1
   

Aussies, Hide Your Steak Knives

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2004 11:04 pm
The Bears who usually cause us no end of problem are on Wall Street and wear suits which cost more than i paid for my jeep. The Bulls are about as bad, although employment is usually better when they're in the financial china shop.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Nov, 2004 05:35 am
Setanta wrote:
The second amendment reads, in its entirety:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I make the point about quoting the amendment in its entirety, because the gun lobby likes to ignore the first clause, and especially the phrase "well regulated."


They ignore the first clause because it is unrelated to the right they are invoking.

It is true that they do tend to misstate the meaning of that right, but so do the anti-gunners.



Setanta wrote:
In the context of the history of American jurisprudence, appellate courts and the Supremes have recognize that this refers to Article I, Section 8 of the constitution, which enumerates the powers of Congress, and reads, in part:

Congress shall have the power . . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


The courts do note that the "well-regulated militia" and the "militia of Article I Section 8" are one and the same.

You'd be hard pressed to show any cases where they say "well regulated" itself refers to anything in Article I Section 8.



Setanta wrote:
Therefore, the Congress is perfectly within its constitutional mandate to ban handguns and assault rifles, if it so chooses.


Nope. That would run afoul of the Tenth Amendment as well as the Second Amendment.



Setanta wrote:
It is undeniable that these types of weapons have the sole purpose of killing people.


LOL! Hardly.



Setanta wrote:
Statistics, being the leading cause of cancer, are a poor answer to the cunundrums of gun control. They ignore population increases, as well as economic and social factors which may effect crime rates.


I've seen statistics that use "rates per 100,000" and which suggest that economic and social factors are more responsible for crime than the availability of guns.

They don't seem to ignore any of those.



Setanta wrote:
To my Ozzian friends--you will always meet conservative supporters of unrestricted gun ownership at American sites who will offer scads of bogus statistics and the claim that these "statistics" support a contention that crime increases when the general population loses the right to own the biggest damned piece of artillery they can afford. Ignore them, i do.


I suppose stats about Australia's robbery rates, from the website of the Australian government, are bogus???
0 Replies
 
Aurora Dark
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2004 12:35 pm
Hmm... a few things:

- Recently Canada was mentioned, and crossing the border patrol, etc. to get into the country >_> Well... I recently saw a news special, and the reporters literally walked across a huge hole in the border (unpatroled/unwatched) and easily wound up in one of the towns without being conflicted or stopped.
It made me wonder about a few things Laughing To imagine that I could literally walk into Canada along that route Razz

- Not every American that owns a gun is obsessed with it. My household has two of them, for two reasons: my father was a trained marksman (military) so one is from those days, and the other is for protection. We're not violent people, we're not crazy, we're some of the most sane people you'll ever meet in this country. I think it's dangerous when people try to attack "American gun owners" as a whole. Sure, some of them are maniacs. But some of -any- group is insane, so that's not saying much.. lol

- In Australia, I'm assuming that if attackers are not known to use firearms often, there isn't as great a need to own guns. Here in the US however, almost every attack somehow involves a firearm--whether the criminals should have one or not, they do, in the sad truth of it. Genuinely, I would not feel safe if we did not own a firearm in this house...

- I think it's silly for people to argue, "Australia should ___" without living there and knowing much about the country. Similar to the point I just made, Aus and the US are two VERY different places in terms of what kind of crime occurs and the rates of each category. I think it's weird for one group to tell the other (Americans against Australians, AND Australians against Americans) what their country should and should not do. Out of all these pages, I've seen maybe... a small handful of replies that attempted to try doing this and actually succeeded in my mind. Often it just reveals how little you know about each other...

- For myself, I'm not really an avid weapons owner either way. But I had a question. Similar to firearms in Australia, if swords are banned, would you be able to get a permit to own them? I think it'd be strange, for collectors and medeival specialists (not sure if those really exist there, but here I've come across quite a few) to suddenly have their swords taken from them. Maybe I didn't read it clearer, but is the law saying they must be used for assault/violent intentions, to be banned?
I was just curious, since this thread kind of.. ran away from the original subject of bladed weapons Razz

- Of course it's difficult for America to imagine any region of Australia having a need to ban swords... we don't really have any crimes involving them. Whereas I'm sure America has far more crimes involving guns. Once again I make the point, you cannot compare both of them and police them both. They are not equal in the criminal sense, rather obviously.

Okay, I'm done babbling for now Wink
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Nov, 2004 01:40 pm
Just a nitpicky little point here re the term "Well Regulated" ... in the contemporary parlance of the time, the meaning was more to the point of competent, experienced, and dependable, which precisely is why, over the past 2 Centuries The Supremes have not, despite recent clamor from some for them to do so, interpreted the 2cnd Ammendment as restricting firearm ownership to a governmentally authorized, organized militia.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 05:45 pm
Re: Aussies, Hide Your Steak Knives
The 2003 numbers are out on the results of Australia's repeal of their vital gun freedoms.

Murders are still down only slightly.

Robbery is still way up, although they've managed to curb it to some extent.


Australia's murder rate (per 100,000):

1995: 1.8
1996: 1.7
1997: 1.7
1998: 1.5
1999: 1.8
2000: 1.6
2001: 1.6
2002: 1.6
2003: 1.5


Australia's robbery rate (per 100,000):

1995: 80.6
1996: 89.4
1997: 115.0
1998: 127.1
1999: 119.4
2000: 121.8
2001: 137.0
2002: 106.9
2003: 99.2


http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/e0f9c3859a740cdfca256f7200833027
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:33:30