UN Gun Debate

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Spry wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Spry wrote:
Sifu wrote:
What is sad is how you fail to see that the reason why he killed so many is because he was virtually unopposed and the fact that he had easy access to a firearm.

Is anyone else tempted just to go get a gun right now and kill a dozen people to prove a point that you shouldn’t be able to get guns so easily?

Oh Wait! I can’t do that. Lucky for those dozen people I might add because I’m crazy enough!

like it wouldn’t be easy as hell to kill 12 people with a knife before the police get you?

Don’t relate yourself to Crocodile Dundee again. At least the man knew how to use a knife.

It would not be as easy. Don’t be silly.

And it is unlawful to carry a knife (without good reason) as well.

I could walk into an elementary school, kill the teacher first and then kill or maim almost every kid in the room with a knife, club or bare hands.[/quote]

About 5 years ago in China a teachers assistant went on a rampage with a butter knife. He killed the teacher and 6 kindergartners.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Spry wrote:
Constitutions need to change over time (very long periods but still they must change).

Constitutions do not need to change if they are well designed from the outset. The American founding fathers really got it right so there have been very few changes. Some aspects of freedom and government tyranny have not changed over thousands of years. [/quote]

I believe they are called Amendments.

Stick to arguing about guns and dont try to argue that Constitutions should never change.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
About 5 years ago in China a teachers assistant went on a rampage with a butter knife. He killed the teacher and 6 kindergartners.[/quote]

If only one of the children had been packing…

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
That’s insane. People actually have a problem with a shop owner defending himself from a machete wielding lunatic? The machete wielding lunatic’s life is more precious than the shop owners.

Wow.

You need to get out of there my friend, those people are fucking crazy. [/quote]

Ah, but that’s the thing. The majority supported the shop owner. The law forced the police to lay charges. It’s that guy running our country (Helen Clark) that’s the problem.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
That’s not Crocodile Dundee. This is Crocodile Dundee.

Funny that the Aussies on this thread would bring up Crocodile Dundee.

Although Paul Hogan is famous for his use of the Bowie knife in the movie, remember that he killed his crocs with a bolt-action Remington .308 (note cartridge cases on deck of boat).

Rodney Ansell, the man on whose life the character “Crocodile Dundee” was based, probably carried some kind of knife, but he certainly carried a rifle with him everywhere. When his boat was capsized by a crocodile, he dived back into the drink to retrieve his dogs and his rifle. It was his rifle that kept him alive for the next two months alone in the uninhabited outback of the Northern Territory, allowing him to shoot wild cattle for food.

Sadly, Ansell was killed in 1999 in a shootout with police, who were trying to take away his guns. He was carrying two rifles at the time, but was not wearing shoes. It is my contention that had he been wearing shoes, and was carrying only one rifle, he might have been able to outflank them and win.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz48.html

“In Australia today, police can enter your house and search for guns, copy the hard drive of your computer, seize records, and do it all without a search warrant,” Dr. Faria reports. “It’s the law that police can go door to door searching for weapons that have not been surrendered in their much publicized gun buy-back program. They have been using previous registration and firearm license lists to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms.”

Rodney Ansell was a fair dinkum Aussie and a T-Man. He is an inspiration to free men everywhere, and is sorely missed.[/quote]

That was a real sad read. I did not know he went out like that. It is not surprising however. Liberals hate the idea of individual self sufficiency. People being able to fend for themselves and not be reliant upon the government abhors liberals. This is why the Australian government would gladly kill someone like Rodney Ansell. His rifles allowed him to feed himself and to protect himself. ust like the spineless cowards that they are the government sent the police out to do their killing for them.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
That’s insane. People actually have a problem with a shop owner defending himself from a machete wielding lunatic? The machete wielding lunatic’s life is more precious than the shop owners.

Wow.

You need to get out of there my friend, those people are fucking crazy.

Ah, but that’s the thing. The majority supported the shop owner. The law forced the police to lay charges. It’s that guy running our country (Helen Clark) that’s the problem.[/quote]

That’s a good thing.

I’ve met gun control nuts who seem to think that the intruder’s life is more precious than the life of the home owner or shop clerk who is just trying to defend himself and his family. I hope they’re still in the minority.

[quote]Spry wrote:

I believe they are called Amendments.

Stick to arguing about guns and dont try to argue that Constitutions should never change.
[/quote]

Our Constitution should certainly never be changed by people who do not live in this fucking country. What the hell is wrong with you?

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sifu wrote:

NZ’s gun laws are the equivalent of a polished turd (and poorly polished at that).

The police can’t even fire tasers at criminals.[/quote]

Huh? They can’t because most of them don’t have them. Now that the review from the trial has been done they will be phased in. Usage will always have guidelines but I’m sure that’s the case anywhere in the world.

There was an investigation into the policeman’s conduct as I’m sure there would be anywhere (and rightly so). He was completely exhonerated (and rightly so). (BTW there were no methamphetamines in his system just party pills).

Big racket? By his supporters. Yes. Every poll in the country was overwhelmigly in his favour. By law he had the gun illegally but all charges against him were dropped. Justice served.

I’d say that judging by your examples you do. 2 examples of people shooting people who were not armed with guns and not ending up in prison really doesn’t suggest you live in a country where law abiding ppl can’t defend themselves.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
That’s insane. People actually have a problem with a shop owner defending himself from a machete wielding lunatic? The machete wielding lunatic’s life is more precious than the shop owners.

Wow.

You need to get out of there my friend, those people are fucking crazy.

Ah, but that’s the thing. The majority supported the shop owner. The law forced the police to lay charges. It’s that guy running our country (Helen Clark) that’s the problem.[/quote]

Helen Clark didn’t make the law. There’s were no noises for her to change the law (this was an extremely unusual and rare occurence). Helen Clark didn’t lay the charges. How is it her fault?

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Spry wrote:

I believe they are called Amendments.

Stick to arguing about guns and dont try to argue that Constitutions should never change.

Our Constitution should certainly never be changed by people who do not live in this fucking country. What the hell is wrong with you? [/quote]

I am not trying to change anything.

I point out the fact that Constitutions change.

I asked the pro-gun people not to rely on the argument of ‘its a Constitutional right’ and that they should actually consider if the Constitution needs changing, i.e. to address the gun issue and not discuss why Constitutions have the power that they do or why Constitutional change should not occur, etc.

What the hell is wrong with you?

[quote]AndyG wrote:
Guns aren’t illegal to begin with. They start of being legally owned then fall into the black market. Less legal guns means less guns filtering through to the black market.

The gun buyback in Australia decreased homicides. No crazy crims running around here shooting everyone.

Or did Charlton Heston tell you otherwise?[/quote]

So noone ever smuggles any in or makes their own? Or are there enough stolen ones in the black market to supply the demand?

Thanks to another one of your countrymen I have looked at the stats for Australia before. The percentage of homicides committed with guns peaked in 1968 then began a 40 year decline. It was at %18 in 1997 when the gun ban came about. It’s at %14 now. The total homicides took a slight dip in 98 while the total of manslaughter increased. Then they went right back up.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
That’s not Crocodile Dundee. This is Crocodile Dundee.

Funny that the Aussies on this thread would bring up Crocodile Dundee.

Although Paul Hogan is famous for his use of the Bowie knife in the movie, remember that he killed his crocs with a bolt-action Remington .308 (note cartridge cases on deck of boat).

Rodney Ansell, the man on whose life the character “Crocodile Dundee” was based, probably carried some kind of knife, but he certainly carried a rifle with him everywhere. When his boat was capsized by a crocodile, he dived back into the drink to retrieve his dogs and his rifle. It was his rifle that kept him alive for the next two months alone in the uninhabited outback of the Northern Territory, allowing him to shoot wild cattle for food.

Sadly, Ansell was killed in 1999 in a shootout with police, who were trying to take away his guns. He was carrying two rifles at the time, but was not wearing shoes. It is my contention that had he been wearing shoes, and was carrying only one rifle, he might have been able to outflank them and win.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz48.html

“In Australia today, police can enter your house and search for guns, copy the hard drive of your computer, seize records, and do it all without a search warrant,” Dr. Faria reports. “It’s the law that police can go door to door searching for weapons that have not been surrendered in their much publicized gun buy-back program. They have been using previous registration and firearm license lists to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms.”

Rodney Ansell was a fair dinkum Aussie and a T-Man. He is an inspiration to free men everywhere, and is sorely missed.

That was a real sad read. I did not know he went out like that. It is not surprising however. Liberals hate the idea of individual self sufficiency. People being able to fend for themselves and not be reliant upon the government abhors liberals. This is why the Australian government would gladly kill someone like Rodney Ansell. His rifles allowed him to feed himself and to protect himself. ust like the spineless cowards that they are the government sent the police out to do their killing for them. [/quote]

You are a dead set fucking idiot.

Ansell got shot because the cops were looking for someone who shot up a house the night before. They set up a road block and were fired upon from the side of the road. Ansell killed one of them. He was a nutjob, like you.

Another lie in that webpage for loonies is that crime is on the rise since the buyback. That is a barefaced lie. One study showed that and it was a fucked up study. Apparently one of the stupidest people on earth, Charlton Heston used Australia as an example of crime rising with less guns. Our Attorney General wrote to him basically saying to stop lying.

The government killed him because he was self sufficient is rubbish, he was a murderer and got shot trying to kill people. You are a halfwit for believing such rubbish.

[quote]Spry wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Spry wrote:

I believe they are called Amendments.

Stick to arguing about guns and dont try to argue that Constitutions should never change.

Our Constitution should certainly never be changed by people who do not live in this fucking country. What the hell is wrong with you?

I am not trying to change anything.

I point out the fact that Constitutions change.

I asked the pro-gun people not to rely on the argument of ‘its a Constitutional right’ and that they should actually consider if the Constitution needs changing, i.e. to address the gun issue and not discuss why Constitutions have the power that they do or why Constitutional change should not occur, etc.

What the hell is wrong with you?[/quote]

Geez, spry! What’s wrong with you? You can’t question whether the founding fuckheads were wrong!

[quote]AndyG wrote:
Geez, spry! What’s wrong with you? You can’t question whether the founding fathers were wrong!
[/quote]

Woah! Not wrong. Civil war back then and the right to bear arms made sense.

Just don’t say ‘its my right’ without reason today.

[quote]AndyG wrote:

Geez, spry! What’s wrong with you? You can’t question whether the founding fuckheads were wrong!
[/quote]

I am starting to hate you more and more. What kind of vitriolic, delusional, hate-filled moron calls some of the greatest minds of the last 200 years “fuckheads”?? They crafted a revolutionary document that had never been tried, and founded what became the world’s greatest democratic experiment at the time. The fact that they were fallible only means they were human beings.

Fuck you.

What kind of idiot accepts what people said 200 years ago without questioning it?

Someone else on here said “if a few people have to die for me to have a constitutional right, so be it”.

I don’t know the first thing about them but judging by what they have founded i.e. some of the ridiculously low regard for human life on here, they must be the founding fuckheads.

[quote]AndyG wrote:
What kind of idiot accepts what people said 200 years ago without questioning it?

Someone else on here said “if a few people have to die for me to have a constitutional right, so be it”.

I don’t know the first thing about them but judging by what they have founded i.e. some of the ridiculously low regard for human life on here, they must be the founding fuckheads.[/quote]

No guns = life?

Only in your pathetic little world.

The second amendment is challenged all the fucking time. I suggest you and your other ignorant pussie friend do some reading before making total dicks of yourselves.

Whoops. Too late.

It still wouldn’t hurt for you to know what you are talking about before opening your pie hole.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
GCF wrote:
rainjack wrote:
AndyG wrote:

Our Texas Prison system kills prisoners sentenced to death at a rate probably 50 times that of australia. In fact, we like killing so much, we put in an express lane at the prisons. Texas loves killing. You might say it is a hobby for most of us.

Why don’t you come visit? We are running out of shit to shoot at.

Actually it’s much higher than 50 times. Aus doesn’t have the death penalty. Interesting thing to be so proud of.

You should work for the Texas tourist board. That’s a great slogan:

Visit texas! We are running out of shit to shoot at!

He is a Texan. There are 49 other states they are not like Texas.[/quote]

Can you not pick up on sarcasm? I knew what I wrote would fly right over the pussie’s heads. But you?

Wow.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
AndyG wrote:
What kind of idiot accepts what people said 200 years ago without questioning it?

Someone else on here said “if a few people have to die for me to have a constitutional right, so be it”.

I don’t know the first thing about them but judging by what they have founded i.e. some of the ridiculously low regard for human life on here, they must be the founding fuckheads.

No guns = life?

Only in your pathetic little world.

The second amendment is challenged all the fucking time. I suggest you and your other ignorant pussie friend do some reading before making total dicks of yourselves.

Whoops. Too late.

It still wouldn’t hurt for you to know what you are talking about before opening your pie hole.

[/quote]

Another pointless post from rainjack. No latin in this one buddy?

Here’s a nice idea for you, when the 2nd amendment is challenged, its legal validity is decided upon. Whether it’s a good idea has nothing to do with any court’s decision.

How about learning what a court does before making ourself look like a bigger wanker.

[quote]AndyG wrote:
rainjack wrote:
AndyG wrote:
What kind of idiot accepts what people said 200 years ago without questioning it?

Someone else on here said “if a few people have to die for me to have a constitutional right, so be it”.

I don’t know the first thing about them but judging by what they have founded i.e. some of the ridiculously low regard for human life on here, they must be the founding fuckheads.

No guns = life?

Only in your pathetic little world.

The second amendment is challenged all the fucking time. I suggest you and your other ignorant pussie friend do some reading before making total dicks of yourselves.

Whoops. Too late.

It still wouldn’t hurt for you to know what you are talking about before opening your pie hole.

Another pointless post from rainjack. No latin in this one buddy?

Here’s a nice idea for you, when the 2nd amendment is challenged, its legal validity is decided upon. Whether it’s a good idea has nothing to do with any court’s decision.

How about learning what a court does before making ourself look like a bigger wanker.
[/quote]

“Ourself”? It’s ourselves and I couldn’t make you to look like more of a wanker than you do if I tried.

Bad idea? As opposed to having police enter my home without a warrant and forcibly take my weapons?

The courts say the 2nd amendment is not a bad idea, the vast majority of the US says the 2nd amendment is not a bad idea, and just about everyone on this thread with the exception of the two morons from pussieland think the second amendment is not a bad idea.

But I guess you know what’s better for the US than its own citizens, don’t you? How many times have you been to the US? How much time have you spent living in the US?