UN Gun Debate

[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. [/quote]

There have been amendments to the constitution. However some things are timeless. Genetically speaking we are the same people now as then. Human nature has not changed.

[quote]

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. [/quote]

The right to bear arms is in the constitution because of the experience of trying to throw the British taught some valuable timeless lessons. Lessons that were paid for in patriot blood. [quote]

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

Us? We are not the ones going off on a rant at people when we do not know their history. Take some time to study the history of the revolution. If you are too lazy to read watch some movies.

If you do watch some movies something that you may notice is some of the things the British would say are identical to things they say today. ie Only those with something to hide would not want the government to come into their house and search it.

[quote]Spry wrote:
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]

You’ve dragged this thread out to 5 pages for what? So you can lecture us on our Constitution? Give me a fucking break. No one here needs it, definitely not from you. At this point the only reason you’re still arguing is to save face.

You and Ms Peters need to stay at home and focus your own domestic problems.

[quote]AndyG wrote:
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.

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]

Temper Temper. Does it bother to have someone who is not from your country try to tell you something about it? Or are you a liberal and the remarks about liberals hit too close to home?

Do you realize that you are not the first or second or third Aussie who has come on this board in the last few months and made essentially the same statements? That is the reason why on the first page people were saying what is it with you Aussies.

So you see it is not like we dislike you pommies it is just that guys turn this into a circular arguement that comes up every month, like a menstraul cycle.

If you were to learn about the culture here you would realize that it is not gun ownership that is causing the violent crime here, it is other societal factors which have been pointed out to you. This is why Switzerland does not have the rates of violent crime we do even though the Swiss are well armed.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.

“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?

[/quote]

It was meant to be yourself. Sorry for the typo.

You still don’t realise, courts don’t say that something is a good idea, they say whether it is legal. There’s a big difference.

If everyone in America thinks gun control is a bad idea, then howcome politicians tried to pass such laws?

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
You’ve dragged this thread out to 5 pages for what? So you can lecture us on our Constitution? Give me a fucking break. No one here needs it, definitely not from you. At this point the only reason you’re still arguing is to save face.

You and Ms Peters need to stay at home and focus your own domestic problems. [/quote]

It’s much more fun for them to stick their ignorant noses into the business of the US.

I mean they live in fucking Australia, where they allow the government murder their cultural icons for owning a gun.

How anyone can justify that is beyond me.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
AndyG wrote:

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

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.[/quote]

Here Here.

The founding fathers had their flaws but they set in motion a process of democratization people all around the world have beneffited from. Including you Australians.

[quote]AndyG wrote:
It was meant to be yourself. Sorry for the typo.[/quote]

Your typing skills aside, my statement still stands.

[quote]You still don’t realise, courts don’t say that something is a good idea, they say whether it is legal. There’s a big difference.

If everyone in America thinks gun control is a bad idea, then howcome politicians tried to pass such laws?

[/quote]

I didn’t say everyone in the US thinks the 2nd amendment is a good idea. Try reading. Then try understanding what the fuck you are reading.

Now - answer my questions.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.

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

Wow.
[/quote]

No offense Rainjack but you Texans do have some very relaxed laws vis a vis shooting people and the capital punishment system there is not known for it’s fairness. Just a couple of years ago Texas executed a man based on evidence that later was disproven.

I did get the sarcasm. But Texas is different from the rest of the states.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
rainjack wrote:
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.

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

Wow.

No offense Rainjack but you Texans do have some very relaxed laws vis a vis shooting people and the capital punishment system there is not known for it’s fairness. Just a couple of years ago Texas executed a man based on evidence that later was disproven.

I did get the sarcasm. But Texas is different from the rest of the states. [/quote]

Our gun laws do not allow us to “shoot people”. Our gun laws are more property protection laws than laws that allow us to shoot people.

I am not sure of the execution case you are referring to.

But our gun laws are not that unique. Take a look at Florida. Unless they have repealed the law, they have an open carry law. I don’t think we have that. We have concealed carry, but not open carry.

People are just jealous of Texas. I’m not trying to brag, or pull my usual Texas bravado, here. It is a fact.

We are kinda like the US of the 50 states, with the other 49 being like Europe, or a few bitter, pathetic Australians. There’s no real reason to hate us, other than the fact that we exist.

EDIT: It may not be Florida with the open carry law. I 'm not sure on that. I do know there is an open carry law in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire is one place I would not mind living. No sales tax. No income tax. Open carry. It’s like a little Texas without the fucking summer heat.

[quote]AndyG wrote:
rainjack wrote:
AndyG wrote:
rainjack wrote:
AndyG wrote:

If everyone in America thinks gun control is a bad idea, then howcome politicians tried to pass such laws?

[/quote]

There are a number of reasons. A big part of it is some people want a more authoritarian form of government and guns are in the way.

Ignorance and a general lack of understanding of what different areas of this country are like has allowed people with an authoritarian agenda to mislead people. It is real easy to convince people who live in the lilly white suburbs where the police will respond quickly to a 911 call that gun control will work because their reality is the police will come right away if there is a shooting in the neighborhood.

In the ghetto you are on your own. On New years 2005 I had a neighbor empty a full clip out of an ak47 in front of my house, no police came. If he did that in the suburban neighborhood I used to live in the entire police force would have responded along with a swat team.

Paranioa brought on by unfamiliarity.

Then there is the agenda driven use of statistics like you Aussies do.

[quote]AndyG wrote:
The argument that guns are a protection against tyranny is also a joke. You’d get your arses kicked by your government regardless of how many guns you have.[/quote]

Hardly.

First of all the US military cannot even hold downtown Bagdad without the Iraqis consent, you think it could hold LA, NY, or a state like Texas?

Then, if the shit really hits the fan a lot of units would not fight for the government, I also highly doubt that the National Guard would be eager to massacre their own people.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Sifu wrote:
rainjack wrote:
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.

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

Wow.

No offense Rainjack but you Texans do have some very relaxed laws vis a vis shooting people and the capital punishment system there is not known for it’s fairness. Just a couple of years ago Texas executed a man based on evidence that later was disproven.

I did get the sarcasm. But Texas is different from the rest of the states.

Our gun laws do not allow us to “shoot people”. Our gun laws are more property protection laws than laws that allow us to shoot people.

I am not sure of the execution case you are referring to.

But our gun laws are not that unique. Take a look at Florida. Unless they have repealed the law, they have an open carry law. I don’t think we have that. We have concealed carry, but not open carry.

People are just jealous of Texas. I’m not trying to brag, or pull my usual Texas bravado, here. It is a fact.

We are kinda like the US of the 50 states, with the other 49 being like Europe, or a few bitter, pathetic Australians. There’s no real reason to hate us, other than the fact that we exist.

EDIT: It may not be Florida with the open carry law. I 'm not sure on that. I do know there is an open carry law in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire is one place I would not mind living. No sales tax. No income tax. Open carry. It’s like a little Texas without the fucking summer heat.
[/quote]

It is my understanding that in Texas you can shoot someone if you think they are taking our property.

The execution story involved a house fire where two young girls died. The father was blamed with starting the fire. His defense was it was an electrical fire, the states expert witness said there is no way it was an electrical fire, so they quickly executed the father. Then it turned out that just might have been an electrical fire. I think I saw it on CNN the title of the story was did Texas execute an innocent man?

In Florida it is Concealed carry, though they did have a loophole years ago where people were walking around Miami looking like cowboys for a little while.

I think it is New Hampshire. You don’t even have to get a CCW license there, you just have to have a clean record.

[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]

That has nothing to do with low regard for human life but with the conclusion that, if your life and liberty belong to you and that you have the right to sustain and defend it, owning a weapon is a fundamental natural right that precedes laws, society and governments.

In Kansas City, a 7-11 clerk is thankful for his right to concealed carry.

http://www.kmbc.com/news/17543880/detail.html

The dead shmuck robbing the store at gunpoint, not so much.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
This is stupid and should not even be a debate. Let me spell it out: Gun laws only affect those people who follow the law. Criminals, by definition, break the law. Therefore, gun laws are useless against them. End of story.

BTW, a knife can be even more deadly than a gun in many cases. Use of a knife doesn’t require careful aim or any real training to use. A 7 year old little girl can use a knife against an unarmed 6 foot tall, 230 lb man and be quite deadly to him.

It is even effective against someone with a gun because of the 21 foot rule. The 21 foot rule is the minimum distance that someone can draw, aim and shoot a gun at someone coming at them with a knife and not get touched.

This is not an absolute, but what it says that knives are very dangerous and should not be underestimated. I have trained with them and helped teach many classes on knife safety and knife defensive tactics. They are no joke.

Are you coming out in support of the 2nd amendment?

What the hell?

You need to find a topic we disagree on. This is the second time we have gotten along. That’s not right. [/quote]

I’ve always been in favor of the 2nd amendment. I grew up around criminals and I understand them and how they function. Therefore, I want the ability to be able to blow these motherfuckers away if my family is in danger.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
This is stupid and should not even be a debate. Let me spell it out: Gun laws only affect those people who follow the law. Criminals, by definition, break the law. Therefore, gun laws are useless against them. End of story.

BTW, a knife can be even more deadly than a gun in many cases. Use of a knife doesn’t require careful aim or any real training to use. A 7 year old little girl can use a knife against an unarmed 6 foot tall, 230 lb man and be quite deadly to him.

It is even effective against someone with a gun because of the 21 foot rule. The 21 foot rule is the minimum distance that someone can draw, aim and shoot a gun at someone coming at them with a knife and not get touched.

This is not an absolute, but what it says that knives are very dangerous and should not be underestimated. I have trained with them and helped teach many classes on knife safety and knife defensive tactics. They are no joke.

Are you coming out in support of the 2nd amendment?

What the hell?

You need to find a topic we disagree on. This is the second time we have gotten along. That’s not right.

I’ve always been in favor of the 2nd amendment. I grew up around criminals and I understand them and how they function. Therefore, I want the ability to be able to blow these motherfuckers away if my family is in danger.[/quote]

Well then I guess you had better stay away from Australia. Evidently, they are more concerned with the rights of criminals than they are your right to own a gun.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

But our gun laws are not that unique. Take a look at Florida. Unless they have repealed the law, they have an open carry law. I don’t think we have that. We have concealed carry, but not open carry.

New Hampshire is one place I would not mind living. No sales tax. No income tax. Open carry. It’s like a little Texas without the fucking summer heat.
[/quote]

We have open carry in Maine as well. For being such a bass-ackwards Liberal weenie state, we understand our hunting and freedom guaranteeing freedoms and traditions.

You’re right about New Hampshire, though-- the other side of our ‘Maple Curtain’. They have it more right.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
This is stupid and should not even be a debate. Let me spell it out: Gun laws only affect those people who follow the law. Criminals, by definition, break the law. Therefore, gun laws are useless against them. End of story.

BTW, a knife can be even more deadly than a gun in many cases. Use of a knife doesn’t require careful aim or any real training to use. A 7 year old little girl can use a knife against an unarmed 6 foot tall, 230 lb man and be quite deadly to him.

It is even effective against someone with a gun because of the 21 foot rule. The 21 foot rule is the minimum distance that someone can draw, aim and shoot a gun at someone coming at them with a knife and not get touched.

This is not an absolute, but what it says that knives are very dangerous and should not be underestimated. I have trained with them and helped teach many classes on knife safety and knife defensive tactics. They are no joke.

Are you coming out in support of the 2nd amendment?

What the hell?

You need to find a topic we disagree on. This is the second time we have gotten along. That’s not right.

I’ve always been in favor of the 2nd amendment. I grew up around criminals and I understand them and how they function. Therefore, I want the ability to be able to blow these motherfuckers away if my family is in danger.

Well then I guess you had better stay away from Australia. Evidently, they are more concerned with the rights of criminals than they are your right to own a gun.

[/quote]

Well, in Australia, I guess I would be in jail or shot by the cops. However, there would be one or more less criminals around for them to worry about his rights. Especially if he tried to fuck with my family.

Pennsylvania and a number of other states allow open carry. Penna. also allows concealed carry with a permit.

The Castle Doctrine referenced a few times does not allow homeowners to just shoot people because they “think” something is happening. It does decriminalize the use of deadly force by a homeowner if an intruder is killed while the homeowner is defending his property. It essentially puts the guilt back on the criminal responsible for initiating the action, rather then the homeowner ,who is the victim in this scenario.

It must suck DOnkey balls to live in Australia.