Another Day-Another child falls thanks to gun nuts selfish refusal to compromise.

maineman said:
knowing HOW to be well regulated is not the same as actually BEING well regulated. WHO regulates you, besides that mouse that lives in your pocket?
Click to expand...
you would have to show me any documentation that proves that the PEOPLE ratified the bill of rights with the understanding that 'well regulated' meant government controlled instead of well trained. I don't think you can do that, yet there are NUMEROUS pieces of evidence that shows the founders AND the people understood the 'well regulated' part meant to be well trained when they ratified it.
 
The Dude said:
Later jethro
We didn't use to let woman vote, now we do!
Slashing the murder rate will happen
Click to expand...

Actually that is happening now regardless of the gun nuts being incapable of passing laws to ban guns. Why do you think the murder rate, using guns, in Australia went up 300% after they banned guns?
 
Superfreak said:
Liberal education system at its finest... toppy and desh...
Click to expand...

I don't have any time to follow up on any of your subsequent temper tantrums, this is probably the only post I'll have time for today, but...

I noticed a thread the other day about the anti-federalists that desh put up. I thought it was very interesting. The anti-federalists were far from dumb. I even agree with some of their points. However, they were not well-written or spoken and they were up against the best pens of their time. They were annihilated for that reason.

Think about it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you would have to show me any documentation that proves that the PEOPLE ratified the bill of rights with the understanding that 'well regulated' meant government controlled instead of well trained. I don't think you can do that, yet there are NUMEROUS pieces of evidence that shows the founders AND the people understood the 'well regulated' part meant to be well trained when they ratified it.
Click to expand...

so... you are advocating successfully passing not only gun safety courses, but military training and discipline courses as well prior to gun ownership? That's a start.
 
maineman said:
so... you are advocating successfully passing not only gun safety courses, but military training and discipline courses as well prior to gun ownership? That's a start.
Click to expand...
don't read in to things that are not there. I am by no means advocating MANDATORY anything, nor am I advocating that the government be able to require such things before allowing gun ownership. the knowledge and training should be something that everyone strives for, but it's not required.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
don't read in to things that are not there. I am by no means advocating MANDATORY anything, nor am I advocating that the government be able to require such things before allowing gun ownership. the knowledge and training should be something that everyone strives for, but it's not required.
Click to expand...

so, with no ability to actually "regulate" the militia, that phrase in the constitution is meaningless? Just a pipe dream? Are there any other pipe dreams in the constitution that you believe in? How can the government even know who is IN the militia and who is supposed to show up when the militia is called into service, I wonder?
 
and you're not advocating mandatory ANYTHING? Not even the requirement to prove that you are a law abiding citizen before you are allowed to arm yourself and join the well regulated militia? really?
 
Darla said:
I don't have any time to follow up on any of your subsequent temper tantrums, this is probably the only post I'll have time for today, but...

I noticed a thread the other day about the anti-federalists that desh put up. I thought it was very interesting. The anti-federalists were far from dumb. I even agree with some of their points. However, they were not well-written or spoken and they were up against the best pens of their time. They were annihilated for that reason.

Think about it.
Click to expand...

Are you done with your tantrum Darla? Did you happen to read the complete nonsense Desh and Toppy have been posting? Didn't think so. Add in the fact that both are showing their ignorance with horrid grammar and spelling and that is why I am mocking them. I know you feel the need to rush in and protect Desh every time she makes a fool of herself, that is admirable to do that for a friend. It is saintly to do so for one that is so consistently pushing the boundries of ignorance.
 
and mexico is a great place to move to... I would not pick that city, however, just like, if I had decided to stay in the USA, I would not have chosen someplace like Philadelphia, Mississippi.
 
maineman said:
so, with no ability to actually "regulate" the militia, that phrase in the constitution is meaningless? Just a pipe dream? Are there any other pipe dreams in the constitution that you believe in? How can the government even know who is IN the militia and who is supposed to show up when the militia is called into service, I wonder?
Click to expand...
The constitution gives congress the power to arm and train the militia, but it in no way has the power to disarm or prevent the militia. regulate does not mean control, despite your wishes.
 
maineman said:
and you're not advocating mandatory ANYTHING? Not even the requirement to prove that you are a law abiding citizen before you are allowed to arm yourself and join the well regulated militia? really?
Click to expand...
yes, really. 'shall not be infringed' means something. congress has NO POWER to disarm the militia. THAT is what 'we the people' ratified.
 
Damocles said:
Actually that is happening now regardless of the gun nuts being incapable of passing laws to ban guns. Why do you think the murder rate, using guns, in Australia went up 300% after they banned guns?
Click to expand...

Really?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...n-king-says-australia-cracked-down-guns-homi/
By a few different measures, the arithmetic works. Homicides by firearm did decline after 1996 — in fact, had already been in decline.

One path to "almost 60 percent" comes from statistics compiled in part by Philip Alpers, a public health professor at the University of Sydney. The number of gun homicides fell from 69 in 1996 (excluding the 35 victims of the mass shooting prompting the laws) to 30 in 2012.

That’s a decrease of 56.5 percent.

(And, yes, you read those numbers right — we didn’t miss any zeros. The United States has about the same number of gun homicides every day as happened in Australia last year.)
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

John Howard, who served as prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007, is no one’s idea of a lefty. He was one of George W. Bush’s closest allies, enthusiastically backing the Iraq intervention, and took a hard line domestically against increased immigration and union organizing (pdf).

But one of Howard’s other lasting legacies is Australia’s gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia’s footsteps. “There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit,” he concluded. “But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path.”

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.
Click to expand...

And finally...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
Q: Did gun control in Australia lead to more murders there last year?

A: This ‘Gun History Lesson’ is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows.

FULL QUESTION

Is this true??

The e-mail says that "t has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms." Actually, it’s been 13 years since Australian gun law was originally changed. In 1996, the government banned some types of guns, instituted a buyback program and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. Gun ownership rates in Australia declined from 7 percent to 5 percent. Another law in 2002 tightened restrictions a bit more, restricting caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.

Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.
Click to expand...



Damo: As the owner of this forum, you are also looked to as the de facto leader of the conservative side of our members. You perform a disservice to the entire forum and all of it's members by repeating misinformation. We expect more from you.
 
maineman said:
so... you are advocating successfully passing not only gun safety courses, but military training and discipline courses as well prior to gun ownership? That's a start.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is that's exactly what Switzerland requires of it's residents who belong to their militia. And hasn't helped the gun murder rate in the country.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
The constitution gives congress the power to arm and train the militia, but it in no way has the power to disarm or prevent the militia. regulate does not mean control, despite your wishes.
Click to expand...

so "regulate" actually means nothing. "Well regulated" is a phrase without practical meaning or significance to you. In your view, anyone can buy and own and carry any type of firearm at any time anywhere and not have to answer to anyone in advance of their killing someone else. Again... are there any other phrases in the constitution that you completely and utterly disregard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top