Supreme Court Upholds Gun Right

[lepustimidus]

So you have no problem with concealed carry of handguns, Challenger?

 

[S.A.M.]

Still can't carry them on airplanes.

 

[Asguard]

challanger, serial killers are compleatly different from mass murders. Serial killers kill over a LONG period of time and target only 1 or 2 people at a time. Mass murders tend to either shoot it out with the police or kill themselves as well where as serial killers make it VERY hard for the police to catch them or taunt the police to catch them

The snow town murders were done by a serial killer where as the hoddle street killings were the work of a mass murder

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Yes, I am too stupid to read a legal decision. You have found me out. I hope, someday, to aspire to your level of legal acumen, though I also hope to get there with a little less frustration than you seem to be feeling.

Yes, I am too stupid to read a legal decision

It would seem so, if you read the SCOTUS decision why all the stupid question?

The Decision does a step by step explanation as to how is was rendered.

If you had read the Decision:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

It is explained in the decision, that the natural intent, and interpretation is what was being upheld, they did this with a little lesson in word definition, and english grammar, and a very good history lesson in previous legal decisions by State and Federal Courts.

It is fully explained that the 2nd Amendment as written, is the affermation the right of self defence, as a natural right of man, from protecting his home, to protecting his freedom.

Also that the natural right of a free man is to have the ability to defend himself from his government, plus to aid his government in time of need.

Again, though, I am happy with the decision and never once suggested that the second amendment was a collective right, however I hope the Court came up with a better argument on including the right of gun ownership for self-defense purposes than something akin to the syllogism:

You are happy with the decision? :scratchin: Then why the tone and bent of the question's?

Again, though, I am happy with the decision

Don't sound very happy do we?

Originally Posted by Pandaemoni
Nonetheless, the point is that the passage quoted has zip to do with self defense, and the Heller majority did not say that you have a right (individual or otherwise) to oppose the federal government on grounds of tyranny.

And if you had read the Decision, you would find that zip.

 

[Mr. G]

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.

Actually, I used "punk" in a neighboring thread just before that post.

If you had read around some more you would have had all the context you needed.

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.

Or as much as you know you own context.

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?

You do know that being lectured by those with limited attention to detail is far less persuasive than you would have us believe?

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

You have nothing to do with my Constitutional right to bear arms. You are not of any necessary context.

Nor is your question.

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?

I married a muslim. She married me.

Whatever you think you know of me is far less than you know of me.

What you do not know is what I know about certain muslims from up close.

And I also know you're just a punk.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

challanger, serial killers are compleatly different from mass murders. Serial killers kill over a LONG period of time and target only 1 or 2 people at a time. Mass murders tend to either shoot it out with the police or kill themselves as well where as serial killers make it VERY hard for the police to catch them or taunt the police to catch them

The snow town murders were done by a serial killer where as the hoddle street killings were the work of a mass murder

And both of them were not hindered by the Law, the first set of Law's,

1. It is illegal to commit murder of your fellow citizen.

the second set Law's

2. The many laws in force in Australia at the time concerning the acquisition and possession of fire arms.

AEI - Short Publications - Oversight Hearing on the District of ...
After the ban, armed robberies stopped falling and started rising. [Table 9]. Australia also saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 Port Arthur ...
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.22768/pub_detail.asp

Australia also saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 Port Arthur gun-control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) [Table 10] than they did the year before the law went into effect.[5] Armed robbery rates increased 74%. According to the International Crime Victimization Survey, Australia's violent crime rate is also now double that of the U.S.[6]

Twice As Dangerous

The laws didn't do what was claimed. The British government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%.[3] According to the International Crime Victimization Survey, the violent crime rate in England and Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the U.S.[4] A figure published in the Economist Magazine last year (January 3, 2004) clearly illustrates how armed robberies were changing in Britain before and after their January 1997 handgun ban. Prior to the ban, armed robberies were falling dramatically. After the ban, armed robberies stopped falling and started rising. [Table 9

]

 

[S.A.M.]

So who is doing these surveys?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Someone please explain why you would need 30 bullets to kill a serial killer ? I suppose one or two from a revolver would do it, and then you'd have to stop to reload... So hence, just ban assualt, weapons, rifles, grenades ,etc.

Because that is not the only point of intent, of the Second Amendment, one of the major point's is that of supplying a armed body of men, to the government, in case if invasion, or other large scale breaches of the safety of the nation.

Not to forget, it is also to balance the Federal Governments power, as a safe guard to the formation a tyrannical government.

That is why the Militia is charged with having weapons of military caliber, and construction, and the ammunition to service those weapons.

 

[Asguard]

some american think tank from there website. I would much rather see statistics from the ABS, the police ect but no one ever accused BR of having any sort of achademic integrity

 

[Buffalo Roam]

some american think tank from there website. I would much rather see statistics from the ABS, the police ect but no one ever accused BR of having any sort of achademic integrity

As to academic integrity, you post show just how great your is, and those numbers used in the article were obtained from the official crime reports of the Australian Government.


Rising Crime in Australia by Lucy Sullivan [PM39] - $13.95 : Zen ...
Jul 23, 2006 ... Rising Crime in Australia This book provides a long-term perspective on crime. For much of the twentieth century crime rates were in decline ...
https://www.sslcis.org/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=89

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=89161

NCJ Number: NCJ 089161
Title: Crime and Imprisonment - A Two-Decade Comparison Between England and Wales and Australia
Journal: British Journal of Criminology Volume:23 Issue:2 DatedApril 1983) Pages:166-172

Author(s): D Biles
Publication Date: 1983
Pages: 7
Type: Studies/research reports
Origin: United Kingdom
Language: English
Annotation: An analysis of crime rates and imprisonment rates in Britain (England and Wales) and Australia during the 1960's and 1970's reveals similarities regarding rising crime rates but contrasting trends in the use of imprisonment; this suggests that lower imprisonment rates have no impact on the level of public safety.
Abstract: The crime rate for England and Wales increased by over 177 percent between 1960 and 1979, while the prison population grew by 45 percent. The crime rate in Australia between 1964 and 1979 increased by 180 percent, but the number of prisoners decreased by approximately 9 percent. Statistical analyses demonstrate that for England and Wales, any measure of reported crime could be used to predict the level of imprisonment without a span of at least 3 years with a fair degree of accuracy. However, Australia's reported crime rate is a negative predictor of imprisonment rates 3 years later, and lagging the rate has the effect of shrinking the correlation. Thus, changes in Australia's imprisonment rate have no effect on the crime rates over the next 1, 2, or 3 years. Possible explanations for the Australian findings include the exclusion of minor offenses for which courts can impose incarceration from official crime data and riots and disturbances in prisons which made judges more aware of overcrowding problems. Another theory proposes that increasing crime rates burden the criminal justice system and force police and prosecutors to seek convictions for lesser offenses which are processed more quickly, thereby decreasing penalties. These explanations are not totally satisfactory, since England and Wales have experienced similar problems. Since the lower imprisonment rates did not increase crime in Australia, more strenuous efforts should be made to reduce populations in England and Wales. Graphs, tables, and six references are included.

 

[Mr. G]

Because that is not the only point of intent, of the Second Amendment, one of the major point's is that of supplying a armed body of men, to the government, in case if invasion, or other large scale breaches of the safety of the nation.

Dude,

I'm not going to enjoy this:

The 2nd Amendment is all about our natural ability to protect ourselves from government, not about our aiding and abetting it.

The 2nd says nothing about our natural inclinations to defensive patriotism.

Don't over-generalize.

You know: Trust, but verify.

Carry on.

 

[S.A.M.]

What are the sources based on?

 

[TW Scott]

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

Asguard, think on this for a moment. The man who survives and succeeds in life is the man that prepares for the worst but prays for the best. Both the politacal activits and the gun nut have it wrong. They are only planning on one thing to save their asses. You have to be both to be a responsible citizen. You have to reamin politically informed and you must prepare for the day where someone slipped past your radar.

 

[Mr. G]

What are the sources based on?

What is the compelling basis of the beliefs of non-Americans that Americans must comply with the gratuitous demands of non-Americans for our compliance on anything?

 

[S.A.M.]

When did this become an American discussion forum?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Dude,

I'm not going to enjoy this:

The 2nd Amendment is all about our natural ability to protect ourselves from government, not about our aiding and abetting it.

Read the federalist papers again, yes first and foremost, the Second Amendment is a check and balance against government tyranny, but it also so that there is a available force in time of dire need, invasion, insurrection, natural disaster, that the Government can call up.

The 2nd says nothing about our natural inclinations to defensive patriotism.

Don't over-generalize.

You know: Trust, but verify.

Carry on.

I was not referencing the natural inclination to defend ones self, I was referencing the natural right, given by the creator, that exist to all free men, to exercise the right of self defence, by having the means at hand to accomplish that defence.

That statement is in the history of the constitutional debates, when the Bill of Rights was being written.

Again read the SCOTUS decision, and the Federalist Papers, and Blackstone.

The Second Amendment is a generalized statement, it recognizes all the rights of a free man to be armed, for defence, (Be that as a defence against a tyrannical Government, or a Intruder in the night, or a invading force against the nation.), and that is done with the statement that, these rights shall not be infringed.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

What are the sources based on?

Can you red simple english?

Author(s): D Biles
Publication Date: 1983
Pages: 7
Type: Studies/research reports
Origin: United Kingdom

 

[S.A.M.]

Based on? The author went around counting?

 

[Mr. G]

Read the federalist papers again, yes first and foremost, the Second Amendment is a check and balance against government tyranny, but it also so that there is a available force in time of dire need, invasion, insurrection, natural disaster, that the Government can call up.

The 2nd tells the Fed it can't infringe on our natural rights to defend ourselves from even it.

It only implies that's a good idea if the Fed believes it might ever need a willing militia for its defense.

Dude.

 

[Mr. G]

When did this become an American discussion forum?

When you made it an American-bashing forum.

Funny you should whine about blowback.