Gun Grabbing Congress Critters Come Out of Woodwork After Giffords Shooting

Originally posted by GeneralAwesome
reply to post by budski

 

Crime reduction starts with reducing the number of criminals.

Using your logic....Lets ban people!!!

Or, let's ban stupidity!

Reducing the huge numbers of people maimed, killed and injured every year by guns, starts with reducing the number of guns in society.

reply to post by budski


What will an assault weapons ban accomplish?

Something like 1% of firearm crimes are committed with "assault weapons" as defined by the old law and proposed new ones. I can find the DOJ statistics if you wish, but I've seen them many times before and it's a vast minority.

In California, they have some of the most stringent weapons laws, and still have high crime rates. New York completely bans handguns, and they're wrought with gun violence. Do you think criminals won't just start getting their guns from other sources (like Mexico)?

reply to post by budski


You want to ban an object, yet you dont give any thought to the fact people will commit crimes using any object.

If guns disappear, something else will take its place.

Placing blame on an object as the reason for crime is an exercise in stupidity.

Evidently you have never seen crime stats from Washington DC for the past decade. They had some of the strictest gun control laws on the books, yet they led the nation in murders per capita.

reply to post by GeneralAwesome


Ummmm, no they don't. That was some whackjob Christian politition that was trying to ram it down the Australian peoples throats and failed dismally.

What planet do you live on? Planet Ionlyreadandhearwhatiwantto?

reply to post by Highground


I think they believe that the criminals will to, acknowledge a law in which to turn over their weapons and be a good little citizen.... ignorance is bliss!

Originally posted by GeneralAwesome
reply to post by budski

 

Firearms are the tool that gave people freedom by kicking the hell out of the English.

Still a little sad about that?

Dont forget to bend over for your inbred queen

She's not my queen - I'm of Irish heritgae.

Fireamrs are not "the tool that gave people freedom by kicking the hell out of the English."
the English did that themselves, because they couldn't be bothered sending a proper army.
Time to read a little proper history.

reply to post by Kryties


Actually Ive read countless examples of proven censorship in your landfill of a nation.

Need I list them?

Originally posted by GeneralAwesome
reply to post by budski

 

You want to ban an object, yet you dont give any thought to the fact people will commit crimes using any object.

If guns disappear, something else will take its place.

Placing blame on an object as the reason for crime is an exercise in stupidity.

Evidently you have never seen crime stats from Washington DC for the past decade. They had some of the strictest gun control laws on the books, yet they led the nation in murders per capita.

edit on 11-1-2011 by GeneralAwesome because: (no reason given)

No, I don't want to ban anything - what is it about the word "CONTROL" that right wing nut jobs don't understand?

It's a hell of a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife or a bat.

reply to post by budski


Is that what they teach you in school?

reply to post by budski


Firearms were the tool used to defeat the english.

My statement stands as fact.

A little historical education would do you a world of good.

reply to post by budski


I highly recommend that you do some research:

the stage was set for a new type of war: a battle between an oppressed, under-represented people and a giant empire, which was stretched beyond its means. "The Revolution was effected before the war commenced," remarked John Adams. It was a transformation "in the minds and hearts of the people" (Wood 3). The America colonies would enter a war in which they were fighting not only for the United States, but also for their own rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Originally posted by Highground
reply to post by budski

 

Is that what they teach you in school?

No, but they taught me here to stay on topic, avoid ad hominem attacks, and avoid trolling.

Obviously you haven't read the T&C.

reply to post by budski


What is it about left wing whack jobs that prevents them from comprehending the phrase "shall not be infringed".

Were there any measures to prevent Loughner from driving a car into the crowd? No.

Even if your little slavic utopia existed where no one had guns, attacks against a crowd like that is still very possible and very easy.

reply to post by GeneralAwesome


Landfill of a nation? Excuse me? How very petty and immature of you.

And I don't know what material you get your information from but it's complete Bollocks. Typical American BS.

Budski . . .

Hmmmm. Perhaps you are not readin correctly. Let me help you with a little analysis:

--In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s). --

Link

The general population is the militia. It even says it right there in the 2nd Amendment. But even if it was not plain as day, it helps to read the founders' other writings to grasp their full intent. It also helps to know that definitions change, so you have to go and use the meaning of the words as they were written at the time.

Buh-bye

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by budski

 

I highly recommend that you do some research:

the stage was set for a new type of war: a battle between an oppressed, under-represented people and a giant empire, which was stretched beyond its means. "The Revolution was effected before the war commenced," remarked John Adams. It was a transformation "in the minds and hearts of the people" (Wood 3). The America colonies would enter a war in which they were fighting not only for the United States, but also for their own rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

What the hell does that prove, and how is it on topic?

I repeat, the english sent a ragtag army - if they had sent real troops, they would have kicked the crap out of the opposition.

And that's coming from someone who is anti-royalist and anti-empire.

Now, back to gun control - who wants to use the word "LIBERAL" again, now that that particular argument has been blown out of the water?

reply to post by budski


I was simply identifying with your comment that the English sent a " rags of an army.

between an oppressed, under-represented people and a giant empire

The English were well organised and, financially backed, and went up against farmers, peasants etc, and got the crap beat out of them?

Do you not see the part about being oppressed, fighting a giant empire?

reply to post by budski


If you think that england would have won if they sent a "proper army", you sir are delusional. Love that excuse, well our king was too stupid to send a real army, that is why we lost!

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Highground
reply to post by budski

 

Did you completely miss my post in which I showed you the codified law?

Hmmmm. Perhaps you are not readin correctly. Let me help you with a little analysis:

--In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." The list goes on and on.

By contrast, nowhere is to be found a contemporaneous definition of the militia, by any of the Framers, as anything other than the "whole body of the people." Indeed, as one commentator said, the notion that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the "collective" right of the states to maintain militias rather than the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, "remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by "the people," not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the "people," -- a "term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution," specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term "well regulated" ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s). --

Link

It helps to read the founders' other writings to grasp their full intent. It also helps to know that definitions change, so you have to go and use the meaning of the words as they were written at the time.

Buh-bye

Ah, yes, the good old "Intent" argument, as though people were able to travel back in time and read minds.

If it was THAT clear, there would be no need to try and interpret "Intent" which is basically an argument that weak minded people use when they lack the critical facilities to think for themselves.

It also happens with the bible - perhaps the westboro baptist church are correct in their interpretation of certain new testament passages as well?

Originally posted by Kryties


And I don't know what material you get your information from but it's complete Bollocks. Typical American BS.

So these never happened?

Also in 2002, and under the terms of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Federal Court ordered Dr Fredrick Töben to remove material from his Australian website which denied aspects of The Holocaust and vilified Jews.

For example, in December 2006 the voluntary euthanasia book The Peaceful Pill Handbook was classified by the OFLC as X18+ and approved for publication. A month later, on appeal from the Australian Attorney General Philip Ruddock and Right to Life NSW, the book’s classification was reviewed by the Literature Classification Board and rated RC (refused classification)

Wiki on Australian censorship