Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Constitution of the United States was specifically authored to protect the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority.
The individual is the basic unit who can make the best decisions for their life, not the government. By empowering the citizens of the United States to bear arms and remove a tyrannical government if necessary, the right to bear arms was embedded in our most precious document which enumerates the basic human rights of the individual.
A government that fears it's citizens is a Republic, when a citizen fears the goverment, that is tyranny.
In this country, the power lies with the people, not the government. The citizens decide who will stay in office, and who will be fired.
We elect officials to serve as representatives of our will, so protection of the Constitution should be job 1.
Sometimes we make a mistake and elect a president with no respect for our country, our people, our way of life, our Constitution and the common values that unite a nation. We will correct that mistake in November.
The right of self determination and self reliance are the foundation of what built this country. We didn't need the crown to tell us what when to take a dump or wipe our noses. If we succeed or fail it is because of our own sweat and intelligence, hard work and sacrifice, not because some government lacky allows it in return for favors or bribes.
We work around our government restrictions because all goverment does well is screw things up.
A Militia is a group of citizens who band together to protect themselves and their country from the overreaching grasp of politicians. Well organized means shared values and commitment to our country and our Constitution. We are all members of the militia because it is the duty of all citizens to protect their country from all enemies, foreign or domestic.
The Second Amendment is the one that gives people the final say in how our country is run. We don't have a monarchy, we have employees who work for us, (or are supposed to). The Second Amendment assures the right to free speech, to freedom of assembly, for the right to confront any accuser, for the right to worship as we choose, that we can decide our own destiny based on our will, our abilities, our talents, and our desire to make a better life for ourselves without the goverment stealing our work to redistribute to those who refuse to work.
Firearms in the hands of private citizens are power. The power to protect our homes, the power to stand up to the lawless, the power to topple tyrants and dictators.
I have been to Austrailia, and it is a great place to drink beer, chase girls, lie on the sand and watch the ocean.
I perfer a place where you work, you strive, you overcome, where you hold your destiny in your own hands for better or worse, and for the moment, you can enjoy the fruits of your labor.
The citizens aren't worse off because of firearms, they are worse off when they have to fight the gangs, the goverment, and in some cases law enforcement to try and hold onto rights that are guarenteed by our Constitution.
You ask why we need guns? It isn't because we fear, it is because we fear NOTHING. We can overcome any obstical, any hardship, any trial or tribulation because we stand as Free Men and Women, ready to take up arms to protect the land we love.
With a firearm, a frail 80 year old woman can take out a gangbanger.
With a firearm, a child can stop a molester
With a firearm, a disabled person can stop a rapist.
With a firearm, a citizen can save this country.
What I don't get is how citizens of the USA (which I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting on several occasions) can continue to tolerate the rising numbers of firearm related deaths and injuries each year, which I think it is somewhere around 100,000 at present. Surely if these were casulaties sustained in some sort of military action, US citizens would want to know why!
100,000 / 312,000,000 = 0.0325%
Perspective.
You're focusing solely on the number 100,000. Put that into perspective with the total population and you have less than 1/2 of 1/100th.
In 2009, 33,808 people were killed and 2,217,000 people injured in vehicle accidents due to "distraction or inattention."
33,808 + 2,217,000 / 312,000,000 = 0.72%
0.72% / 0.0325% = 22
Clearly, your risk of being killed or injured by an idiot driver who was "distracted" is 22 times greater than being shot and killed by a weapon.
Next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudee
And I also don't understand why your law makers haven't had a serious look at the Constitutional right of Americans to bare arms.
Why would they want to?
Nothing illegal about baring arms and that would fall under the 1st Amendment.
Bearing arms would fall under the 2nd Amendment.
Next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudee
"Militia" I get as being an organised body of civilians as opposed to a permanent military force. And when your founding fathers drafted the Constitution, this ammendment was quite justified; not so much need for a 'militia' now days though I would think.
Ah, the crux of the matter...you're thinking. If you intend to think, then think critically.
The need for a militia is even greater now than it ever was in the history of the US, and even before the US in the Colonial Period.
There are many in the US, and many more outside the US who believe their purpose on Earth is to impose their will on others.
And then there are those like me who believe that people should be presented with unbiased data devoid of propaganda and disinformation and make their own decision, free of any impediments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudee
But surely the term "well-regulated" is self-explanatory and seems today to be wide of the mark in the USA.
The term "well-regulated" is self-explanatory and I will explain it to you now.
To RE'GU'LATE. v.a. [regula, Latin[
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To Direct
From:
A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN WHICH The WORDS are deduced from their ORIGINALS, Explained in their Different Meanings, AND Authorised by the NAMES of the WRITERS in whose WORKS they are found. Abstracted from the Folio Edition by the AUTHOR SAMUEL JOHNSON, AM. To WHICH are PREFIXED, a GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, and The PREFACE to the Folio Edition; 10th Edition; London, 1785.
If your dictionary wasn't published before 1791, then you need to find one that was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudee
I have read that is some US States, firearms can be purechased at gun shows without adequate background checks being carried out on the prospective buyer. That seems crazy!
And in every major city in the US, you can buy firearms that were illegally smuggled into the US from other countries.
What's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudee
Some of you may be aware that in April 1996 36 people were killed and 23 wounded in the massacre at Port Arthur here in the State of Tasmania.
I hope you're sitting down, because this might come as a shock to you, but weapons are inanimate objects that possess no intelligence and are incapable of acting on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudee
This horrific event was a watershed for gun ownership in Australia. Under federal government co-ordination all Australian States and Territories banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavy controls on their legal use.
Okay, clearly your government over-reacted in a total panic like a bunch of buffoons.
Sucks to be you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudee
Perhaps it is time that some of your politicians at federal and state level showed some intestinal fortitude and had a good look at firearm ownership in the USA.
Well, there's no point in that, since the 2nd Amendment clearly grants Americans the right to bear arms.
Even if the 2nd Amendment did not exist, self-defense is an inherent inseparable condition of human existence:
I exist; therefore I will defend myself if I so choose to do so.
The purpose of owning a weapon is self-defense. That defense is mainly focused on defending against a government-gone-wild. In order to defend against the government, it is therefore necessary that I be armed on some par with the government, right?
My ability to defend myself against the government would be hampered if idiots like you limited me to only a .22 caliber rim-shot rifle with a 2-round magazine.
In 1905, the appropriately named Dick Act forced the States to surrender their militias to the federal government.
Thus, for the past 107 years, the militia has officially consisted of those citizens who were not part of the federal army and not part of the several State national guards which are under the control of the federal army.
You do understand that the governor of a State has zero control over his national guard units, right?
The National Guards are trained, armed and equipped by the federal government, and that includes the officer corp of the National Guards being trained by the federal government.
The type of National Guard military units that exist in a State are dictated solely by the federal government. For example, the 53rd Mechanized Infantry Brigade in the Florida National Guard. The federal government told the governor of Florida, you will surrender your armored vehicles and you will become an airborne infantry brigade and you will be tasked with support of the 18th Airborne Corps and you will be the "round-out" brigade for the 82nd Airborne Division (4x format under Division '86), and you will deploy when the 82nd Airborne Division deploys.
So basically the National Guards are just part-time federal troops.
And that is completely contradictory to the spirit and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, unless you think having the fox guard the hen-house is a fantastic idea.
I know that I wil cop varying degrees of flack over this posting but I feel so strongly about the subject that I will just have to take what comes on the chin.
First up, I would like it known that I am a retired Aussie bloke with 25 years experience in most aspects of law enforcement including uniform patrol and supervision, criminal investigation, undercover narcotics, organised crime, police college instructor etc. I am also a military veteran having served n the Australlian Army in South East Asia during the 1960s (Yes, we were also there.). Bottom line - I know a bit about firearms and am not some 'pinko Commie' and am in fact a right-wing conservative.
What I don't get is how citizens of the USA (which I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting on several occasions) can continue to tolerate the rising numbers of firearm related deaths and injuries each year, which I think it is somewhere around 100,000 at present. Surely if these were casulaties sustained in some sort of military action, US citizens would want to know why!
And I also don't understand why your law makers haven't had a serious look at the Constitutional right of Americans to bare arms. I have only a basic understanding of the Second Ammendment to your Constitution but 2 things in this stand out to me - "militia" and "well-regulated". "Militia" I get as being an organised body of civilians as opposed to a permanent military force. And when your founding fathers drafted the Constitution, this ammendment was quite justified; not so much need for a 'militia' now days though I would think. But surely the term "well-regulated" is self-explanatory and seems today to be wide of the mark in the USA. I have read that is some US States, firearms can be purechased at gun shows without adequate background checks being carried out on the prospective buyer. That seems crazy!
Some of you may be aware that in April 1996 36 people were killed and 23 wounded in the massacre at Port Arthur here in the State of Tasmania. This horrific event was a watershed for gun ownership in Australia. Under federal government co-ordination all Australian States and Territories banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavy controls on their legal use. The governmenyt initiated a "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of AUS $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised AUS $500 million.
Perhaps it is time that some of your politicians at federal and state level showed some intestinal fortitude and had a good look at firearm ownership in the USA.
Okay, let the bullets fly!
A lot of Americans agree with you. Unfortunately, we have the paranoid wannabe rambo section of the population the cry the loudest.
Huh? Crime rates - basically across the board - have been dropping steadily in the US for the last 25 years (although we still have a major violence problem).
We're much more aggressively prosecuting crimes and punishing offenders than every before.
Three strikes have helped somewhat, but illegals and their gangs have come in and nobody does anything about them IMO.
We are also getting all the third world's losers illegally, so we are importing crimewaves from other nations as well.
Disclosure: I don't own a gun, never felt the need, fired one only once in my 45 years on this planet.
If there are morons toting guns making the news every day then one would tend to believe that all those toting guns are morons. Most gun owners, who RESPECT their firearms and ensure that they, themselves, are well TRAINED in their use and maintenance, are very responsible people, and are never in the news because they never do anything to make news. So, the perception of the general public towards gun ownership tends to be skewed.
How do we keep the idiots from obtaining guns?
This idiot doesn't know the answer, but maybe it lies in the licensing requirements.
No bullets from me, but perhaps an astonishing insight (credit to Michael Moore and his movie "Bowing for Columbine" Americans are AFRAID. . . .OF EVERYTHING. . . and yet they count themselves as the most fortunate people in the world, due soley to the fact that they were born in the U.S. I don't "get it" either, but unlike many of my fellows, I was raised to think critically. BTW, did you know that the U.S. State of Texas has forbidden the teaching of critical thinking skills? One hardly knows if one should laugh or cry!
Well, now, I would think that one who is proud of their critical thinking skills would actually get their facts straight, but apparently not.
The State of Texas (not the "U.S. State of Texas" in this context) has not forbidden the teaching of critical thinking skills. What you're thinking of is this plank of the platform of the Republican Party of Texas (something VERY different than the State of Texas, by the way, and not enacted into law):
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Idiotic on the face of it, yes, but anyone exercising those critical thinking skills would need to first study the education program called HOTS and the one called OBE and compare the two and decide what one thinks about each and if they are a good idea or not. All of that would require, of course, using critical thinking skills, but not necessarily HOTS.
Disclosure: I don't own a gun, never felt the need, fired one only once in my 45 years on this planet.
If there are morons toting guns making the news every day then one would tend to believe that all those toting guns are morons. Most gun owners, who RESPECT their firearms and ensure that they, themselves, are well TRAINED in their use and maintenance, are very responsible people, and are never in the news because they never do anything to make news. So, the perception of the general public towards gun ownership tends to be skewed.
How do we keep the idiots from obtaining guns?
This idiot doesn't know the answer, but maybe it lies in the licensing requirements.
So the above poster is endorsing a federal tax upon the practice of a Constitutionally affirmed right, is that correct?
i fail to understand why people attack an inanimate object that is merely a tool. guns dont kill people, bullets dont kill people, cars, knives, baseball bats, etc. DONT KILL PEOPLE. ALL of these items and more require a human agency to make them work.
as to deaths caused by firearms, would these people be any less if they were tossed out a 10 story window?
While I absolutly agree that guns don't kill people, it seems like American society isn't responisble enough to own guns. America has a serious violence problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
why has there been an rise in violent deaths since the 60s? we have been cheapening human life by making abortion easy to get, and working hard to remove god from society. we make movies that embrace drugs, and violence, and the more violent the movie, the more we like it. same with TV shows, and video games, etc. we need to get societies moral compass set straight again, and stop coddling criminals.
I have no idea why abortion would lead to more homicides. And I'm a 100% sure that removing god from society isn't the reason for your violence problem. Out of all developed nations America is the most religious and the most violent one. And Europeans watch American movies and tv shows and play American video games as well. So this can't be the reason either. You also have the highest rate of incarcerated people in the whole world (!) and are the only western country that still executes criminals! You don't coddle them at all!
Violence just seems to be a part of American culture. We in Switzerland have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world (just like the US) and we have a real militia army. Every Swiss male has to undergo military training and most of us keep their service rifle/pistol after completion of military service. But we have a different mindset than Americans. For example: Swiss people would never use their gun to threaten or even kill a burglar or thief. Instead we would lock our door, call the police and maybe keep our gun ready (just in case). Why risk your life for something like a car or a computer if insurance pays for it anyway? And because of this mindset criminals, drug addicts etc. in Switzerland are generally unarmed and usually non violent. This way everybody wins: law abiding citizens don’t get hurt, the criminals don’t get hurt and the police don’t get shot at.
You don't really need to change your gun laws, you need to change your mindset!
Licensing requires fees. Licensing fees are taxes.
You proposed federal licensing requirements therefore it follows that you support a federal tax on the practice (purchasing of a firearm) of a Constitutionally affirmed right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
