Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Originally posted by AntiNWO

Absolutely wrong. The 2nd Amendment was written with the future in mind, not the present. You obviously have no understanding of American History.

So were the founders idiots?
Or were they setting up the American people for a huge fall?
Which was it?

Neither, though I don't doubt for a second that you know that.

The 2A is a balance or power-checking mechanism. It doesn't necessarily need to be used but it needs to exist. As long as the "people" can maintain an equality of arms with the "government" then the government operates in the knowledge that they can't impose their will on the people. Goverment, then, would necessarily operate by true consent.

Of course the 2A has been so heavily neutered in key ways that it can no longer serve this purpose. It has shifted from practical to symbolic. Government ceased to be by consent a long time ago. Government now exists to grow and feed itself.

reply to post by nunyadammm

Now as to whether we need floaties, turns out over 35% of americans can't swim!

i was responding to someone elses numbers they posted, as far as no place to swim, were ur at im curious i dont need an address just an area, i refuse to believe u cant go swimming if u want to, if u dont want to, ur part of the 35 percent

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by nunyadammm

 

Now as to whether we need floaties, turns out over 35% of americans can't swim!

i was responding to someone elses numbers they posted, as far as no place to swim, were ur at im curious i dont need an address just an area, i refuse to believe u cant go swimming if u want to, if u dont want to, ur part of the 35 percent

I know what you were responding to.

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
35 percent of Americans dont give a sh*t about there kids and or those that cant swim never had a parent to teach them one way or another, there is a place to swim everywhere u go in America indoor or out,

Do you see the difference?
So I want to know where you got your 35% from.

Originally posted by EvillerBob
Neither, though I don't doubt for a second that you know that.

The 2A is a balance or power-checking mechanism. It doesn't necessarily need to be used but it needs to exist. As long as the "people" can maintain an equality of arms with the "government" then the government operates in the knowledge that they can't impose their will on the people. Goverment, then, would necessarily operate by true consent.

Of course the 2A has been so heavily neutered in key ways that it can no longer serve this purpose. It has shifted from practical to symbolic. Government ceased to be by consent a long time ago. Government now exists to grow and feed itself.

What a bunch of #.
What are you really going to do against the government with your guns?
If the founders were looking to the future, they knew damn well that the government would always have bigger and better weapons than just men with guns. Do you really think you are armed enough to defend yourself against a government invasion?

Originally posted by nunyadammm

If the founders were looking to the future, they knew damn well that the government would always have bigger and better weapons than just men with guns.

Indeed, to which a sensible response (from men who had just won their freedom at gunpoint from another government) would be to somehow codify and ensure the right for those who followed to have access to all the same weapons as the government. They might even give it a snazzy title, like "the second amendment".

The issue with the 2A isn't that it wouldn't work if put into effect, but that it is no longer capable of working. It has been interpreted and reinterpreted into little more than an interesting legal point for internet arguments and pub lawyers.

Originally posted by EvillerBob
Indeed, to which a sensible response (from men who had just won their freedom at gunpoint from another government) would be to somehow codify and ensure the right for those who followed to have access to all the same weapons as the government. They might even give it a snazzy title, like "the second amendment".

The second amendment does not do that.

The issue with the 2A isn't that it wouldn't work if put into effect, but that it is no longer capable of working. It has been interpreted and reinterpreted into little more than an interesting legal point for internet arguments and pub lawyers.

The problem is you are wrong.

reply to post by nunyadammm


Just search "how many people can't swim", most places seem to say 36% for US... but it was supposed to be a joke, in response to splitinfinity saying aussies need floaties. My set is bright pink with polka dots

Originally posted by nunyadammm
So were the founders idiots?
Or were they setting up the American people for a huge fall?
Which was it?

Neither, but nice try.

The founders knew that any government, no matter how carefully assembled, is capable of becoming more and more corrupt until the people decide to revolt. They made sure that if we came to that point that we, the people, would have many more guns than the government. And we do.

Originally posted by AntiNWO
Neither, but nice try.

The founders knew that any government, no matter how carefully assembled, is capable of becoming more and more corrupt until the people decide to revolt. They made sure that if we came to that point that we, the people, would have many more guns than the government. And we do.

What fantasy land did you just crawl out of?
How do you even begin to think you have the government outgunned?
I guess all the righties crying about drones in the US are making that up?
I guess our military does not have better technology and weapons than my neighbor?
Or maybe you are delusional?

Originally posted by spoogemonkey
reply to post by nunyadammm

 

Just search "how many people can't swim", most places seem to say 36% for US... but it was supposed to be a joke, in response to splitinfinity saying aussies need floaties. My set is bright pink with polka dots

I do not need to look up how many people cannot swim.
What I asked, and asked twice now, was where he got his "35% of Americans do not care about their kids..." from.

Originally posted by nunyadammm
What fantasy land did you just crawl out of?
How do you even begin to think you have the government outgunned?
I guess all the righties crying about drones in the US are making that up?
I guess our military does not have better technology and weapons than my neighbor?
Or maybe you are delusional?

Struck a nerve , did I?

There are well over 300,000,000 guns (and counting) in the hands of American civilians.
There are a total of 857,261 military personnel. Triple the number if you want. Still applies.

Seeing as each one can only fire one gun at a time, they are outnumbered by 299,142,739 guns. Was that simple enough for you? You see, it's called math. You may want to try it sometime, as it's a very handy thing to know.

Now here's a lesson in reading comprehention: I said we "have more guns", not that we have them outgunned.

It's you who is delusional, or dumb, take your pick. In any case, trying to twist the words of the founders was a fail, trying to twist my words was a fail. Just give it up.

Originally posted by AntiNWO
Struck a nerve , did I?

Not that I know of. Why would you say that? Make you feel cooler?

There are well over 300,000,000 guns (and counting) in the hands of American civilians.
There are a total of 857,261 military personnel. Triple the number if you want. Still applies.

Guns, got it.

Seeing as each one can only fire one gun at a time, they are outnumbered by 299,142,739 guns. Was that simple enough for you? You see, it's called math. You may want to try it sometime, as it's a very handy thing to know.

Well it is stupid is what it is. I am not comparing guns to guns. I am comparing you and your guns to drones and tanks.

Now here's a lesson in reading comprehention: I said we "have more guns", not that we have them outgunned.

I never said you wrote the word "outgunned" so I have no clue what you think you are reading but it is spelled "comprehension."

It's you who is delusional, or dumb, take your pick. In any case, trying to twist the words of the founders was a fail, trying to twist my words was a fail. Just give it up.

edit on 8/13/2012 by AntiNWO because: senior moment

Calm the # down.
I never twisted anyone's words. I just pointed out that the founders left you hanging. Sorry it pisses you off but take it up with them.

Originally posted by nunyadammm
I never said you wrote the word "outgunned" so I have no clue what you think you are reading but it is spelled "comprehension."

Remember this?

Originally posted by nunyadammm
What fantasy land did you just crawl out of?
How do you even begin to think you have the government outgunned?

Again, reading comprehension.

In any case, both our comments are right here for anyone who cares to follow the conversation to see for themselves. You've stooped to name calling, correcting my typos, and telling me to "calm down", because the facts don't support your argument, and personal attacks are all you have. Personally, I am satisfied that I made my point and I'm done with you and this thread. Have fun!

Hmmm numbers are a wonderful thing when not taken into proper context..

Australias population has increased by close to 20% since 1996. During that time, Homicide rates have dropped 26.5%, assault (which includes non gun related violence, domestic assault, punching someone at the pub etc) increased 33%, sexual assault increased 18%, robberies decreased 12% and kidnapping/abduction increased 20%.

There is absolutely no conclusive evidence AT ALL in those stats that suggest gun control increases or decreases crime rates. You can verify my quick calculations via Australian Crime: Facts and Figures and via 1996 Census Data and 2010 Census Data for the population sizes.

You could argue that the large decrease in homicides is a sign that gun control worked, but "Homicide" is such a broad category that there's no way of telling how many of those murders were gun related.

My own subjective opinion is that only bad things can come from literally every person walking down the street having an open-carry or concealed weapon. It opens up way too many opportunities for people to snap and take some extreme measures that they otherwise would not have taken. I've never ever felt a need to carry a gun in Australia, I've never felt like my life has been threatened despite living in some pretty shady areas, the general attitude of the Australian populace doesn't compare at all to Americans and our lifestyle is completely different so you can't possibly make a comparison between Australia and the US at all when it comes to guns. Here most of us use guns to either hunt, or take out some targets at a shooting range. We don't have this weird notion that the only way to defend yourself or your home is with an assault rifle with an extended mag and box of varmint grenades.

reply to post by AntiNWO


you dont seem to grasp the difference between numereical " superipority " and being outgunned

One big change you would see in the US if they banned guns is the number of bodies that would never be found..

Instead of calling the cops when you shot a criminal most people that did not turn in there guns would bury there bodies instead.

I am a ex firefighter and i have a couple body bags to load them in and i know of a couple bridges and rocks can be found everwhere

Put body in bag, add rocks, and drop in deep water from bridge.

I wonder how many criminals in Australia are now Croc poop.

According to this site when gun control went into effect in Aus the murder rate trend did not change. It went up, but the trend had been going up already. Nothing really changed either way, the trend did not suddenly dip, nor rise.

SUMMARY: The homicide rates provide no support for a proposition that the ban/buyback has helped. However, they also do not indicate that the ban/buyback caused anything, good or bad.

SUMMARY ON SUICIDE: It appears that the suicide rate and non-gun suicide rate started dropping dramatically in '98, but the gun suicide rate dropped no faster than pre-'96. Because the gun suicide rate did not improve, it could not be argued that the gun ban/buyback had anything to do with the suicide reduction that began in '98. However, some other policy change that was begun via the National Committee on Violence may have had something to do with the overall suicide reduction.

SUMMARY: The assault rate data is inconclusive. Two years ('98 & '99) of the assault rate not rising as fast as it had been does not make a definite trend, especially since the rate then jumped up dramatically for the next year (2000) and rose again rapidly in 2001. The ban/buyback had no perceptible impact on assault rates, neither increasing assault nor decreasing it.

SUMMARY: The rates for both robbery and armed robbery rose faster for a couple of years after '96 than they had before, then stayed higher for several years. The burglary rate appears to have been affected only in '96, although this could easily have been a chance effect. The fall-offs for all three after '01 were too late to be attributed to the '96 gun changes. The chart looks a bit like a short-term increase in robbery may have occurred after '96 until about '04. Maybe criminals were emboldened for a few years by the thought that potential victims would not be able to defend themselves.

www.gunsandcrime.org...

The only crimes that rose a little was robberies. But it's real easy to make the figures appear to support a rise in crime.

Are you kidding me? You ban guns in Australia and the entire continent is killed off by the wildlife that lives there. And I am in no way trying to be joking.

This has gotten out of hand, really.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by mal1970

 

Actually, reconsidering the evidence I see that your only option is to not vote for Barack Obama. I can tell by your tone that you were pretty on the fence about it, but you're sharing this information because you've seen that Mitt Romney is the only safeguard we have at this point.

Thanks.

edit on 7-8-2012 by links234 because: Grammar.

Well actually this is the argument that doesnt cut it. Its not about which party you elect in a democracy. ALL 100% of the parties are bound by the Constitution. It is the Democractic safeguard and ensures that ALL 100% of the elected members do not violate the sovereign inalienable rights of the citizens while in their pubic service employment jobs.

so it shouldn't matter!

This also means, that considering the corrupt murderous fiends in office, that people do alot more work networking, with citizens groups and being very vocal and not complying with bad orders, in between elections.

Because everything doesnt hinge on 1 day where a small minority votes.

As an Aussie let me tell you what happens to answer the OPS question. Nothing changed guns are not off the streets continue to be in the hands of criminals because they simply obtain them off the black market.
It happens in big cities like sydney org crime still operates gun laws have made no difference one way or the other.The coppers here are useless and have no will to change the situation or are themselves somehow in on the black market.