On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:06:09 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:
On 4/24/2013 10:39 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:58:41 -0700, Don Kelly wrote:
On 19/04/2013 9:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Don Kelly wrote:
On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.
Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:
* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.
**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.
Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??
Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.
I disagree in part-any legal limitations don't mean a damn to
criminals-but what you have is a situation where any kook can walk into
a store and buy a gun, or where this isn't allowed, go to a gun show and
do it -without any background checks.
The above is a deliberate lie. Dealers at gun shows have to perform
the same background check as any other dealer. Always have.
**There is little to stop a person who has a clean record form walking
into a gun show, buying whatever guns they are asked to buy, by someone
waiting outside the show. This is PRECISELY the method used by the
Columbine killers to obtain at least one of their guns. It is a stupid
loop-hole and one which can easily be closed.
Idiot. Straw purchases are already against the law and this is *NO
DIFFERENT* than going into a gun store. The PROCESS IS EXACTLY THE
SAME NOW. Got it, moron?
IOW, you're a liar (but we already knew that).
The "rights" should be limited- do
you have a "right" to drive a car- I don't think so- you have the
privilege- provided that you present information as to your ability to
do it within conditions of capability. Shouldn't the same be done with
respect to weapons?
Where does the Constitution mention cars? How do cars *PROTECT* life?
As to reloading magazines- true-just think, instead of firing 50
rounds into a movie theater, one has to stop after 10 to reload. Even
that is too much.
Wrong again. Even that is ridiculous. You *obviously* know nothing of
what you speak.
As for shooting back- the odds are that in such a firefight, the
collateral damage is high-my experience with an automatic (or semi-)
weapon is that it tends to walk around a lot from where it is aimed. Oh
****- spraying bullets around hit some innocent people- while the
intended target is unharmed- witness gang shootouts.
The facts prove you wrong, but that's to be expected from *ANY* gun
grabber.
**Cite these alleged "facts" you speak of.
The "collateral damage" from self defense uses of guns is
*exceedingly* low. In fact, CCW holders accidentally shoot fewer
bystanders than do the police (yet shoot twice as many perps).
If you really wanted to learn anything about the subject you'd read:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...&keywords=lott
but you don't. You're too happy lying.
I do think a "long gun" registry doesn't work- but restrictions on
particular weapons do help.
Bull****. Proof required.
**Australia introduced bans on certain firearms in 1996, to deal with
the crime of mass murder, via gunshot. In the 18 years prior to 1996,
there were 13 incidences of mass murder, via gunshot. Since 1996, there
have been none.
The more legal guns, the LOWER the serious crime rate.
Illegal weapons do get into criminal hands-
but facts may indicate that making these weapons licit increases the
chance of innocents being harmed.
What "facts"? You've stated none.
**10,000 Americans are shot to death each year.
You really are an idiot. But that's no surprise to anyone here, Ron
Reaugh.