And the right to keep and bear arms is a human right. I'm not crying because crying doesn't fix anything, and more people than that die of things too numerous to count daily. It would be good, but not if it comes at the expense of the rights of the populace as a whole (guaranteed) for an uncertain result and gives a government already bloated with stolen authority even freer reign than its had in the past. Let's be reasonable: I'm being perfectly reasonable, you're the one appealing to emotion. Remove the limitations on defending oneself because of arbitrary venue and stop forcing these people to be defenseless. BE reasonable. Can you be?
Which guns "need to be banned"? Why? What about the 2nd Amendment which stands in your way of banning any type of firearm?
Look I have hesitated to get into this thread because much of it appears to me to be simply expressions of negative stereotype click bait disguised as a discussion. I currently have no interest in poking someone else just to see if I can get a juvenile thrill out of watching them react. But I do have a comment on my constitutionally protected rights. I am no one’s press spokesman but my own, but within that limitation I will say this. I for one am proud of the stubborn hold I keep on my rights. The RKBA is merely one of them. I cling just as stubbornly to my other rights, like the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. I realize that in the 21st century this may make me seem out of date or old fashioned to some, but I take some comfort that I am at least in the company of greater men than myself: “But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned; if so, I am contented to be so.” Patrick Henry, speaking Against the Federal Constitution (without a Bill of rights), June 5, 1788 I “cling” (for want of a better word) to the obligation that my government must respect my rights in a charter that transcends the current whim of my leaders because I have seen within my own country’s history how a refusal to do so leads to ruin. With regard to the RKBA alone, I have seen the denial of this right used not once but three times as an essential tool to oppress racial minorities. Many of the very men who wrote my Constitution denied the RKBA which they had secured to themselves to their slaves. And even after a devastating civil war that culminated in their freedom, the history of the southern states (including my own) shows many attempts were made to deny the newly freed slaves their RKBA to make it easier to continue to oppress them. But this history is not alone or unique. My government also denied the RKBA to Native Americans—which indeed was the longest racially motivated denial of a constitutional right in America, since the practice did not fully end in my country until 1979. Finally, the absolute denial (with zero due process or any right to challenge the edict) of the RKBA to Japanese Americans during world war two was deemed necessary by my government to effectively herd them into concentration camps. Gun control has a very racist history in my country. And in each instance I am convinced the government’s claim to this power—in the name of safety or security—was not only immoral but a violation of constitutional rights that exist to restrain the power of government. Now the author of our Bill of Rights, writing first in support of the proposed Constitution which did not yet have a Bill of Rights, expressed this thought which I believe everyone here can agree with in principle: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” James Madison, Federalist #51. This is where individual rights work. They are the firewall that obliges the government to control itself when it deals with one of its citizens. And I am grateful not only for the protection of all of my rights, but also for the manner in which they were secured: “In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example … of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness.” – James Madison, Essays for the National Gazette, 1792 I have no intention of allowing my liberty to be subject to the ebb and flow of the times, or to the whims of irritated governmental ministers. Sure they may talk a good game, but even if we were to assume, for purposes of this discussion, that you believe in evolution then surely you do not believe man has evolved beyond his weakness to fall victim to anger, hatred, revenge, envy, and spite. I believe that my only sure security of avoiding becoming the target and victim of these vices that lurk in the hearts of those who govern me is a recognized limit on their power to act on those vices. My Bill of Rights is that limiting document. An attack on one of these rights—a call that this right can be sacrificed today to the power of government in pursuit of some greater good—that in this case the end really does justify the means—merely invites others to mount the same attack on the other rights we also hold dear. It’s not a novel concept, or one that is restricted to 18th century thought. Here is perhaps an even better statement of this principle: “The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task of their protection a body of defenders.” Justice Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process, Lecture II, 1921. Now of course I recognize there are many people who do not believe the RKBA is a great ideal of liberty. They pointedly ignore the 2000+ year history of this right. They do not like the right, they do not exercise it, and they consider it not one of “their” rights. If it ever existed, then it is past its due date, is dangerous, and is held onto by “those” people. I’m not so foolish as to believe these thoughts don’t exist. I’m also not so foolish as to turn my back on those who have them. History has taught me how remarkably easy on the conscience it is for people to vote to give away what they believe are someone else’s rights. And so, perhaps, you will just have to forgive me if I still feel the need to insist that my rights—all of them—be acknowledged and respected…even at the risk of being considered old-fashioned. This is not a statement of resignation to any social problem you believe my country has. It is merely a statement asserting that all attempts to solve these problems must respect the rights secured to the individual citizen. A free people should accept nothing less. --- “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Justice Brandeis, explaining why he could not condone the government's use of information in a criminal case that was obtained from the use of a wiretap which in his opinion violated the Fourth Amendment, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (192 (Dissenting opinion).
Because we know the goal of the GCA's they detailed that when they began to go after just one type of guns, handguns, since then they have expanded the goal to include long guns. But make no mistake their long tern goal is totally banning the private possession of all guns in the U.S. In 1976, NCCH Chairman Nelson T. “Pete” Shields explained to the New Yorker, “I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily—given the political realities—going to be very modest,” adding, “Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time.”
I just saw that I messed up the quotes in Post 126, my reply to Nonnie. Please allow me to correct. What is overlooked is that America does not have a homogenous demographic or culture. Lots of areas have a murder rate of 0 per 100,000. A few areas have murder rates of 40 out of 100,000. To wit: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/most-murders-occurred-in-5-percent-of-countys-says/ The homicide rate may be rising in some U.S. cities, but slayings are still a localized phenomenon, with most U.S. counties not seeing a single homicide in 2014. The vast majority of homicides occurred in just 5 percent of counties, and even there the murders were localized, with some neighborhoods untouched by the violence, according to a new report released Tuesday by the Crime Prevention Research Center. “I just think most people have a real misunderstanding about how heavily concentrated murders are,” said John R. Lott Jr., the author of the study. “You have over half the murders in the United States taking place in 2 percent of the counties.” Going on the quote above, it is ludicrous to deny me of my Constitutional rights based on what is happening in Baltimore or New Orleans. The county I live in has a lower murder rate than Australia and the United Kingdom, as do most American counties. The vast majority of America is very safe - even with all our guns.
It gets tiring listening to people who don't live here trying to tell us how to regulate guns that don't know s#!t about guns or the over 20k gun laws on the books that are not enforced properly. Careful your self righteous indignation is showing.
Says an American. And Americans cover the plsnet telling other sovereign countries how to live their lives. Good solid hypocrisy
The same sovereign countries that rely on the united states supplying the majority of funding to NATO to keep them safe from foreign invasion?
I'm pro American just dont like the foreign member bashing here for good reason. Freedom of speech is great but some Americans think a/ this is solely a USA forum b/ that you should not comment on matters USA c/ that members a lefties/liberals/whatever if you are wanting to express an opinion. Pro gunners circle their wagons so quickly. Chill. Talk. Allow people to disagree.
Sorry mate, no hypocrisy here. I have no f#%s to give about your country. Don't live there and have zero plans to visit.
Then perhaps do not address citizens of the united states with a tone that suggests they are being talked down to like children, when the subject of discussion pertains to constitutional rights.
While freedom of speech allows you to say what’s on your mind, it also means if someone doesn’t like what you say they can tell you to GFY. It cuts both ways.
How would you know? Maybe you don't recall the demonization of the so called Saturday night special. A small cal, typically .22 LR, cheap, unrealiable, inaccurate revolver that only held maybe 8 shells. They were banned in many areas. If a cheap small cal revolver can be banned, any gun can be banned. We've seen it first hand. Brady bill I was suppose to be common sense gun control, this was all they wanted. The ink wasn't even dry when the bill was passed before the Brady bill II was presented. This is SOP of gun banners. You think these anti-gun organizations are going to disband if they get their assault rifle ban? It sure is funny coming from an Aussie who watched as your British brothers first lost their semi-autos and when a different type of gun was used for a mass shooting they then banned many other types.
This is a quote by Pete Shields the founder of Handgun Control Incorporated which later morphed into the Brady organization which sponsored the Brady Act. Once again I will post the truth about the mindset of gun banners. In 1976, NCCH Chairman Nelson T. “Pete” Shields explained to the New Yorker, “I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily—given the political realities—going to be very modest,” adding, “Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal—total control of handguns in the United States—is going to take time.” What's truly pathetic is how those who have no gun rights want to drag the U.S. down their level, versus working on gaining rights for themselves, but as the old saying goes misery loves company and there are people out there who will flat out lie to achieve that goal.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/19/woman-arrested-for-putting-recycling-in-wrong-colour-bags-10597792/ ^ What should we call the above Nonnie? The United Kingdomian "you got a license for that lass?" mind? FFS that's some over the line mark it zero Dude, you're entering a world of pain, Walter Sobchak ****.
I have yet to go to an Australian web forum and tell Australians how to run their country. Is that a common thing?
