in fear and always carries a weapon in case one of them 'dusky Arabs' looks at you funny?

 

[lepustimidus]

Asguard:

really, since when could a 6 year old carry a handgun in ANY country?

Do you know what happened in the Port Arthur massacre, Asguard? I suggest you review it. The psycho didn't target children all on their lonesome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

At ANY point during those events of the massacre, had even one person had a concealed firearm, they could have shot him and ended it.

he hunted down CHILDREN like animals and the laws of the country alowed him the weaponry to do it.

Australians murder each other with machetes, axes and knives as well. Adults have killed children with their bare hands. What's your point?

 

[lepustimidus]

Bells:

You do realise the drastic changes in the gun laws in Australia happened after Port Arthur, don't you?

Yes. The hysteria from the Port Arthur massacre was exploited to change those laws.

And tell me MH, how many massacres have there been in Australia since those laws were changed?

How many terrorist attacks have there been in America since the Patriot act was introduced, and Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded? None.

I have a rock I want to sell you, Bells. It keeps tigers away...

 

[lepustimidus]

BTW, wasn't there a shooting at Monash long after the anti-gun laws were introduced?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

Wait, I know the answer. RESTRICT GUNS MORE! Because obviously that works.

DUH.

 

[Asguard]

there have been aproxamatly 3 mass shootings in australia to my knowlage (though maybe the russal street bombings should be included here)

port authur was the worst ever, much worse than the hoddle street killings by Knight. As for the monash shootings you want to know something, one of the old members HERE was there i belive (well i know he was on campus, dont know if he was actually in the shootings). He was also ex navy and there for trained to kill. You know what he told me after it? He hid because there was nothing he could do.

As for your artical try this one:

Since the start of 1987 it could be said that Australia is in a gun massacre phase. The book by Crook & Harding titled Gun Massacres in Australia presents the view that Australia has only obtained stricter gun laws following a serious gun massacre. We quote from the foreword of this book:

Gun Massacre is not a neutral term, but it is impersonal. Killing is a very personal action and the 32 killings examined in this book are as much about killers as anything else. Each killer was a male between 15 and 55 years of age.

The fact that 14 of the 32 men committed suicide is an indication that punishment is not a satisfactory deterrent. Many of those serving "life" will be free again in a few years, whilst the loved ones of those they killed will take the scars to their graves. Once again, punishment is not a satisfactory deterrent.

Of the 141 killed, 69 were female and 72 were male. Twenty of the 141 were children under 18 years of age.

In the eleven years between January 1987 and January 1998, Australia experienced about three gun massacres per year; on average, four people died in each of these massacres. The only other western nation to experience such a massacre rate is America. Why is it then, that some Gun Lobby groups are trying to have American gun availability duplicated in Australia?

Gun Lobby leaders want us to believe that criminals and psychiatrically disturbed people are the main cause of the gun problem. The evidence in these 32 examples indicates that such a view is incorrect. Only four of the 32 killers had a criminal conviction, and only three had recognised psychiatric problems. Nearly all of them appeared to be "quite nice guys". Victorian Law Commission research showed that only 7% of those who committed homicide had a record of psychiatric problems.

http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=8

 

[Bells]

BTW, wasn't there a shooting at Monash long after the anti-gun laws were introduced?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

Wait, I know the answer. RESTRICT GUNS MORE! Because obviously that works.

DUH.

Yes. 1 mass shooting before stricter handgun laws were introduced. The purpose of the gun laws after the Port Arthur shootings was to ensure people, like Bryant, would be unable to buy their weapons in a gun shop. Bryant did not use illegal weapons during his shooting rampage. He was an honest, law abiding citizen prior to that. As was the guy who killed 2 and injured 5 in Monash.

And MH, the laws were brought in after mounting public opinion and pressure. You forget or may have been too young to remember the fact that there had been mass shootings in Sydney and Victoria years behorehand. In short, the Australian public was sick of the fact that ordinary citizens could simply walk in and buy their weapons from a gun shop and then decide to go on a shooting rampage. Oh yeah, and a final point:

Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have remained relatively static for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[14]

In 1997, the Prime Minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology to analyse of the effects of the gun buyback. Since then, a number of papers have been published reporting trends and statistics around legal gun ownership and gun crime, which they have found to be mostly related to illegally-held firearms.[15][16] In 2003, a sporting shooters' organisation argued that no benefit-cost analysis of the "buyback" has been published.[17] In 2007, researchers at the Australian National University reported "There were on average 250 fewer firearm deaths per year after the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement than would have been expected," There was a reduction in both murders and suicides. This report criticised an earlier report from two shooters' organisations on methodological grounds,[18]. The Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia disputes these claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Port_Arthur_massacre

 

[Asguard]

There was a shooting in sydney?

i dont rember that at all. As to the one in victoria im assuming your talking about knight

 

[madanthonywayne]

All right you Aussies, you're going to just have to accept the fact that Americans regard guns as the last and best defense against a tyrannical government.

Don't forget, we actually overthrew what we considered a tyrannical government that was (at the time) the most powerful in the world by force of arms using an army composed of mainly regular people.

So this idea is burned into our souls. Violent revolution gave birth to our nation and we regard it as our duty and right as free men to pass judgement upon any tyrannical government that should arise on our soil by taking up arms against it.

This idea has (finally) been affirmed by our highest court. We're not changing our minds on this one. We won't complain about your vegemite.

You don't complain about our guns.

 

[lepustimidus]

Yes. 1 mass shooting before stricter handgun laws were introduced.

Yep, I was quite aware of that. My point was that a mass shooting occured AFTER tighter gun laws were implemented in response to the Port Arthur massacre. Fancy that.

The purpose of the gun laws after the Port Arthur shootings was to ensure people, like Bryant, would be unable to buy their weapons in a gun shop.

But they didn't stop the shooting at Monash. What's your answer to that, Bells? Oh wait, I already know, more anti-gun laws.

And MH, the laws were brought in after mounting public opinion and pressure.

They were brought in due to a paranoid populance and a nanny government.

Oh yeah, and a final point:

As always, statistics are open to interpretation.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/failed/FailedExperimentRev.pdf

Following shocking killings in 1996, the Australian government
made sweeping changes to the firearm legislation
in 1997. Unfortunately, the recent firearm regulations
have not made the streets of Australia any safer.
The total homicide rate, after having remained basically
flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again.
The decline in homicide rate in the gun-permissive United
States stands out against the trend in Australia.
The divergence between Australia and the United
States is even more apparent with violent crime. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing
in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall
rate of violent crime in Australia has continued to
increase. Robbery and armed robbery rates continue to
rise. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide.
The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms
cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million.
The costs of the police services bureaucracy, including
the hugely costly infrastructure of the gun registration
system, has increased by $200 million since 1997. And
for what? There has been no visible impact on violent
crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of
the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that
kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol
cars, shorter shifts, or maybe even better equipment.
Think of how many lives might have been saved.

 

[Asguard]

Mad actually its not OUR vegimite anymore more. You bloody yanks BOUGHT it

its YOUR vegimite

 

[madanthonywayne]

Mad actually its not OUR vegimite anymore more. You bloody yanks BOUGHT it

its YOUR vegimite

LOL We may have bought it, but only to make money selling it back to you one bottle at a time!

 

[lepustimidus]

... He was also ex navy and there for trained to kill. You know what he told me after it? He hid because there was nothing he could do.

Yeah, there isn't much you can do against someone armed with a gun, if you yourself are unarmed. Thanks for making my point for me, Asguard.

 

[Asguard]

ok another point. Now bells can correct me if im wrong but the hoddle street masicure was right out the front of THE FUCKING POLICE HEAD QUATERS (i think)

If more guns were the solution how could he shoot so many people right there?

 

[lepustimidus]

I doubt it.

What did occur: Police officers with guns arrived at the site of the massacre. They then gave chase to Knight, who promptly fled because he was actually getting shot back at, and then he surrendered when cornered. Fancy that.

Do you think Knight would have surrendered had the police officers been unarmed, Asguard? Give me a break.