On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:38:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:iri3u3p6flps1iunf7g1g63evvlo1dltmi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:58:01 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:fuo2u3tsvnjl8fdt73dtenqekv5j7jbsc1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:59:40 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>news:nus0u3d7gbfn3dtcstiuk18rthnhicjpca@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:55 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"flipper" <flipper@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:23s0u3tenhrh3hs2qrv2bjc1l4uur5kjkg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>>>>> <trevor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"keithr" <keithr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:47df906a$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Patrick Turner" <info@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:47DF8796.C9FDF1CB@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American
war
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> Independance?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the
>>>>>>>>>> rage.
>>>>>>>>>> Come
>>>>>>>>>> in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the
>>>>>>>>>> bison
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>**Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North,
during
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>Civil
>>>>>>>>>War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built
of
>>>>>>>>>sophisticated mechanical equipment. So im****tant was this item
and
>>>>>>>>>it's
>>>>>>>>>manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so
>>>>>>>>>complete
>>>>>>>>>destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the
>>>>>>>>>hands
>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no
small
>>>>>>>>>part,
>>>>>>>>>for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark,
time
>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>US
>>>>>>>>>history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many
Americans
>>>>>>>>>seem
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals,
>>>>>>>>>despite
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>**Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated
>>>>>>>militia.."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Separate clause.
>>>>>
>>>>>**The meaning is clear enough.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
>>>> be infringed."
>>>
>>>**As part of a well regulated militia.
>>
>> The operative word is "people" and it is the same "people" who have
>> the right to peaceably assemble and be secure in their persons, homes,
>> and effects.
>>
>> You also confound militia, select militia, and organized militia. See
>> George Mason, below.
>
>**No, I do not.
Yes, you do. And do so again while denying it.
> The US FFs' ONLY mentioned " well regulated militia". No
>other qualifiers were used.
And since "No other qualifiers were used" why do you perpetually refer
to select and organized militia in your bogus arguments?
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
-- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of
the Constitution
Not to mention I explained the English syntactical construction
showing "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed" is not dependent on anything else.
Of course, as is typical of gun control zealots, you summarily ignored
the words of the founding fathers as to the intent, as well as the
clear English of it.
>>
>> The 'militia' clause may be informative, or even a 'reason', for which
>> there may be multiple interpretations, but the rights declaration is
>> absolute and is not dependent.
>>
>> Take a simple example. The dean of a university issues a written
>> statement to the students of a class "the teacher being ill, class is
>> canceled."
>>
>> Nothing about the 'ill' clause alters the command declaration of class
>> being canceled. If the teacher called in sick to watch a football
>> game, but is not ill at all, class is still canceled. If someone took
>> the message wrong, class is still canceled. If someone got the
>> teacher's names mixed up, the class is still canceled. If the teacher
>> experiences a miracle cure and is now well, class is still canceled.
>> If the dean flat out lied about his reason, or had 25 other reasons in
>> addition to the one mentioned, class is still canceled. No matter
>> what the status of the 'ill' clause may be, good, bad, current, or
>> obsolete, class is canceled.
>>
>> Now, you can argue all day long that the dean didn't know what he was
>> doing, or there were substitute teachers available, or that the
>> students could teach themselves, or any other 'modern' ideas you dream
>> up, but the fact of the matter is "class is canceled" and the only
>> thing that can alter "class is canceled" would be a new declaration,
>> an 'amendment', so to speak.
Your deafening silence noted.
>> "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
>> be infringed."
>>
>>>> The right ---- an explicit acknowledgement of it's pre-existence.
>>>> "Rights" are inherent to the people and not subject to the
convenience
>>>> of the State. In fact, that rights are usually INconvenient to the
>>>> State is why explicit protections are stated.
>>>
>>>**And yet, the state may alter those protections. Witness: The Patriot
>>>Act.
>>
>> False.
>
>**Er, no. The Patriot Act subverts several parts of the US Constitution.
Repeating an unsubstantiated falsehood is still a falsehood.
All you do is parrot unsubstantiated accusations, as evidenced by your
inability to mention a single thing of substance.
>> The search and seizure clause specifically says "unreasonable," not
>> "any" or "all."
>>
>>
>>>> The people ---- which universally means the people both individually
>>>> and collectively, as in the right of "the people" peaceably to
>>>> assemble or the right of "the people" to be secure in their persons,
>>>> houses, papers, and effects.
>>>
>>>**With the exception of those subject to the Patriot Act, of course.
>>
>> List one rather than babbling unsubstantiated accusations.
>>
>> Even if you could, however, one infringement does not justify or
>> excuse another.
>>
>>>>> The US Foers refer to a "well regulated
>>>>>militia" as part of the rights to gun owner****p.
>>>>
>>>> It is 'referred to' in a separate clause but the rights declaration
is
>>>> explicit. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
>>>> infringed."
>>>
>>>**I'm afraid it is not that clear. There are two different versions of
the
>>>2nd Amendment. Given the times that the Amendment was written, it is
clear
>>>that the Founding Fathers referred to the necessity of an armed
militia.
>>
>> What's 'clear' is you haven't bothered to read a thing the people 'of
>> the times' wrote on the subject because, if you had, it would be
>> 'clear' they considered arms an individual right of the people
>> irrespective of any organized militia.
>
>**And yet, they chose to deliberately include the term: "well regulated
>militia" in the same Amendment. Not separate, but within it. In fact,
within
>the same sentence.
A fact that you have no clue about because, I repeat, " you haven't
bothered to read a thing the people 'of the times' wrote on the
subject."
>> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
>> few public officials."
>> -- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of
>> the Constitution
>>
>> "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
>> be properly armed."
>> -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
>>
>> "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
>> Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
>> conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are
>> peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
>> -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
>> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
>>
>> "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which
>> Americans possess over the people of almost every other
>> nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with
>> arms."
>> --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
>>
>> "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
>> -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson
>> Papers, 334
>>
>> "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
>> full possession of them."
>> -- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention
Your deafening silence noted.
>>>>>>>American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, they don't 'ignore' it at all. They just know how to read
>>>>>> English, such as "the right of the people..."
>>>>>
>>>>>**And yet they ignore the well regulated militia part.
>>>>
>>>> Repeating a falsehood is still a falsehood.
>>>
>>>**I just deal in facts.
>>
>> Clearly false
>>
>>
>>>>>> They also understand the origin of the right, common law
precedents,
>>>>>> the Federalist Papers writing on the matter, the form of government
>>>>>> established by the Constitution, and U.S. history.
>>>>>
>>>>>**They should understand the consistent and constant subversion of
the
>>>>>law
>>>>>by groups like the NRA, who act on behalf of the gun pushers.
>>>>
>>>> You are not 'the law'
>>>
>>>**I never said I was. I said that the NRA was subverting the law, on
>>>behalf
>>>of the gun pushers.
>>
>> You imply yourself 'the law' by hysterically shrieking 'subversion'
>> simply because they have a different opinion than yours.
>
>**Nope.
Yep.
> The NRA is on record for opposing laws which would limit the
>availability of guns to criminals.
They're on record for having a different opinion than yours but, as I
pointed out, you are not 'the law' and your opinion is not 'the law'.
> There is no sane, nor good reason for
>doing so.
In your opinion, irrational though it be.
> UNLESS the NRA does actually happen to be working for the gun
>manufacturers. THe NRA has no interest in the greater good. It acts
solely
>to lobby and promote the sale of more and more guns. Fostering paranoia
>amongst Americans is it's most useful weapon to date.
Just as you ignore the writings of the founding fathers, the meaning
of militia (in it's various forms), and English syntax you ignore the
obvious in order to construct your loony 'conspiracies'. And the
obvious here is that it's likely the NRA bothered to read the writings
of the founding fathers, knows the meaning of militia (in it's various
forms), and understands English syntax, so it is not terribly
surprising they have a different opinion than you.
That doesn't make them infallible but it's a decided edge.
>> The NRA has no power to 'subvert' the law. They can only speak and
>> lobby on behalf of their constituents and the 'power' they do have
>> comes from 1. their arguments having merit and 2. representing a large
>> constituency. All of which is well protected under the right of free
>> speech and of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the
>> government.
>
>**Indeed.
Glad we got the 'subversion' bit put to bed.
> Therein lies the problem.
Only if 'problem' is defined as someone having a different opinion
than yours. But, then, we've already established that you aren't 'the
law' and neither is your opinion.
> The NRA effectively lobbies to ensure
>that real gun control laws never see the light of day.
The NRA effectively lobbies against 'subverting' the meaning and
intent of the Second Amendment and they do so by pointing to the
writings of the founding fathers, the meaning of militia (in it's
various forms), and English syntax that you ignore.
It's called freedom of speech, debate, the right of the people to
petition the government and, in general, democracy.
>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other
gun
>>>>>>>loons
>>>>>>>each and every year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if that were true it's irrelevant as the authors of the text
had
>>>>>> no crystal balls with which to peer into 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>>**Of course. Which is why the US Constitution can be altered to
reflect
>>>>>the
>>>>>reality of life. I suspect the Founding Fathers might alter that
>>>>>Amendment,
>>>>>given the situation which exists today:
>>>>
>>>> What you think they 'might do' is also irrelevant. The fact of the
>>>> matter is they wrote it and unless amended it's meaning stands as
>>>> intended.
>>>
>>>**The meaning is under some considerable debate by many people.
>>
>> Mostly by those who substitute their own 'desires' over the clear and
>> profuse writings by those who lived at the time, wrote, and ratified
>> the Constitution.
>>
>>> It would
>>>seem that the time has come to re-write that Amendment to reflect what
is
>>>truly meant and, indeed, desired by the people.
>>
>> Good luck. But I believe you'll discover your expectation of what's
>> "desired by the people" to be fantasy.
>
>**A few more school massacres should do it. Sadly, it seems to reached
>epidemic pro****tions in the US.
I suspect 'the people' may prefer a different means of addressing
crime than 'subverting' the Constitution and surrendering their
rights.
Btw, good work on the hysterics. That's how people get the false
impression crime is up when it's down and that schools are dangerous
when more children die at the hands of their own parents and more
people die from lightning strikes.
>>>>>* The US is no longer occupied by a vicious foreign power.
>>>>
>>>> And it wasn't in 1789 either.
>>>
>>>**It was still under threat.
>>
>> By who? Those who signed the Peace Treaty?
>
>**Of course.
Interesting how glibly "of course" rolls off your lips when the
historical fact is they weren't.
>>> The US military was in it's infancy. The
>>>British armed forces were substantial.
>>
>> And on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.
>>
>> The fact is you said "occupied by a vicious foreign power" and that
>> was factually false.
>
>**Indeed. I should have said "PREVIOUSLY occupied by a vicious foreign
>power". Happy?
I'm always 'happy' when people say truthful things rather than false
things.
Although, it's a bit problematic to say "PREVIOUSLY occupied by a
vicious foreign power" when, prior to the 'revolution', that power
was, by the standards of the time. the 'legitimate' governing power
and not ' foreign' nor 'occupying'.
Jefferson would likely have disagreed but that's because he formulated
a rather radical new idea that 'legitimate power' originates with the
people. But then he also believed in the natural right of self defense
and the individual right to arms, even to revolution, so you're
between a rock and a hard place in cherry picking which bits you like
and which to ignore.
And even to 'recreation'.
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played
with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body
and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your
constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.
>>>>>* Savage natives no longer present a threat.
>>>>
>>>> Does the 'natural origin' of the attacker make a difference to self
>>>> defense?
>>>
>>>**It does, when there is a well funded, well armed police force, along
>>>with
>>>an even better funded and armed military force available. Neither
existed
>>>several hundred years ago.
>>
>> The police are there to string yellow tape around the dead bodies and,
>> one hopes, find who done it.
>
>**If you imagine that is all the police are charged to do, then you are
>sadly mistaken.
Poor attempt at a strawman. I didn't say "all the police are charged
to do," but the fact remains they are not personal 'defense'.
>> That is not "defense."
>
>**Indeed.
Glad we got that part agreed to.
> And your description of the functions of a modern police force is
>utterly simplistic.
No, but your implied argument that the police are a substitute for
self defense is absurd and they'll tell you that themselves.
>>> Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves
>>>> from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else?
>>>
>>>**People are free to defend themselves.
>>
>> You just want to take away the best means of doing so.
>
>**Do I? Prove it.
You do that well enough on your own.
> Whilst you are at it, prove that a gun is the best means
>of self defence.
I don't need to 'prove' a gun is "the best means of self defense." The
natural right of self defense leaves that determination and choice to
the individual.
It is also moot as long as the Second Amendment stands because it
unequivocally protects "the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms."
>>> I do, however, challenge the
>>>delusion that a gun is a useful means of self defence in the 21st
Century.
>>
>> Give me a gun, you come at me with a knife, and we'll see.
>
>**You'll be dead. Of that you can have no doubt. The element of surprise
>will trump whatever weapon you happen to be holding.
ROTFLOL
Convenient how you preordain your 'element of surprise'.
Certainly rules out any 'police defense', don't it?
>> Care to place bets?
>
>**Since I am not a murderer, it is moot.
The 'debate' was whether a gun is a useful weapon for defense.
Granted, an absurd debate because it obviously is, but then you have a
habit of ignoring the obvious.
> I should, however, remind you of
>how many armed police officers are killed, largely because their gun is
in
>it's holster.
The police are restricted as to when they may draw a weapon and their
job routinely places them in the position of confronting someone they
have no means to know if they are a threat or just another of the
vastly more common 'peaceful citizen', which, of course, is the reason
for the restrictions.
> The element of surprise trumps whatever weapon is held,
It may or may not. Depends on how well you execute it, whether you
achieve it at all, what your purpose was in the 'surprise'; and, if
the victim is not disabled or dead, whether they can retaliate
nonetheless..
In short, your comical presumption that all crime is an overwhelming
'surprise' with no possible recourse by the victim is patently absurd
as you declare by it that any criminal is automatically 'the winner'
and no defense whatsoever is possible.
It is, however, a good argument against the 'unloaded, locked, gun'
notion since you're adding to the potential success of the criminal at
the expense of the victim.
>regardless of the training of the individual. There's a good reason why
>soldiers and poilce officers carry their guns in a very specific manner,
>when entering a potentially dangerous situation. Civilians rarely have
such
>luxury.
I seriously suggest you not try out that theory with a gun owner.
Or, at least, consult an 'expert' first, such as...
Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons
incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and
Rossi re****ted that 34% of the felons said they personally had been
"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69%
said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said
that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or
"regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and
57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about
meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
---James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A
Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]
>>>In the US, for instance, 10,000 people are murdered via gunshot each
year,
>>>whilst around 200 are killed in so-called 'Defensive Gun Uses' (DGUs).
It
>>>would seem that in order to save around 200 lives each year, around
10,000
>>>must die. I'll hand that equation over to the statisticians to mull
over.
>>
>> As Mark Twain, I think it was, said: there are lies, damn lies, and
>> then there are statistics.
>
>**I cited the facts. Nothing more.
The evidence is you ignore the facts.
And you apparently don't understand Twain's point. That statistics are
'facts', easily constructed to suit almost any purpose, is what makes
them such a grand lie.
>> The 'trick' to those statistics is the underlying false premise that a
>> crime has not been thwarted, or a life saved, unless the defender
>> killed the perpetrator.
>
>**I _only_ listed those killed. I did not list those injured. The figure
>could be as high as 60,000 - 100,000. By remaining with deaths, the
figures
>cannot by fudged.
I didn't say you 'fudged' the figures. It's simply that the 'figures',
whether fudged or not, are inappropriate to the irrational conclusion.
To wit, it may be rational to judge the 'effectiveness' of a murderer
by the number of deaths he inflicts but it is not indicative of
'defense' because 'death' is not the goal.
>> The fact of the matter is the vast majority of 'gun defense' occurs
>> from simply brandi****ng with the perpetrator exercising his own
>> instinct for self preservation in retreating.
>
>**Prove it. Cite your evidence. Police re****ts, FBI data or reputable
media
>re****ts will be adequate proof.
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html
>
> Not to mention the
>> obvious case of wounding, but not killing, and firing with no hit (as,
>> perhaps, a warning shot), and those who simply avoid persons, or
>> premises, they know/suspect are armed.
>
>**See above.
Are you seriously suggesting you can't grasp the notion that wounding
someone is not a killing?
>>>>>* Police and military forces are well equipped, organised and funded.
>>>>
>>>> As provided for by the Constitution that was in play in 1789 as well.
>>>
>>>**Except that they were not, by any standards, well equipped and funded
>>>back
>>>then.
>>
>> The point is the Constitution provides for the military so there was
>> no need to add an 'amendment' to provide for that which was already
>> provided.
>
>**And yet, with the addition of the words: "well regulated militia" that
is
>exactly what was done.
LOL. No, it's just more evidence that wasn't done because it's
inherently irrational.
>>>> In fact, that the Constitution provides for calling forth the
militia,
>>>> arming the militia, and the maintenance of Armies and Navies
>>>> exemplifies the folly of suggesting an 'amendment' was needed for
>>>> 'arming' the (organized) militia that the Constitution already
>>>> provided for.
>>>>
>>>>> In
>>>>>fact, the US military is the most potent on the planet. It is capable
of
>>>>>obliterating every armed force on the planet.
>>>>
>>>> Good.
>>>
>>>**Seems like overkill to me, but it is what it is.
>>
>> Would be nice if the bad guys figure it's 'overkill' too and, so,
>> exercise good judgment and avoid being the object of the 'overkill'.
>
>**What makes you think that the US is always a "good guy"?
Comparative observation with the 'other guy'.
> Care to discuss:
>* Grenada.
>* Nicaragua.
>* Iraq.
>* Etc.
No, because you'd, no doubt, exhibit the same irrationality,
construction of fantasy and dismissal of fact you've exhibited on
this topic. And then there's the matter of it being utterly irrelevant
to the clear meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.
>>>>>* Supermarkets supply the vast quantity of animal protein.
>>>>
>>>> Your choice.
>>>
>>>**Not only mine. It is the overwhelming choice of the vast majority of
>>>Americans.
>>
>> Everyone has choice. I thought I made that clear in the "freedom"
>> comment.
>
>**You did.
Thank you.
> And _I_ am merely making the comment that had the US FFs known
>what kind of a society the US would become, they may well have made some
>adjustments to their words. In fact, they did forsee such things, by
>ensuring that there was a mechanism to alter the US Constitution.
What you 'imagine' the FF 'might' have thought or done, had they a
crystal ball, is irrelevant. And, since you have so much trouble
figuring out what they actually did, doubly so.
>>>> Freedom means someone else has their choice.
>>>
>>>**Indeed. The inhabitants of all the other Western, developed nations
have
>>>the freedom to walk the streets, secure in the knowledge that they are
>>>more
>>>than 10 times less likely to be shot to death than an American is. That
is
>>>a
>>>nice freedom to have.
>>
>> "Shot?" Are you trying to make a case that being stabbed or beaten to
>> death is a good thing?
>
>**Nope. I'm trying to make the case that Americans are more than 10 times
>more likely to be shot to death than the citizens of any other Western,
>developed nation.
You keep restricting to 'shot' when the real issue is murder and
crime. And while the U.S. murder rate is higher than some, and lower
than others, there is no evidence that it rises or falls with the
number of guns.
In fact, from 1973 to 1993 U.S. handgun owner****p increased 110%
(73.3% increase in guns of all types) but the murder rate fell 9.5%.
>> People do killing, not inanimate objects.
>
>**Strawman.
No, it's a fact. And if it were the case that 'guns cause murders'
then the above murder rate should have risen, not fallen, with a 110%
increase in what you argue is the 'cause'.
> Sensible gun control laws have been shown to reduce the
>likelihood of several gun related crimes (here in Australia). Guns (per
se)
>are not the problem. The lack of sensible controls over those guns, in
the
>US, is the problem.
In the first place, you cherry pick your, so called, 'facts' (like
claiming 'no defense' occurs unless the victim kills the perpetrator)
while ignoring others less convenient to your preordained conclusion.
Second, Australia is not the U.S. and data for the country in question
(U.S.) indicate exactly the opposite of what you claim. The murder
rate, more often than not, goes up with more gun restrictions and
drops without them.
Btw, this re****t indicates no statistically significant effect one way
or the other in Australia. They simply lost some rights for,
essentially, nothing.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
>>>>>* Guns have reload times measured in milliseconds, rather than tens
of
>>>>>seconds.
>>>>
>>>> Good.
>>>>
>>>>>* Accuracy of modern, high power weapons is significantly superior to
>>>>>those
>>>>>available several hundred years ago.
>>>>
>>>> Good.
>>>>
>>>>>* Concealable weapons are cheap, plentiful and readily available.
>>>>
>>>> They fought a war with them in 1776 and, as for 'readily available',
>>>> virtually everyone had them.
>>>
>>>**They weren't by any stretch as concealable as modern handguns are.
Nor
>>>as
>>>reliable, fast to reload, nor as accurate and, possibly more
im****tantly,
>>>no
>>>where near as deadly.
>>
>> The framers of the Constitution didn't believe in the right to bear
>> arms on the theory they weren't deadly.
>
>**Indeed. They weren't able to predict the future, either. Which is why
they
>allowed for alterations to the Constitution.
As I said before, you're free to propose an Amendment but not free to
alter the meaning of the one that's there.
>>>>>Perhaps it is time to re-visit the 2nd Amendment, given the realities
of
>>>>>life in the 21st Century. The US Founding Fathers thoughtfully
provided
>>>>>a
>>>>>method for this to be accomplished.
>>>>
>>>> That would be the proper approach rather than inventing a pile of
B.S.
>>>> about what the existing text means.
>>>
>>>**The existing text seems clear enough to most people.
>>
>> And "most people" recognize it means an individual right, just as the
>> framers intended and said.
>
>**As part of a well regulated militia.
The people, whether subject to call or a member of any 'organization',
are the 'militia',
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all
promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind
that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly
anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to
practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true
republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
>>> They refer to a "well
>>>regulated militia". They do not refer to some good ole boys wandering
>>>around in 4X4s shooting up the landscape.
>>
>> They didn't need to refer to 'good ole boys'. In fact, the Federalists
>> argued they didn't need to mention anything at all, militia, press,
>> speech, or otherwise, because the Federal government has NO powers not
>> granted and there are NO powers granted to ban or confiscate firearms,
>> or to prohibit speech, or to close down newspapers.
>>
>> In fact, they argued it was damn dangerous to include the Bill of
>> Rights because, they predicted, some future idiots might get the
>> stupid notion that anything not mentioned wasn't a right.
>>
>> They lost that debate when the others argued NO one could EVER be THAT
>> dumb... but we'll add the 9'th and 10'th 'just in case'.
>>
>> It seems the Federalists were correct, 9'th and 10'th notwithstanding.
>
>**Oh, and that pesky Patriot Act.
Only 'pesky' for terrorists.
>Trevor Wilson
>
|
