# massachusetts proposed gun control



## drifter (Jun 9, 2014)

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...n-laws-mass/Y7CUFEFhGcOHnY6D5GJTmI/story.html

The state of Massachusetts is proposing a stronger gun control? is a good thing?


----------



## rkunsaw (Jun 10, 2014)

Why can't politicians understand that criminals don't obey laws. Such laws only affect law abiding citizens.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jun 10, 2014)

I'm in the middle on this, or close to.  Davey makes sense, and so do the others.  The problem I see, if the gun-control is established, there's going to be a section of time when the "law-abiding" citizen is deprived of some of their right to bare arms, and the criminal will still be cocked and ready.  How do we disarm the criminals first, and then have enough gun-control to keep them from getting hold of them again.  If we just restrict the law-abider, that won't work, imo.  I guess I should watch the video, but I am fairly certain it's main focus is not going to be getting the guns always from the bad-guys first!  Why can't anyone figure stuff like this out, supposedly all these great minds (or at least they think they are, or someone else thinks they are) and no solution.

Well, what would the "news" have to do if there were not more bad things happening, ick, sick world sometimes.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jun 10, 2014)

Yes, it is nearly a daily occurrence....

An as-yet unidentified school shooter attacked Reynolds High School in Portland Oregon today, killing at least one student. It was the 74th school shooting since Adam Lanza's infamous assault on Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut — and, as this map shows, they've happened all over the country. 
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5797306/map-school-shooting-sandy-hook 


74 school shootings since Sandy Hook....I read somewhere, that they are selling bullet proof blankets for children to wear....unbelievable crazy.

Also  just a few days ago two white supremacist that were associated with the Bundy Ranch affair shot two policemen while they were eating pizza in Las Vegas, they had told their neighbors they hated the government and President Obama.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 10, 2014)

re:Yes, it is nearly a daily occurrence....


its what we've all become,as long as *big outfits* with millions to spend to influence state and federal agencies we're kinda doomed.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jun 10, 2014)

Makes you wonder about the "big outfits" that "used" to influence the government, the mob.  Maybe, still alive and well.


----------



## CPA-Kim (Jun 10, 2014)

Countries that have strict gun controls have fewer per capita shootings, robberies, and gun-related deaths.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jun 10, 2014)

Yes, that seems logical that it could be here as well, but how do we get the guns back from the bad guys Kim?  I just picture (as an extreme) taking all the guns from the good guys, including our police force, etc.  Ok, we're set, but wait, all the bad guys are still armed.  What happens next?  The bad guys figure it's no challenge so they just turn in their arms.  I know that sounds ridiculous, but this is what is going through my head about this.  It's like trying to fix an infection where gangrene has already set in.  The other countries did the right thing early on. What is an answer for us that makes sense?

Denise


----------



## marinaio (Jun 10, 2014)

First the country has to confiscate every firearm out there (especially from the bad guys, no sweat right?), fat chance of that ever happening; I don't think they could do it under marshal law.  They merely tried to get certain firearms registered in a couple of states, NY the most recent, got pretty poor compliance as one would expect, at least I would expect.


----------



## rt3 (Jun 10, 2014)

at the time of purchase, defined by the transfer of the firearm form the orginal manufacturer to the gun store, to the orginal buyer all guns are registered. some states are trying to make re-registering the new law, don't confuse the two.

countries that have the strictest gun laws do not have the lowest statistics of gun related deaths (what ever that means) ex. Syria, most African countries--- you have incorrect statistics.


where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to an automobile (that one is a special kind of stupidity) 

The federal government does not have the logistic capability to confiscate the guns that are out there.

all schools are "gun free zones" do you see the connection?  if you don't -- not much can be said


----------



## marinaio (Jun 10, 2014)

rt3, your are correct on registration of firearms purchased through a dealer, gun shows also in most states, but not private transactions.  There are hundreds of thousands of guns that have been handed down or purchased that are unregistered and were never registered other than a possible bill of sale because they predate the paranoia.


----------



## marinaio (Jun 10, 2014)

To expand on my previous post; when I was young a person could go into the local Sears Roebuck, Western Auto, SS Kresge and others, pay cash for a rifle, shotgun or pistol and ammunition and walk out with them and a bill of sale at most for paper.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Jun 10, 2014)

I don't think that even taking guns away from people would help stop this epidemic of senseless killings. It would only make the victims easier to kill. The people that do these things always (amazingly) are able to get any weapons they want. Even when they are illegal weapons, they manage to get them, and you know they just don't go to Walmart and buy them. They are being supplied by someone , somewhere. 
The couple who went on the shooting rampage in Las Vegas were unemployed, had been living with the wife's father, and recently moved to Las Vegas. He was a felon, and not legally able to buy a gun, and no one is saying that the wife purchased them, either.  They went to the Bundy Ranch, and were told to leave, since he was a felon with a weapon; and a radical, not the kind of person they wanted associated with the situation there. 
One picture that is supposed to be Miller shows him in full camo outfit and assault rifle. Most people think the picture is actually not of him, but if it was, he has several thousand dollars worth of gear. How does a broke, out of work, felon manage to do that ?   He was complaining that he couldn't even afford to see a dentist for in infected tooth; so how did he buy an expensive rifle ??  
Apparently, both of them were shot and killed by law enforcement, and didn't commit suicide, as was supposed at first.

Most of the places that these shooting have taken place are in schools; which are all gun-free areas. The attacks that have been stopped, have been where some person had a gun, and was able to stop the shooter before he could kill people.
None of these attacks have ever happened at a shooting range (just as a point of reference here); or even anywhere that there was likely to be armed resistance. 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/official-police-not-wife-killed-jerad-miller


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 10, 2014)

marinaio said:


> First the country has to confiscate every firearm out there (especially from the bad guys, no sweat right?), fat chance of that ever happening; I don't think they could do it under marshal law.  They merely tried to get certain firearms registered in a couple of states, NY the most recent, got pretty poor compliance as one would expect, at least I would expect.



It's never too late but the problem can't be solved state by state. There needs to be a nationwide effort with all the states working together. This is hurdle #1.

You don't need to confiscate every gun, just establish a national register of firearms. Hurdle #2.

Some weapons should/would be declared illegal (for example, are US citizens allowed to own anti aircraft missile launchers now? I would hope not.) Then an amnesty period could be declared to allow people to hand in any illegal weapons for destruction by the authorities. After that, anyone found with illegal or unregistered weapons would be subject to confiscation and court action, probably a fine. Hurdles #3 and #4.

To reduce the number of guns in a country that is now awash with them you might consider a gun buyback scheme where guns are voluntarily handed in and the owner is compensated for the value of the weapons up to a reasonable limit. Hurdle #5


None or even all of the above is a complete solution but it could be a way to start changing what has become a serious social problem. 

FTR, I don't expect any of the above measures to receive popular support. It would take some very brave state governors and an extremely brave president to even establish the first step. I wonder whose child will have to die in a school shooting before public opinion shifts towards some sensible limits to the right to bear arms.


----------



## Ina (Jun 10, 2014)

Dame Warri, We have tried a couple of things on the list. The buy back with amnesty. Of course too little too late. I sometimes think it will take people targeting the upper classes, the politicians, movie celebrities, big business. Then maybe it will be important enough for this country to come together, and get control of all the issues.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 10, 2014)

You've never done all across the country at once. State  by state is pointless. That will never work.

One advantage we had was that most firearms in this country are imported. The ones we don't want around  can be made prohibited imports and then customs can deal with them at point of entry. The USA manufactures firearms for the whole world. This industry would need to be curtailed somewhat. Hurdle #6.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jun 11, 2014)

Good points, Warrigal.  It will take a combination of these to work...I fear nothing will get done until the parents and relatives of the innocent children and people killed rise up and demand change.  As Kim pointed out, developed countries that have strong gun control do not have this problem, what a shame for our country.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jun 11, 2014)

Confiscate the guns and the idiots on drugs will start using bombs. 

The mental health issue and especially the use of drugs in children and teens would be the place for new laws. We should make those drugs illegal. How about a buy back program to get them off the street?


We should also make reporting these shootings in the news illegal. The sensationalism in the news media just leads to more shootings. 

Citizens of this country have been armed with guns since before we were the United States. Guns owned by citizens are the reason we are not still a British colony
And  with all these guns for 400 years we didn't have this problem with all these shootings until just recently, but all some people can think of is blame the guns.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 11, 2014)

Well, rkunsaw, you do seem to have a problem now. A modern problem may need a novel solution.
Keep thinking on it. A solution that will fit in with American values would be the best way to go.
Doing nothing is not a solution and it doesn't seem like a 'can do' attitude that I have been led to believe is the spirit of America.


----------



## rt3 (Jun 11, 2014)

there is no such thing as an illegal gun, they are inanimate objects, good grief. People commit illegal acts. Headline in paper today  "Gun gets 5 years for armed robbery". Less than 2% of crimes solved using gun traced thru any type of gun registry. The laws are already there , they are just not being enforced. Even if a gun does get lost by multiple purchases as suggested by one of the above posts, the original purchase is still on record, and very few guns have a high sales turn over. 
The only problem is some people's inability to recognize the fact that it is not a perfect world,
There are more people killed in the US with hammers and fists, than rifles and shotguns.  (FBI stats).
domestic violence crimes including suicide will continue with or without guns.



Lets revisit the term innocent. Innocent of what? it is a legal term meaning without liability. How do you know one of the kids that got shot doesn't set cats on fire on Halloween? Should he deserve to die for that? probably not, but then I'm not playing God.


Jackie22  Kims comments on violent crime is erroneous. both of you need to do some research. Even as an example, you cannot define developed countries so please don't use that as a qualifier.


----------



## drifter (Jun 11, 2014)

Warrigal, your biggest advantage in Australia was a smaller population and only five states for your then Prime Minister to convince a gun law change was necessary. To your advantage was also is your type of government.


----------



## CPA-Kim (Jun 11, 2014)

nwlady said:


> Yes, that seems logical that it could be here as well, but how do we get the guns back from the bad guys Kim?  I just picture (as an extreme) taking all the guns from the good guys, including our police force, etc.  Ok, we're set, but wait, all the bad guys are still armed.  What happens next?  The bad guys figure it's no challenge so they just turn in their arms.  I know that sounds ridiculous, but this is what is going through my head about this.  It's like trying to fix an infection where gangrene has already set in.  The other countries did the right thing early on. What is an answer for us that makes sense?
> 
> Denise



Probably a phase out period.  The first step would be all guns must be registered, no assault weapons or other non-hunting guns sold unless certain circumstances apply.  The evolution of phasing out anything that is a detriment to society takes time.  You cannot do it overnight.  Also, much of the deaths from guns are domestic violence.....people you might classify as a good guy, or accidental shootings (kids taking their parents' guns.)


----------



## CPA-Kim (Jun 11, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Well, rkunsaw, you do seem to have a problem now. A modern problem may need a novel solution.
> Keep thinking on it. A solution that will fit in with American values would be the best way to go.
> Doing nothing is not a solution and it doesn't seem like a 'can do' attitude that I have been led to believe is the spirit of America.



Show me your research.


----------



## marinaio (Jun 11, 2014)

I too have looked at the so-called statistics and come away with only the understanding that the stats are generally tailored to the intent of the researching group; gun ownership is bad to the anti-gunners and beneficial to the pro-gunners.  Statistics can be and are manipulated to prove just about whatever the statistician wants to prove, I don't trust them one bit.  

I did find the CDC report on causes of death in the US, homicide of all kinds ranked at 0.7% of the total deaths, doesn't seem much of a crisis to me!  Clearly we should be putting our money and talent behind medicine but most countries with socialized national health systems, the US now included, have actually diminished any incentive for that effort.  I have a nagging suspicion that both the pro- and anti- gun lobbies are very aware that it was an armed citizenry that brought the US into being and has likely played a role in maintaining its freedom, not a comforting thought to an ever-more controlling government.

All "facts" set aside, anyone dreaming of disarming the American citizenry needs to stop smoking whatever it is that is causing the hallucinations.


*Cause *
*Percent of Total*
1. Diseases of the heart 
28.5
2. Malignant tumors
22.8
3. Cerebrovascular diseases
6.7
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5.1
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
4.4
6. Diabetes mellitus
3.0
7. Influenza and pneumonia
2.7
8. Alzheimer's disease
2.4
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis
1.7
10. Septicemia (blood poisoning)
1.4
11. Suicide
1.3
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
1.1
13. Primary hypertension and hypertensive renal disease
0.8
14. Parkinson's disease (tied)
0.7
15. Homicide (tied)
0.7

_Source: CDC/NHS, National Vital Statistics System_


----------



## rt3 (Jun 11, 2014)

being of the cold war generation, we called the people of the world who wanted to register and confiscate guns communists
my parents called them fascists
I think it was FDR said once, that if they changed the word socialism to something else, the American people would buy it in a minute. 
You are more likely to die from a mistake in a hospital visit than from a gun 
Statistics are certainly cooked. anyone thinks that other countries do crime statistics the same as the FBI doesn't even know the FBI and the Dept. of Justice don't even coincide. As far the CDC, they have a real vested interest. Any disagreement with the current Administration and their funding is gone. The CDC statistic is even lower if you remove suicides and domestic violence.

Lets use statistics for a moment. Apples and Oranges-- some say you can't compare them, but wait

they are within 2% of being the same size
their carbohydrate content is the same and with 4% of the same wt. 
both grow on trees and have seeds.

yep apples are oranges anyway you cut them.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jun 11, 2014)

I think we Americans need to hang onto our guns.  I don't see a way to disarm the "bad guys" so I think it's foolishness to allow ourselves to be disarmed.  I know that it has been "said" to death, but one of the first things Hitler did was order the confiscation of arms.  I think I have that right, feel free to correct me.  

Like I mentioned before, other countries that are satisfied with their laws, that's great.  But it's too late for us to try and change it all.  I saw the Twin Towers, that told me other countries could storm our borders.  I want the right to have a gun if someone invades my country.  I want to carry something in places where there are still animals (especially 2 legged kind) that will attack & kill.  Maybe I am child-like in my thinking, maybe it was the years/time I've been raised in, and if I have to, I'll use a danged bow & arrow, but I'm going to have something to protect myself with.

The world isn't peace and love, and I'm not going to stand in some church praying, I'm going down fighting,  that's just the way I am.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jun 11, 2014)

excellent post Marinaio, that last sentence or two, right on 





> I have a nagging suspicion that both the pro- and anti- gun lobbies are  very aware that it was an armed citizenry that brought the US into being  and has likely played a role in maintaining its freedom, not a  comforting thought to an ever-more controlling government.
> 
> All "facts" set aside, anyone dreaming of disarming the American  citizenry needs to stop smoking whatever it is that is causing the  hallucinations.



Again, I'm a realist, it is what it is, but we are between a rock and a hard-spot now, so we make the best of it we can.  Some dufus in WA or wherever, that's never fought for our country should never be allowed to make laws, give me a break.  And I'm glad other countries don't rule us, they are not in our shoes, and never have been.  Don't misunderstand, I respect other countries and their right to make "their" laws, but ours is what it is, we have to go from where we are now.  No one had a "fix" when I asked for one in a previous post, so that tells me, probably isn't one other then "hang onto what we have, we'll need it, maybe in our lifetime".


----------



## rt3 (Jun 11, 2014)

The norm is

over 600 sheriffs in the US have signed a statement and sent it to the Pres and the DOJ. "They will not enforce any federal laws contrary to the constitution". and this is last years stuff

Currently legislation shows 15 states have passed legislation that calls for the arrest of any Federal officers, in violation, of the constitution, and any federal laws passed to be null and void, with a mandatory jail sentence for the federal officers. The only question would be if a federal judge tried to overturn the jurisdiction of a more local court. 

currently the SAFE act in NY faces something like 15 joint and separate law suits.

California's restrictions only make them a laughing stock, not a role model.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 11, 2014)

*Speaking of norm....

From Las Vegas to Georgia, the NRA Has Created a Monster
*
The past month’s mass-shooting death toll is the logical conclusion of the gun group’s leaders’ deluded approach to our safety.
It’s been quite a month for the National Rifle Association: Massacres at universities, in restaurants, and at retail stores from South Carolina to Las Vegas. Gun nuts porting assault weapons to dinner from Chili’s to Chipotle. The leaders of the take-no-prisoners gun-rights organization have been witness to the logical outgrowth of its policies and rhetoric. Much as the GOP helped create the lunatic-fringe Tea Party within its midst, the NRA chieftains have helped birth a beast whose black heart now beats strongly among its most radical adherents. 


More>>>>http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...o-georgia-the-nra-has-created-a-monster.html#


----------



## rt3 (Jun 11, 2014)

what is your point? the NRA's position is that if these gun free zones had armed guards, none of the school shootings would have happened.  In fact Davey you proved my point, did any shootings happen at the Chilis and Chipotle, or retail/restaurants mentioned? Hard when you step in your own kakka.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 11, 2014)

re:the NRA's position is that if these gun free zones had armed guards, none of the school shootings would have happened.


Really???  no school shooting at all ??
You gotta be kidding me...Lets all wait for the next headlines* "ARMED GUARD MASSACRES 16 CHILDREN"*


----------



## rt3 (Jun 11, 2014)

as some people like to quote from other sources here are a few


south Car.-Billy McCall age 78 heard his wife scream, to a home invasion, shots fired on both sides, intruder dead, Bill recovering  1/2/25/13

Orville Al-- armed man in Dollar General Store - shot once in chest by concealed carry

Dorchester Ma teenagers, offended at postings in facebook , met to duke it out, stopped by concealed carry, (one female attacked) group later arrested

Cedar Hill Tx. 12/26/13 Gareth Long confronted home intruder, who would not yield, shot dead.  (

Milford Pa  David Braman 69 home invasion stopped by armed gun home owner

Wilmer Al.    domestic dispute stopped by armed neighbor  1/17/14


Is this the norm that some politician is trying to sell because of a party agenda-- or just another day in the US  (actually across the world).


more to follow


----------



## rt3 (Jun 11, 2014)

Armed guard mass  etc.   WHAT  ?? Did you forget your meds this morning.??


----------



## drifter (Jun 11, 2014)

I think the bad guys and mass shootings cancel each other out. Whether it does or not is immaterial. There will be no major changes and only a few minor ones like what is going on in Boston now, for the next eight or ten years, and maybe not then. Guns are a political hot potato, gun issues are emotional issue. To do so is political subside. So the gun issue, if there is one, is on hold. We will never get rid of our guns like Australia did. Few want to. I've got some issues like carrying long guns in restaurants and stores and churches. But that will not be up to me. I' m an old man and have turned problems like this over to a younger generation. I am more interested making political earthquakes happen  like the EricCanter thing and even then, I am powerless for I have voted my last time.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 11, 2014)

drifter said:


> Warrigal, your biggest advantage in Australia was a smaller population and only five states for your then Prime Minister to convince a gun law change was necessary. To your advantage was also is your type of government.



 You are correct there Drifter on one point. We do have a smaller number of states to deal with, actually six states and two territories. Another important situation was that at the time of the last massacre we had mainly Labor state governments (progressive) and a Liberal/National federal government (conservative). The Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard was able to secure the co-operation of the Labor premiers and the rural constituency in a way that would not have been possible if the situation was reversed. Just as Nixon was the only one who could go to China, Howard was the only one who could  secure support for national gun control legislation. If anything is to happen in the USA I believe that it will take a Republican president to get the ball rolling and a population that is demanding action. Obama has practically admitted defeat on this issue.

 A lot of nonsense was talked at the time. Men vowed to bury their guns rather than hand them in, people claimed that Big Brother would raid their homes etc. None of that happened. In the end a lot of old guns were traded in for cash and destroyed. Customs prevented the more dangerous weapons from entering the country and gun owners were required to be responsible for the safe keeping of their firearms. Mass murder by gun ceased. That is not to say that we have seen the last mass shooting but it has been a long time since the last one.

 What didn't happen was a solution to all crime. Banks and armoured vehicles were still held up, domestic violence and murders still occur. Drug gangs still shoot at each other and at each other's houses. These are police matters and the criminals must still be caught and prosecuted.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 11, 2014)

CPA-Kim said:


> Show me your research.



Research to show what exactly? That America has a problem?
I would hold that problem to be self evident.

That Americans are a 'can do' people? I think history has demonstrated that abundantly.
You were the only nation whose citizens have ever set foot on the moon.
I have seen the energy you apply to civil engineering and construction. 
It is most impressive.

Surely the American people can problem solve the number of deaths by firearm, or at least make it a much smaller problem?
Do it your way, but at least give it your best shot.

Gangsters shooting each other is one thing but when you have nutters murdering children in their schools and shooting up people in military bases, shopping malls and cinemas it is surely time for some serious thinking about the kind of society you are prepared to tolerate.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 11, 2014)

NWLady said:
			
		

> I know that it has been "said" to death, but one of the first things Hitler did was order the confiscation of arms.  I think I have that right, feel free to correct me.


Well you did ask, Denise.

Germany does have very strict firearms laws but they were introduced long before Hitler.



> [h=2]History of firearms restrictions in Germany[/h][h=3]The 1919 Treaty of Versailles[/h]From 1918-1920, with the defeat of Germany in World War I, the nation was forced to accept a series of devastating reparations after signing the Treaty of Versailles. The defeated Weimar government agreed to payments it did not have the ability to make, which would eventually lead to the 1920s inflationary depression. The treaty had stipulations to disarm the government. Fearing inability to hold the state together during the depression, the German government adopted a sweeping series of gun confiscation legislation against the citizens prior to completely disarming the German military. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles explicitly targeted the state: "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[SUP][1][/SUP]
> 
> In 1919, the German government passed the _Regulations on Weapons Ownership_, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[SUP][2][/SUP] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.
> 
> ...



More history if German legislation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act


----------



## marinaio (Jun 11, 2014)

The rhetoric here is getting just plain nutso!  The NRA had nothing to do with these shootings nor were the shooters likely to have been NRA members and the simple fact is the shootings would have been far less severe if there had been an armed intervention from the earliest point. It would be nearly impossible to be in just the right spot at just the right time to totally prevent a shooting, even the cops admit they cannot do that. The simple, logical and to most, obvious fact is that a whacko with a gun intent on doing harm will naturally choose a target where there is little to no chance of anyone fighting back; those are called Gun Free Zones and they are advertised and labelled as such with great pride it would appear.  

Another point to ponder is why all these anti-gun celebrities and millionaires have armed body guards at all times wherever they go? One might also consider these movie star hypocrites who make the garbage films that incite and encourage these whackos, get rich doing so and then use their money and influence to tell us guns are evil.

Enough for me, I'm off this thread.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 11, 2014)

> They got it from people like my brothers who carried guns to fight for their right to live how they want, and bad-mouth the use of guns, Is that irony again Dame?? I'm learning, lol!!



Irony? Perhaps, but what is probably more ironic is that my family has a strong military history too. Grandfather volunteered for the Boer War in South Africa and backed up again for the Great War, serving in Palestine. His brother was a military sniper in the same war. My father volunteered for overseas service in New Guinea, two of his brothers were killed in that war. One lies in a cemetery in Singapore and the other is buried somewhere in the middle of Nigeria. Another brother served in the RAAF in Darwin, which was more heavily bombed that Pearl Harbour. All of them, when asked, said that they fought to keep Australia peaceful and all of them, if they returned home at all, surrendered their firearms because they had no further need of them.


----------



## rt3 (Jun 11, 2014)

lets not confuse military service with a civilian self defense issue. while not feeling the need for a military unit in a civilian setting is not the same as protecting your home for self defense.

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, target shooting, plinking or the military.


----------



## rt3 (Jun 11, 2014)

speaking of faked statistics on school shootings

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380108/lying-about-school-shootings-charles-c-w-cooke


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 11, 2014)

rkunsaw said:


> Why can't politicians understand that criminals don't obey laws. Such laws only affect law abiding citizens.





rt3 said:


> at the time of purchase, defined by the transfer of the firearm form the orginal manufacturer to the gun store, to the orginal buyer all guns are registered. some states are trying to make re-registering the new law, don't confuse the two.
> 
> countries that have the strictest gun laws do not have the lowest statistics of gun related deaths (what ever that means) ex. Syria, most African countries--- you have incorrect statistics.
> 
> ...





rkunsaw said:


> Confiscate the guns and the idiots on drugs will start using bombs.
> 
> The mental health issue and especially the use of drugs in children and teens would be the place for new laws. We should make those drugs illegal. How about a buy back program to get them off the street?
> 
> ...





nwlady said:


> I think we Americans need to hang onto our guns.  I don't see a way to disarm the "bad guys" so I think it's foolishness to allow ourselves to be disarmed.  I know that it has been "said" to death, but one of the first things Hitler did was order the confiscation of arms.  I think I have that right, feel free to correct me.
> 
> Like I mentioned before, other countries that are satisfied with their laws, that's great.  But it's too late for us to try and change it all.  I saw the Twin Towers, that told me other countries could storm our borders.  I want the right to have a gun if someone invades my country.  I want to carry something in places where there are still animals (especially 2 legged kind) that will attack & kill.  Maybe I am child-like in my thinking, maybe it was the years/time I've been raised in, and if I have to, I'll use a danged bow & arrow, but I'm going to have something to protect myself with.
> 
> The world isn't peace and love, and I'm not going to stand in some church praying, I'm going down fighting,  that's just the way I am.





marinaio said:


> The rhetoric here is getting just plain nutso!  The NRA had nothing to do with these shootings nor were the shooters likely to have been NRA members and the simple fact is the shootings would have been far less severe if there had been an armed intervention from the earliest point. It would be nearly impossible to be in just the right spot at just the right time to totally prevent a shooting, even the cops admit they cannot do that. The simple, logical and to most, obvious fact is that a whacko with a gun intent on doing harm will naturally choose a target where there is little to no chance of anyone fighting back; those are called Gun Free Zones and they are advertised and labelled as such with great pride it would appear.
> 
> Another point to ponder is why all these anti-gun celebrities and millionaires have armed body guards at all times wherever they go? One might also consider these movie star hypocrites who make the garbage films that incite and encourage these whackos, get rich doing so and then use their money and influence to tell us guns are evil.
> 
> Enough for me, I'm off this thread.



:applause2: I agree with all the above posts.  Prescribing anti-depressants and other drugs to Americans starting as early as grade school needs to stop.  Kids today are doped up for normal behavior.  By the time they reach adulthood they are popping pills that either makes them suicidal or homicidal.  

Shootings take place in gun-free zones, guess that will keep happening since nobody who's supposed to care is taking the hint due to their agenda.  Even the military base shootings could have been avoided or lessened if they didn't disarm all the troops on base who knew how to use their weapons, and could have stopped the murderer(s) in his tracks.

It's true, all those celebrities have their bodyguards...kind of like Al Gore preaching about global warming, while living his lifestyle.


----------



## rt3 (Jun 11, 2014)

if you didn't know,  Eric Cantor was anti-gun, a republican supporting critical parts of Obamas gun confiscation agenda, the guy who beat him was pro-gun and won on that. This will send a strong message to the candidates who are running this fall.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 12, 2014)

Anti-gun? I dont think so. The NRA supported Eric Cantor.

http://jhpolitics.com/2014/06/cantor-snags-nra-endorsement-as-brat-dodges/


----------



## rt3 (Jun 12, 2014)

Davey I can't understand why you are so hung up on the NRA. There are at least 10 pro gun movements out there that do not agree with the NRA (not strict enough). Please read my post-- Cantors being in bed with Obama on gun control cost him the election. It was a grass roots movement by the people on a basic issue. And again thanks again for showing the NRA does not control the government.  How do you get the kakka off your shoes?


----------



## Ruthi (Jun 12, 2014)

Of course the President said "this is becoming the norm" when it comes to gun violence. He is absolutely right!! Those who deny it have their head somewhere in a dark place as the sand. 

He has tried his best to do something about gun control but has met a brick wall by Congress and blue dogs all the way.  In fact by everything he has tried to do.  They don't like the intelligent black man. They are afraid of him.  What else could it be. 
After all they were used to the puppet.

The NRA is a great big money making business that has been laughing all the way to the bank.  What have they done to help stop this madness? Not a thing.

Eric Cantor hand in hand with Obama. ROFLMBO


----------



## WhatInThe (Jun 12, 2014)

CPA-Kim said:


> Countries that have strict gun controls have fewer per capita shootings, robberies, and gun-related deaths.



True but those same countries are a fraction of the size of the US, have a different culture, population, geography, economy and politics.  That's the problem, you can't use or take other countries laws ala carte  , you have to take the whole platter.


----------



## rt3 (Jun 12, 2014)

*Take a look at one of the  television commercials we ran*: 


​


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 12, 2014)

rt3 said:


> Davey I can't understand why you are so hung up on the NRA. There are at least 10 pro gun movements out there that do not agree with the NRA (not strict enough). Please read my post-- Cantors being in bed with Obama on gun control cost him the election. It was a grass roots movement by the people on a basic issue. And again thanks again for showing the NRA does not control the government. How do you get the kakka off your shoes?




All I said was The NRA supported Eric Cantor.

You said they didnt. You seem to have went off topic.

I just go after the BIG GUNS with the most to spend ,the NRA.
.


----------



## Ruthi (Jun 12, 2014)

Now I am getting cornfused, but that's o.k. political crud gets that way.


----------



## drifter (Jun 12, 2014)

Uh-oh, I gotta go talk to the President. Iraq is coming unglued. We're gonna lose the whole thing. I don't want nothing more to do with these people. Regardless they're goning to be fighting for ever more. Those are not terrorist, those are what was there when we first got there and they want their terrirtory back. Woe to those Suni. They want their country back and that oli money.  Let 'em have it Mr' Prez. Tell 'em we gave at the office.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 12, 2014)

This thread is very interesting to read because of the diverse opinions being expressed.
I have nothing to add except to say that I'm learning heaps. :applause:


----------



## rt3 (Jun 13, 2014)

Davey if your going after (overlooking your pun) the big guns the NRA, you still missed the point. The NRA is me, my neighbor the guy down the street. Each time the 40 million active shooters buy something at any sporting goods store we are asked if we want to throw in an extra dollar. In a lot of cases the store, Cabalas, Bass will even match the dollar donation to the NRA-ILA  (ILA is probably the one you really want). All these people believe in the 2nd amendment and by joining together we can act as one. Isn't democracy great. God I love this country!!


----------



## rt3 (Jun 13, 2014)

While I usually don't like ad hominem attacks, I dislike having to make the same point over and over. 

The 2nd amendment is not about hunting, target shooting, or plinking.

I would like to add one more    ---  Its not a popularity contest!!!!!!!


----------



## Mirabilis (Jun 13, 2014)

I hope that we focus more on the root cause of all these shootings, on the psychological causes and try to find some solutions that will reduce these crazyness.  Taking away guns doesn't solve much of anything, the crazy is still there.  My mother used to say that every rape and killing always happened in California but that is because she was watching a show that was based on California police events.  Same thing with these killings - we only see what the media choose to sensationalize.  We have to look at the big picture (and no- i do not own a gun).  Perhaps too many meds going around idk...


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 13, 2014)

Mirabilis said:


> I hope that we focus more on the root cause of all these shootings, on the psychological causes and try to find some solutions that will reduce these crazyness.  Taking away guns doesn't solve much of anything, the crazy is still there.  My mother used to say that every rape and killing always happened in California but that is because she was watching a show that was based on California police events.  Same thing with these killings - we only see what the media choose to sensationalize.  We have to look at the big picture (and no- i do not own a gun).  Perhaps too many meds going around idk...



*Good post.*


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 13, 2014)

Ad hominem
An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion.  Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence.

Guess this mean both of us,ya think rt3?


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 13, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> This thread is very interesting to read because of the diverse opinions being expressed.
> I have nothing to add except to say that I'm learning heaps. :applause:



Learning heaps? try this one it kinda goes both ways re guns.

This amendment is VERY controversial - some people argue about every word. It is commonly accepted that Americans have the right to own guns, but under what conditions, what types of guns, and how many often becomes a focus of debate. Did the founding fathers actually mean machine guns could be owned by citizens for shooting rabbits? Of course not, there weren't any machine guns yet. But exactly what they did mean has been the center of the storm on gun control for at least 200 years. 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Some would argue that "A well regulated militia" means that the right to bear arms protected states and not individuals. They say that since we now have standing armies (the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines), we no longer need militias, and if we don't need militias, then people have no need for guns. Do you believe that Americans need guns?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]There are those who believe that we need guns to protect ourselves and our families from criminals. Is this a good reason to have a gun in the house?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]There are those who believe that people need guns to protect themselves and their families from government. Does this sound like a good reason to keep a gun in the house?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]What about the type of gun the amendment protects? Should the government have the right to say that there are certain guns that people cannot have? What if you are a gun collector, and you have every gun ever made from 1921-1999 except for the AK47. You don't want to shoot anybody, but you collect guns and want an AK47. Should the government be allowed to tell you that you can't have this model gun?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]What problems arise from having guns in the home? Who is most likely to get shot by that gun?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Is there anyway to prevent the tragedy of little children being shot accidentally in their homes? Does the government have a duty to protect children from accidentally being shot?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]What if someone breaks into a home and steals a gun collection? What prevents those guns from being used later in a crime?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]What about hunters rights? In some parts of the country hunting is very popular. Are the people who enjoy hunting responsible gun owners, practicing gun safety?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]There is a lot of talk right now about registration and trigger locks, and smart guns. Should the government be allowed to pass laws about the ownership of guns? Is it OK for the government to make people wait 30 days to get a gun so they can do a background check?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]A popular saying is, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Do you believe this is true?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]If the government required everyone over 18 to carry a gun at all times, would criminals be less likely to commit crimes? If people did not know who had a gun, would they be less likely to start a fight? Some places have tried to do this, and make people carry a gun. How successful do you think this plan would be?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Rewrite the 2nd amendment to make it say what you believe we should do about guns.
[/FONT]


----------



## rt3 (Jun 13, 2014)

machine guns are not allowed in any state for the hunting of anything by state agencies
no crimes or killings using machine guns have been committed in the US for since they were banned, the ones that were used by criminals who stole them from Armories, (darn guys didn't register those guns).
private ownership of machine guns is  currently prohibited by federal law.
#1 this was decided by the supreme court recently in McDonald- an individual has the right to protect themselves. This struck down Chicago's draconian gun laws.
#2 this was struck down by the supreme court in McDonald also, if the individual feels the need yes, it is not a group right.
#3  VERY GOOD REASON
#4 the government already tells you what guns you can have and can't have.  If you have a class 10 lic. (I think-- could be 3) you can have a tank.
#5 domestic violence statistics are not a part of this consideration as it is weapon of opportunity and will occur regardless of the presence of guns
#6 as much as they have a duty to protect them from swimming pool drownings which are 50 times for frequent
#7 guns don't kill people -- people kill people
#8 every state has a hunters safey program - passing is a requirement for lic.
#9 3 questions decide what your asking
#10 another popular saying, "its not a question of prying the gun from my dead hand, its a question of if you are willing to die trying to take it. Do you believe this is true?
#11Police chief of Detroit thinks it is , and armed society is a polite society
#12 retired supreme court judge (simmons) has just wrote a book on that, as he was an advocate.  If the Obamanistas get their way it probably will be at least tried.
ignoring the 900+ sheriffs across the US who have already sent a statement stating they will not enforce any thing against the constitution.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 13, 2014)

My husband's an NRA member, and believe that all law abiding Americans have the right and freedom to own any type of guns they choose for collection, protection, hunting, target practice, or no reason at all.  An armed society is a polite society, and if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.  I'd rather not be a victim of a criminal or gang member who's packing if I can help it.  I keep a loaded gun in my home to be ready for any intruders who wish to do harm to me or my family, luckily I have never had cause to use it, but better have it and not use it, than not have any protection at all.  As they say, when seconds count, police are minutes away.

In past history, families have had guns and rifles in their homes, especially in rural areas.  They were all kept loaded and ready to go if needed.  Children were taught to respect guns, and learned the safe and proper way to use them.  The guns are not the problem here, the people are.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jun 14, 2014)

I'm an NRA life member. I have been a member since 1969. I grew up with guns and have many guns, several of which are loaded and ready in various places.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 14, 2014)

re:several of which are loaded and ready in various places. 

*That kinda scares the hell outta me,I just hope you dont have any youngsters in that house.*


----------



## Ruthi (Jun 14, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> I'm an NRA member, and believe that all law abiding Americans have the right and freedom to own any type of guns they choose for collection, protection, hunting, target practice, or no reason at all.  An armed society is a polite society, and if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.  I'd rather not be a victim of a criminal or gang member who's packing if I can help it.  I keep a loaded gun in my home to be ready for any intruders who wish to do harm to me or my family, luckily I have never had cause to use it, but better have it and not use it, than not have any protection at all.  As they say, when seconds count, police are minutes away.
> 
> In past history, families have had guns and rifles in their homes, especially in rural areas.  They were all kept loaded and ready to go if needed.  Children were taught to respect guns, and learned the safe and proper way to use them.  The guns are not the problem here, the people are.



I'm not SeaBreeze, but I think you made a point as to why more gun control is needed.  I grew up in a rural area and was taught to respect guns and the safe and proper way to use them as were my siblings.  

You state the guns are not the problem, but the people are.  People are much, much more numerous than way back when.  Now there are so many violent movies, videos and so many poor people. Our population has grown and along with it a family can rarely live on one income alone, thus in a middle class working family many of them are at their wits ends when it comes to keeping their children in line.  Also some of those working class people can't have the time to keep up on what is really going on in the world around them and get lax about safety when it comes to their collective possessions...may we say, possibly, of guns.  Certainly, in that case one could say the people are the problem, but then having those guns in existence is certainly a problem also.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Jun 14, 2014)

I think that Seabreeze has put this in a good perspective, as well.  We do not have any guns at this time, but only because my husband does not want one around; so I respect his feelings on that. Otherwise, I have been around guns all of my life. My parents lived on a farm, and Mom always told the story about the big old bear trying to get into the house, the dogs treed it; and she shot it out of the tree. 
My parents helped people have meat to eat during the Great Depression because they were both great marksmen, and the game warden gave then extra bullets to bring home a deer for families who did not have a capable hunter. 
Even after we moved into town, my dad went hunting in the fall and usually brought home a deer for us to eat that winter, which we shared with the family next door.

People here in America grew up in much the same way as I did, and except for criminals,and mobsters killing off each other, we have not ever had much of this senseless killing until the last ten years or so. 
It is not just the guns, something else is changing. Whether it is the graphic movies and video games, parents not being home to educate their children as much, or maybe that our children are being medicated with mind-altering drugs right from the time they start school; some , or all of this, is affecting people in such a way that seemingly normal people suddenly go berserk and starting shooting up their school or work place.
I would not even be surprised if some of it does not come from the government mind-control projects. 

But, one way or the other, it is not just because there are people with guns. There have always been people with guns, and they didn't do this.
In fact; most of the shootings, they actually tell us on the news that the shooter just acquired the gun to go on the shooting rampage.   They were not someone that already had their guns, and knew how to care for and use a weapon.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jun 15, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> re:several of which are loaded and ready in various places.
> 
> *That kinda scares the hell outta me,I just hope you dont have any youngsters in that house.*



Why are you so scared of guns, Davey? Respect them yes, but they are not to be feared. 

If I'm out of the house by the workshop or garage and see something amiss, I don't have to go to the house to get a gun. Youngsters around here also grew up with guns. 

Last summer when the grandkids came we set up targets and shot a variety of guns.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 15, 2014)

I never said I was scared of guns,did I?
I  own one and its always fired at the shooting range.(Beretta PX4)
Its all these damn new rules ,regulations,laws etc that keep popping up now and then and most have little enforcement for any of it.
Years ago you had to be very careful crossing a street in traffic,nowadays you're crossing the street with a showoff with his holstered gun.
So what should I be afraid of, the car or that guy ?


----------



## Jackie22 (Jun 15, 2014)

Davey Jones said:


> I never said I was scared of guns,did I?
> I  own one and its always fired at the shooting range.(Beretta PX4)
> Its all these damn new rules ,regulations,laws etc that keep popping up now and then and most have little enforcement for any of it.
> Years ago you had to be very careful crossing a street in traffic,nowadays you're crossing the street with a showoff with his holstered gun.
> So what should I be afraid of, the car or that guy ?



Good points....the regulations need to be enforced.

We need to be able to go to a theater without being scared of the guy with a gun strapped to his leg.

Children need to be able to go to school without fear of being shot.

We need to be able to go to the mall without fear of being shoot.

Where are those rights?

Are people in gun controlled countries able to walk in crowds without this fear?


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 15, 2014)

> Are people in gun controlled countries able to walk in crowds without this fear?


At least that is true where I live.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 15, 2014)

Putting gun death statistics in perspective...http://usconservatives.about.com/od...tting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 15, 2014)

I've read the article, Seabreeze, and I followed the link to the statistics contained in it.
 It's easy to play with numbers to minimise a problem.

 It's also easy to select an example why a problem is still alarming.
 I submit this example


> Last August, for example, a gun discharged in a 5-year-old’s backpack while students were waiting for the opening bell in the cafeteria at Westside Elementary School in Memphis. No one was hurt.



A five year old has access to a loaded gun? 
 And then there is this:


> Schools generally are much safer than they were five, 10 or 15 years ago, Stephens said. While a single death is one too many, Stephens noted that perspective is important. In Chicago there were 500 homicides in 2012, about the same number in the nation’s 132,000-plus K-12 schools over two decades.
> 
> “I believe schools are much safer than they used to be but clearly they still have a good ways to go,” Stephens said.


 Clearly, because I can't think of a single instance of someone, some child, being shot in any school in my country. 
 You've had 500 homicides in schools in two decades ?

 We've only just started installing security fencing around our schools but its purpose is to keep out weekend vandals.
 That's when the gates get locked.
 Our schools are much more likely to be burnt down than subject to gunfire.

 I've selected both of these examples from this article: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/despite-increased-security-school-shootings-continue/ There is a lot of discussion about the causes of this problem which is always a good place to start when looking for a solution.  The concluding paragraphs do not blame guns per se



> “This is a societal problem, it’s not a school problem,” Duncan said.
> 
> Bond, who is now the safe schools specialist with the National Association of Secondary School Principals, said there was a time when he believed school shootings would stop. He’s come to a sad realization that gives him a “sick pit in my stomach” that they won’t end, he said.
> 
> “Schools are still part of the American society and the American society is violent,” Bond said.


----------



## drifter (Jun 17, 2014)

We will have to endure with what we've got because it is the law of the land, until some future date when an enlightened Supreme Court will rule we have misinterpreted the founding fathers all these many years. And that the Second Amendment was referring to the militia and not to the errant masses. Much like we have the Electorial College as a safeguard against the errant masses who might otherwise do something foolish during a national election.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 17, 2014)

drifter said:


> We will have to endure with what we've got until some future date when an enlightened Supreme Court will rule we have misinterpreted the founding fathers all these many years. And that the Second Amendment wass referring to the militia and not to the errant masses. Much like we have the Electorial College as a safeguard against the errant masses who might otherwise do something foolish.




Exactly my thought too. Now that you said "militia" expect a few here to straighten you out on that word.


----------



## marinaio (Jun 17, 2014)

So regardless of how you choose to define "militia" it would likely be simple to form one.  The militia the founding fathers were aware of was nothing more than a collaborative grouping of local civilians, farmers mostly; some might consider the local gun club, American Legion or even the NRA as such a collaborative grouping.  You all can wish for some "hope and change" but the fact is it ain't gonna happen; however, if it ever did happen be prepared for a totalitarian, tyrannical government on a scale beyond comprehension.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 18, 2014)

"militia" today has been defined in hundreds of different ways by hundreds of different organizations here in the U.S.
 Some of todays militia are disorganzed consortium of citizen soldiers.

I going to stick what our forefathers ment as " A well regulated militia" which in todays terms means our National Guard.


----------



## marinaio (Jun 18, 2014)

Opinion not fact; the SCOTUS has not defined the terminology " A well regulated militia", it had a few opportunities to do so as cited below but has so far chosen not to do so:

*U.S. Supreme Court (1997):* _In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment._

*U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007):* _The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias._


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 18, 2014)

1997 ??  2007??
well if you want to get up to date(Sunday, June 15, 2014) ,try this one.  

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/stasi-gunning-peace-schools-article-1.1830478


----------



## rkunsaw (Jun 18, 2014)

Typical Davey, Marinaio is citing actual court decisions while you are citing an ex judge who made no decisions on the subject when he was a judge.


----------



## marinaio (Jun 18, 2014)

Not to mention a NY judge at that, of all the states to use as a reference!

It is true the US government considers the Nat'l Guard to be a militia but that is by their narrow and unofficial definition per the SCOTUS.  How can a professional military force that has sworn an oath to the President of the US, takes its orders from the government, is deployed with the regular Army in overseas conflicts and is paid by the government be considered a militia by any reasonable definition.  The Nat'l Guard is a standing army just like any other reserve unit.


----------



## Fern (Jun 18, 2014)

The civil war, Indian wars & the heady days of the "Wild West'  are now well & truly behind the US, the citizens have no need of armaments. It's one thing to have a weapon/s for 'sporting pleasure' as many 'civilised' , (tongue in cheek) countries do, but for households to be armed to the extent that the law allows, is archaic.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 18, 2014)

I don't think that in Australia we have anything like a militia. We have a standing army of professional soldiers and weekend reservists. After that we have professional police forces at state and federal levels.

In my mind militias are a worry. We have seen militias in operation in East Timor where they terrorised the local population on behalf of the Indonesians and the insurgents in the Middle East are referred to as militias. They have some internal organisation and ISIS does seem to be well co-ordinated but well regulated? By whom?

I can understand the National Guard being an acceptable militia according to the American Constitution but can any one point to another organisation that could be termed a "well regulated militia" ? That is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.


----------



## marinaio (Jun 18, 2014)

I don't mean to be insulting but I really don't care what the laws or attitudes are in AU or NZ or anywhere outside the US for that matter.  In America we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights both of which requiring constant protection through the vigilance of the general public or the rights contained in those documents will vanish like a wisp of smoke.  That is what the gun rights issue is about, not about who may hunt and who may not.

The majority of firearms in American homes are of the sporting type and most American gun owners are hunters and/or target sport shooters and we the citizens will decide if we want to own a firearm or not, not some bureaucrat.  Criminal firearm owners represent a small percentage of the whole who would greatly enjoy a totally defenseless public upon which to prey.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Jun 18, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I don't think that in Australia we have anything like a militia. We have a standing army of professional soldiers and weekend reservists. After that we have professional police forces at state and federal levels.
> 
> In my mind militias are a worry. We have seen militias in operation in East Timor where they terrorised the local population on behalf of the Indonesians and the insurgents in the Middle East are referred to as militias. They have some internal organisation and ISIS does seem to be well co-ordinated but well regulated? By whom?
> 
> I can understand the National Guard being an acceptable militia according to the American Constitution but can any one point to another organisation that could be termed a "well regulated militia" ? That is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.


When our constitution was written and the Second Amendment  was added, there was no such thing as a National Guard. This is not a militia.  It is just another part of the regular military, and they are sent overseas just like any other part of the miliary here.
The original wording plainly said that every person had the right to self-defence, but that these people would also be called upon in times of need as a militia. They had to have their own weapons, horse, knapsack, ammunition, and anything else needed for the defense of the country. 
If you think about it like a house catching on fire, and the fire spreads.  The fire engine comes, but if the fire keeps on spreading, then every person that can help stop the fire is going to help. They are not  truly firemen, just people protecting their homes, and their neighbor's homes.
The militia is basically the same thing. The original wording specifically says that every person has the right to own weapons, and that this right shall not be taken away from him.
 It has nothing to do with being a sportsman or hunting, and everything to do with self-defense.

Suppose America were attacked by China, Russia, or some other country. We would then have every person that owned any kind of a weapon out there fighting for our freedom, and that would be our militia.  The same thing would hold true if Australia were attacked, and needed every available person to help defend the country.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 18, 2014)

> The same thing would hold true if Australia were attacked, and needed every available person to help defend the country.


If Australia is attacked by an invading force then we're stuffed. Small arms in the hands of civilians wouldn't achieve much against a multitude of Chinese soldiers, even if every man, woman and child were to be armed to the teeth with a storage dump of bullets in the backyard.

On the other hand, during WW II a unit of militia (army reserves) held up the Japanese overland advance towards Port Moresby and bought time for more seasoned troops to be brought up. This was the first time the Japanese army was driven backwards in the Pacific War. They were a well trained and well regulated militia in every sense of the word and were entitled to keep their weapons at home when not engaged in active duty. But we don't need a bill of rights to grant them that right. It's just common sense.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Jun 18, 2014)

Warri, you are absolutely right, it IS just common sense !  We should not need a Bill of Rights to grant us that basic ability to defend  ourself, our family, our homes, and when necessary, our country.  (Self-defense is the first rule of survival, and something that every human being will probably need in one way or another during their lifetime. )
However, that being said, our founding fathers had seen what happened in England, and some of the other countries, and they wanted to protect our right to self-defense, not just for themselves, but for the future generations of Americans. So, they made sure that it was plainly specified in our Bill of Rights. 

To be sure, all the recent episodes of people seeming to just "lose it" and start shooting people is a terrible thing.   Whether it is the drugs, the violent movies and video games, or some form of mind control causing this to be happening more and more; it is happening everywhere, and taking away guns from responsible people will not stop it, it will only make us better targets. 
It is , in fact, one of the very reasons we still need guns to be able to defend ourselves nowdays.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 18, 2014)

Your founding fathers had a well founded fear that Britain might attempt to take back its former colonies. I think that is a dead issue now. 
In Australia we have long had a fear of invasion by Asian hordes from the north. When it did seem likely we were engaged in an all in war and it was our alliances that served us best. Although Britain was too busy elsewhere to lend a hand, the Americans realised that we had strategic value because of our location and chose to engage the Japanese before they managed to land any troops on our soil. Against the air attacks on Darwin small arms were not much use but antiaircraft guns did a lot of damage. They were manned by regular army (at least once by some completely naked ones, having scrambled from the showers).

I guess I'm saying that I place more weight on treaties, alliances and trade that I do on an armed civilian population to defend against invasion.


----------



## Sid (Jun 18, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Your founding fathers had a well founded fear that Britain might attempt to take back its former colonies. I think that is a dead issue now.
> In Australia we have long had a fear of invasion by Asian hordes from the north. When it did seem likely we were engaged in an all in war and it was our alliances that served us best. Although Britain was too busy elsewhere to lend a hand, the Americans realised that we had strategic value because of our location and chose to engage the Japanese before they managed to land any troops on our soil. Against the air attacks on Darwin small arms were not much use but antiaircraft guns did a lot of damage. They were manned by regular army (at least once by some completely naked ones, having scrambled from the showers).
> 
> I guess I'm saying that I place more weight on treaties, alliances and trade that I do on an armed civilian population to defend against invasion.



   I believe our founding fathers had more than a fear of Britian. I believe they were aware of the fact there would always be someone to take from other be it life or possessions. I believe they had a desire to create a place people could live with out those fears. That is not a dead issue.
   All of the treaties, alliances and trade do not protect me from someone who wants to harm my family or take my life or 
 my loved ones.  Yes we have law enforcement officer and I have called on them for help. When it comes down to it. I am the last line of defense. We have people who want to take that away from me and leave me at the mercy of evil people.


----------



## marinaio (Jun 19, 2014)

There are those who think it's wise to cede their constitutional rights and freedoms to the government under the guise of being "safer", very foolish because once lost those liberties can never be regained. Government exists solely for government, it's an inherent trait of government to grow ever larger and more powerful just as it's a trait of those in government to think themselves more wise and far above than the lowly masses who elected them.  Those who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights knew the nature of government, themselves in fact, they wrote protections into the governing documents that they felt would enable the nation to survive and prosper.  Unfortunately we now have a couple of pampered generations too spoiled to regulate their own actions, too lazy to work, too weak to fend for themselves who are giving to the very body that desires nothing more than absolute control exactly that absolute control over every aspect of their lives.  Sad indeed.


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 19, 2014)

*Now THATS a great post...Mind if I use this in other forums?*



marinaio said:


> There are those who think it's wise to cede their constitutional rights and freedoms to the government under the guise of being "safer", very foolish because once lost those liberties can never be regained. Government exists solely for government, it's an inherent trait of government to grow ever larger and more powerful just as it's a trait of those in government to think themselves more wise and far above than the lowly masses who elected them.  Those who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights knew the nature of government, themselves in fact, they wrote protections into the governing documents that they felt would enable the nation to survive and prosper.  Unfortunately we now have a couple of pampered generations too spoiled to regulate their own actions, too lazy to work, too weak to fend for themselves who are giving to the very body that desires nothing more than absolute control exactly that absolute control over every aspect of their lives.  Sad indeed.


----------



## marinaio (Jun 19, 2014)

If you think it's of some value or you can get some mileage out of it use it by all means.  I do hope it's used in the context I intended but I always assume that anything I post on the internet is then out of my control.


----------



## Sid (Jun 19, 2014)

marinaio said:


> There are those who think it's wise to cede their constitutional rights and freedoms to the government under the guise of being "safer", very foolish because once lost those liberties can never be regained. Government exists solely for government, it's an inherent trait of government to grow ever larger and more powerful just as it's a trait of those in government to think themselves more wise and far above than the lowly masses who elected them.  Those who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights knew the nature of government, themselves in fact, they wrote protections into the governing documents that they felt would enable the nation to survive and prosper.  Unfortunately we now have a couple of pampered generations too spoiled to regulate their own actions, too lazy to work, too weak to fend for themselves who are giving to the very body that desires nothing more than absolute control exactly that absolute control over every aspect of their lives.  Sad indeed.






    YES! YES! YES!    It is sad indeed.


----------



## Sid (Jun 19, 2014)

Well somebody has to make the 100th post so I will.


----------



## marinaio (Jun 20, 2014)

The fact that a topic that, in my opinion, should represent a basic understanding of our rights and liberties as Americans has actually reached 100 argumentative posts is a little disconcerting!


----------



## Davey Jones (Jun 20, 2014)

I think most of our rights went out the window after JFK died.


----------



## flphotog (Aug 17, 2014)

rkunsaw said:


> Why can't politicians understand that criminals don't obey laws. Such laws only affect law abiding citizens.



Absolutely agree. Gun control solves absolutely nothing.


----------



## flphotog (Aug 17, 2014)

CPA-Kim said:


> Countries that have strict gun controls have fewer per capita shootings, robberies, and gun-related deaths.



This is true, but look a little deeper at the actual violent crime rates and you will see a different story.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 18, 2014)

Why is that other civilized countries have gun control that seems to work?


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 18, 2014)

Nothing works 100% of the time but there are measures that can be taken to improve things.


----------



## flphotog (Aug 18, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> Why is that other civilized countries have gun control that seems to work?



I'm glad you said seems to work. While it is true that "gun crime" is lower you need to look at the bigger picture, while "gun crime" is lower in most cases violent crime is higher. I could never figure the reason for separating gun crime and violent crime. If I am attacked it doesn't matter much if I am stabbed, clubbed, or shot the result is I am in a world of hurt. At least some if not most countries with gun control also restrict pepper spray, knives, etc. In other words a law abiding citizen isn't even allowed to protect themselves. These controls have no effect on the bad guns they only effect the law abiding citizen.
My other real gripe is that the news services are so liberal they don't even report stories where a decent citizen uses a gun to protect themselves or if they do it's gets turned around to say it was unnecessary use of force. 
Some countries go so far as to reclassify some violent crimes into different categories in order to reduce at least on paper the actual violent crime rate.
In Australia prior to their idiotic gun ban there was no such thing as home invasion now it is epidemic, since it's new they don't as far as I know even have a name for it.
OK, I'll get off my soap box and get back to my first cup of coffee.


----------



## oldman (Aug 18, 2014)

I use my 9 mm for protection here at he house. I have a concealed weapons permit, but seldom carry my gun, which when carrying a concealed weapon, I opt for my 25 mm. I use my rifles to hunt game, not people. I am not interested in killing anyone, unless I feel threatened by a break-in in my own home. I did enough of that in Vietnam and it is not pleasant, no matter what the circumstance. I knew guys in the war that actually enjoyed killing people and bragged about it at our reunions. I never felt the "rush" that a few said they did when killing someone. Most time, when in combat, you just return fire and hope that you hit a target. However, there are time when you will get an open shot and see your victim go down.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Aug 18, 2014)

Combat is one thing but citizens being armed to the teeth is another...


----------



## Michael. (Aug 18, 2014)

The National Guard are now deployed according to our news outlets.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 18, 2014)

> In Australia prior to their idiotic gun ban there was no such thing as home invasion now it is epidemic, since it's new they don't as far as I know even have a name for it.


The media refers to "home invasions" but the law lays charges of armed robbery, unarmed robbery, burglary, break and enter dwelling, break and enter dwelling + common assault, break and enter dwelling + ****** assault and several other variations. Any or all of these may take place during a 'home invasion' so the statistics from the charges are meaningless due to double, triple counting.

By the way, guns are not banned in Australia. That is a gross misrepresentation of the national legislation.
So is the statement that home invasions are now epidemic. These offences have always occurred. That's why people have security systems and keep big dogs.

I don't have a dog, no security system, no gun and my front wire door is never locked. But then I don't keep cash, drugs or contraband in my house and I'm very unlikely to experience a 'home invasion' even though I live in south west Sydney.


----------



## Pappy (Aug 18, 2014)

Maybe someone from England can answer me this. I have read a lot of mysteries by, M.A. Comley, which take place in London and surrounding areas. None of the officers, or DIs, are allowed to carry guns without permission from their superiors although several officers have been shot and killed. The bad guys have guns don't they?

I fail to see the logic behind this and even the police people don't agree with this decision. Maybe someone can enlighten me on this. 

Hope I didn't hijack your thread too bad.


----------



## Vivjen (Aug 18, 2014)

The police do not want to be armed; although they are in specific circumstances.
there are a few police in each force who are allowed to draw arms out under authority; and every shot fired must be investigated by another force.
i repeat; the police do not want to be armed...


----------



## Davey Jones (Aug 18, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> Why is that other civilized countries have gun control that seems to work?




Easy answer,those countries dont have all the gun crazies we have here like "every one since birth has the rights to a gun".and "when you die make sure you take it with you,never know who ya gonna meet up there."


----------



## Pappy (Aug 18, 2014)

Vivjen said:


> The police do not want to be armed; although they are in specific circumstances.
> there are a few police in each force who are allowed to draw arms out under authority; and every shot fired must be investigated by another force.
> i repeat; the police do not want to be armed...



Thanks! Vivjen for replying. The police do not want to be armed is what I can't wrap my arms around. They prefer to be shot at with no means of defending themselves? 
I realize the stories I'm reading are fiction, but several times the DIs were in a position where they needed and wished for a weapon. Anyway, thanks again for replying.


----------



## Vivjen (Aug 18, 2014)

I understand now Pappy!
i believe that general opinion is that arming the police all the time would just lead to an escalation in violence.
there have been occasions when police have been shot; that even if they had been armed it would not have made any difference; one I remember when two women were shot; and were just attending a routine call in a residential area....they stood no chance, and the call did not warrant an armed response .

We have armed police at all airports; I used to work at one, and usually the police would have their machine guns casually slung over their shoulders; they never appeared to be bothered by them at all, or interested in using them!

Unfortunately, times change...but we still keep resisting; at the moment we appear to have more problems with knives..


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 18, 2014)

I wish this veteran had a gun to protect himself when beaten to death with a flashlight...http://humanevents.com/2013/08/23/a...d-ww2-vet-beaten-to-death-by-black-teenagers/


----------

