© 2019 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Sign up to receive latest updates for Ferrari News, Threads, and Classifieds
Discussion in 'Australia' started by Aircon, Sep 17, 2013.
He's more capable of a correct knee jerk decision
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Actually he had about yhe same time as Trump did - so both useless!
The right to bear arms is in the US constitution. Changing any country's constitution in a democratic system is all but impossible and there are a lot of people in the US who enjoy hunting and shooting and do so without risk to others (as we did on GG last week). Switzerland requires all males to be in the reserve army and to keep a gun at home, they've never had a mass shooting.
America has a much bigger problem with young black men shooting each other in places like Chicago and Baltimore, which everyone should be outraged by, yet this topic is taboo. Mass shootings accounted for only 0.13% of all gun deaths between 1989 and 2014.
An Aussie blogger I enjoy is Arthur Chrenkoff, this is his well considered take on the subject, read it carefully and see if you can argue with any of it.
There's something in that. If I had a gun, yes there are people I'd shoot, but not a mass shooting, so that's ok.
It's a funny situation. Whilst I'm sure the lack of guns in Australia is saving lives, it's true that it's the screwed up person who's pulling the trigger.
There's a flaw of logic in your first paragraph Ian...
The point was that you can have guns without mass shootings. Banning assault rifles (a) won't be achieved and (b) will have little effect.
There was a 53 year old arrested in NSW this week who was seemingly trafficking guns, including an assault rifle. I have a couple of mates who are keen hunters in NZ who tell me that the program to take back automatic weapons isn't working, which of course our media ignores.
The second amendment doesn’t grant an unfettered right for US citizens to own a gun. That’s B.S. put about by the gun lobby and echoed by activists.
Unless you’re a member of a “well regulated militia”, you have no such right conveyed upon you by the Constitution.
Holy crap....that's an eye opener!
Not Surprising these sell like hot cakes
I wonder what sort of bullets they actually stop. Air rifle?
here's the actual sentence:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I'm not sure about your grammar, but I read that as 2 statements, there will be a militia and the people shall have the right to arms. If the intention was that only the militia should be armed, it would have read something like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Constitutional lawyers have been arguing over this for a very long time, so to describe it as "BS put about by the gun lobby" is a stretch.
If it was 2 statements it would be written as two statements with a period delineating them. It is not - it is written as one and the concepts are clearly intended to be intertwined.
Yes, there have been decades of legal argument as a consequence, and thousands of Americans have died by a bullet fired by their own countrymen in the meantime
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
37 thousand Americans have died in car accidents each year too. This compares to 11,208 homicides, 84.8% committed by one racial group, largely against their own group. Banning guns won't stop that happening.
When are you going to bring up the holocaust? Isn't that usually the next comment?
That statistic is an irrelevant deflection. Are you suggesting America can only work on one problem at a time?
You have to look at the state of affairs at the time to understand the context. Armies in Europe were wreaking havoc on an unarmed populace. "Regulated" means controlled. The intent of the founding fathers was to protect the public from a militia run rampant.
Unfortuanately in most areas of the US, the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" has been infringed. Somehow it's now "safer" to have the people as sheep for the slaughter.
see Pat's post below mine... you missed the irony emoji...
Agreed,you know 'they're' scraping the bottom of the barrel when 'they' start quoting that sort of rubbish.
AGAIN FOR ABOUT THE 20TH TIME...THE FIREARM WAS ONLY DESIGNED FOR ONE REASON AND ONE ONLY...TO KILL SOMETHING.
And sometimes you have to kill something in order to survive.
Life is not a fairy tale.
What‘s your thinking there, Rambo? What do you need to kill to make you feel safe?
22 people at an El Paso mall?
13 people at a student line dancing event?
27 people in a Sutherland Springs Church?
59 people outside a Las Vegas hotel?
Nah, you probably want to go after real threats to your survival...
20 children at a Sandy Hook school?
This kind of b***sh*t bravado makes me sick. You’d wet your pants if a cockroach sneezed at you
You poor sad git.
What a sad world you must believe you live in where you think there's evil lurking behind....well....everything.
Jeeez I'm glad I'm an Aussie (now!) and live in the best country in the free world.