Gun control vs Entrpreneurialism

You will never keep such people away from the tools. The objective should be to keep people from wanting to use such tools.

 

Chortle, chortle. Compelling points that the US isn't a developed country? Golly gosh, just wait for those flying pigs.

 

For Australia that is quite frankly untrue.

Sexual assault convictions has been rising due to increased reporting and education that it is not ok, that’s about it.

I showed you the stats homicide has been going down before and after the gun ban. Like most other serious crimes, the gun ban did not make a material difference on the downward trend of violent crime your American gun website picks and choose time periods and jurisdictions to make fictitious arguments that morons then requote like it is based on something other then the authors own partial bull crap.

Seriously mate get your **** together

 

You're asking for repetition. First, changes to official data definitions reflected pursuit of more consistency (given it was derived from multiple police authorities who adopted different data collection methodologies). Second, this data is not used in time series or international analysis. Victimisation survey is used. Previously called the British Crime Survey, definitions aren't changed to ensure criminology study.

You could refer to homicide data issues. However, that's minor stuff. Given low levels, time series analysis isn't an easy proposition. You get spikes reflecting how they're counted when the murderer is brought to justice (e.g. the murders by Harold Shipman aren't backdated to when they occurred)

 

Can I have the straw when you're finished, I need to make a bed for my horse.

 

I have read the papers offered here, maybe all you EXPERTS on Australia's Gun Laws or our experience should read this, if your game

http://apo.org.au/node/65627

 

Children, today's class is about straw men. According to the Oxford Dictionary, a straw man is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

The real argument is about weapons like the Colt AR-15, a replica of the military assault rifle ... the Armalite AR-15/M16 being banned. So ..... that being difficult to refute you create a straw man or two or three in this case. Nail guns, airsoft, and paintball guns. Add a ridiculous conclusion e.g. That alone is going to substantially increase the cost of building housing.

That children, is a perfect example of a straw man.

Tomorrows lesson is how to deflect. Class dismissed.

 

Is the AR-15 a "bearable arm" "in common use for lawful purposes" "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a militia"?

 

I have heard that a thousand time. I cannot, however, see what that has to do with my lesson on straw men.
I am grateful though for your contribution.

Class attention please, tomorrow we will be learning about deflection, another technique used by people with no argument so they deflect the argument in a different direction. Thanks Rucker

 

"The real argument is about weapons like the Colt AR-15, a replica of the military assault rifle ... the Armalite AR-15/M16 being banned. "

I was addressing the "real argument" in your post.

 

Actually its an illustration of the unintended consequences or 'side effects' if you will of hastily planned, poorly constructed laws that emerge from ignorant, emotional legislating.

If I were accusing someone of wanting to ban nailguns and paintball guns, that would be a strawman. I was illustrating that under the proposed guidelines, those things would also, unintentionally become illegal, inferring (I had hoped) that the guidelines were flawed.

 

Now we have had this ***yawn*** argument repeated for the umpteenth time.
Yes, so is the M16. Banning certain weapons like the Colt-AR15, making people lock up their weapons when they are not using them to stop the 100's of children killed each year, licensing users and registering weapons does not stop you from having the "Right to bear arms".

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kenneth-c-davis/a-right-to-bare-arms-arm-_b_774103.html

 

Well, that is funny because none of those things are banned in OUR gun laws which were hastily planned, brilliantly constructed laws from enlightened intelligent forward thinking people, responsive appropriate legislation which had greater than expected results. It never disarmed anyone who wanted to own a weapon within the class of license he held.

 

Banning certain weapons like the AR-15 sets a precedent that things can be banned for no reason. The AR-15 is merely one of hundreds of semi-auto, mag-fed, small caliber yet high velocity rifles. There is no functional difference between the AR and many other rifles that have never been used in mass shootings. If we ban something simply because of how its occasionally used, eventually everything gets banned because eventually everything will be misused by someone.

 

Justice Stevens was hardly a founding father. He never even lived in that era. Justice Story was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by a founding father. Here is HIS take:

"The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.(1) And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid." 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 300; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 125; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 219, 220.

 

These certainly infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. You realize that the dissent was the losing side in the argument, right?

 

Its a matter of precedent. For example, weed is illegal because we allowed the govt to restrict it for tax purposes back when it wasn't very popular, long enough for folks to become desensitized to its restriction. Then no one stood up to say 'this is moronic' when they banned it for health and welfare reasons.

'Machine guns' were originally banned in precisely the same way- tax stamps.

Prior to the banning of weed and machine guns, the govt didn't have the authority to ban anything. They manufactured that authority via legal precedent.

 

That is a garbage theory based purely on conspiracy theories mainly spawned by the NRA. It has no bases in reality. Our fairly strict gun laws were introduced in 1996 and today we have a higher percentage of gun owners owning more guns per person. Guns don't kill people people kill people, people kill people better with better guns.

 

Its precisely the same process they used to ban marijuana.

 

and the point is, because that agrees with Justice Stevens.

and at no time does that mention that ...

 

I'll get used to the itch from the straw, but go on ... what process, who used, to ban it where?

 

I thought weed was legal in the US? Is it ok if I give some of this straw to my horse?

 

what infringes your rights, what is "these". I can't wait for you to quote Miller to me.

 

Wish granted:

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

Interpretation - if the Court had been able to take judicial notice that a weapon had a reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, then the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. Are "military style" firearms useful to a militia?

 

Well, honestly, I don't agree we're not a developed country. I see why he defines it that way, but I'm not comfortable embracing his take on it 100%.

That said, the corruption of our country is unarguable. At every level the most fundamental functions of government have been corrupted. I myself have come to believe that our entire political process is completely and utterly corrupt; to where elections themselves have become nothing but bread and circuses for the masses to make us think we still have a voice in government while those who actually pull the levers of power do so anonymously and behind closed doors. We certainly no longer adhere to the Constitution, no matter how much our government officials might pay lip service to it.