Thread: Unconstitutional Action and Gun Laws

And let's remember, folks, that the Founding Fathers were convinced that we needed the Second Amendment not just to protect ourselves from "bad guys" but also from our own government. They fully realized that government needs to be kept in check.

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Is this not what the police, national guard, army reserve and the big one the combined armed services are for? The average citizen would just be backup. Unless one of the above or all somehow become the enemy of the state and people! I suppose it has happened in some countries?
By the way that browning safari is a nice looking bit of kit Does it come in single shot?

Ah yes, the police. But, courts have repeatedly ruled that the police do not have any responsibility to protect individuals. That's right, no responsibility to protect you, your wife, your children or your aging grandmother.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Originally Posted by fccexpert

Ah yes, the police. But, courts have repeatedly ruled that the police do not have any responsibility to protect individuals. That's right, no responsibility to protect you, your wife, your children or your aging grandmother.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

I thought it might be interesting( and scary) to post these...

South vs. Maryland "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws." (1856)

DeShaney vs. Winnebago County Department of Social Services " There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's Knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against the danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constituational duty to protect"(1989) Basically even if you tell the cops someone is threatening to kill you they can't really do anything since a crime hasn't actually been committed yet.

Bowers vs. Devito "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen" (1982)

Warren vs. D.C. Offical police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection."( 1981)

Hartzler vs. City of San Jose " The court of Appeals held that the police department and it's employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection"( 1975)

Davidson vs. City of Westminister...this one is too long to type out. (1982)

Westbrooks vs. State ...another long one (1985)

Ne Casek vs. City of L.A. ...long (1965)

Susman vs City of L.A. "The court held that non of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs" (1969)

Antique Arts Corp. Vs. City of Torrence " The Court held that government code section 846 provides for immunity if no police protection is provided; or, if police protection is provided, but that protection is not sufficient"

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Hi, I am from out of town but have a keen interest in peoples rights.
Now feel free to correct me on anything I say, as I said I am from out of town, an outsider looking in so to speak.
When the above was written I gather arms were meant to mean a shovel, pitchfork, knife and a black powder rifle. So today that would translate to a shovel, pitchfork, knife and maybe a single shot bolt action rifle.
So my interpretation of the above is that every citizen has the right to keep a knife and a basic rifle for personal use, and to be ready when called upon by the state for home security, and when said citizens are organised into a well regulated militia.
So if the average citizen likes to do a bit of hunting or would like to help the state in a time of need, does anyone really need anything more than a knife and a single shot rifle and some ammunition in thier gun cupboard? From a personal point of view I don,t really see the need for hand guns or semi automatic weapons to be in the hands of the general public.
Like I said that,s just my two bobs worth and feel free to tell me your thoughts as I am allways interested when a government is trying to curtail a citizens rights.

Indeed. And a long with that, the 1st amendment should be limited to the spoken word and 18th century printing presses.

No, in order to hold our own militia we need nationally competent weapons. In my opinion, we should be able to own the same infantry kit as a solider. A militia isn't just an ideal we should hold to our hearts for great great grandpas sake. It should be a real line of defense against threats foreign and DOMESTIC. Whether that be fellow countryman, government, or drug addicts.

Back then, a black powder rifle is the equivalent of a shoulder fired rocket or large caliber mounted machine gun, much the same as the internet is a 21st century version or a printing press.


Don't for a moment think our founders weren't as smart as modern man. They have forseen problems that have come to pass hundreds of years after their deaths. We dismiss their wisdom so easily.

Originally Posted by JokiJo

Indeed. No, in order to hold our own militia we need nationally competent weapons. In my opinion, we should be able to own the same infantry kit as a solider. A militia isn't just an ideal we should hold to our hearts for great great grandpas sake. It should be a real line of defense against threats foreign and DOMESTIC. Whether that be fellow countryman, government, or drug addicts.

The U.S.A must be the only western country in the world that legally allows people to own military grade weapons and is it legal to have militia training camps.Considering you have the most modern and powerfull military force in the world protecting you, does the average citizen really need such powerfull weapons for personal defence and if the answer is yes, is that not saying something about the state of society and the nation in general? Why not just join the reserves and be trained professionally to use the latest weapons and tactics in the defence of your country. My son is in the reserves here in OZ.He has his complete kit at home including a fully packed quick deployment case.The only thing he doesn,t have is his rifle.This is kept at the barrack,s and in this day and age I do not think anyone is going to invade the country that quick that he would not have time to aquire it.

The reason is, and this comes as a shock to many (former) Europeans, that in the US, there is a higher degree of aim for self-sufficiency, and often a general critical view on governing institutions.

In my limited comprehension this conflicts heavily with the also clearly visible, near-celebrity/divine adoration for political candidates and their slick marketing. I need to wrap my head around that, but let's put it aside.

The criticism plus desire for self-sufficiency makes that people will likely be better prepared when the proverbial excrements hit the proverbial air circulation unit. Government is well equipped to take care of one entity best, themselves. In my view, the general consensus in Europe is more of a government that one follows and does almost everything for you.

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

The U.S.A must be the only western country in the world that legally allows people to own military grade weapons and is it legal to have militia training camps.Considering you have the most modern and powerfull military force in the world protecting you, does the average citizen really need such powerfull weapons for personal defence and if the answer is yes, is that not saying something about the state of society and the nation in general? Why not just join the reserves and be trained professionally to use the latest weapons and tactics in the defence of your country. My son is in the reserves here in OZ.He has his complete kit at home including a fully packed quick deployment case.The only thing he doesn,t have is his rifle.This is kept at the barrack,s and in this day and age I do not think anyone is going to invade the country that quick that he would not have time to aquire it.

Exactly what military grade weapons are you refering to. I hope you do not believe that a semi automatic AR-15 or AK-47 is a military grade weapon, because it is not (they are not assault rifles either). The military version of these rifles (which are true assualt rifles) are either fully automatic or capable of firing multi-round (usually three) bursts with a single pull of the trigger. The ammunition these rifles fire is actually less powerful than many common hunting rounds.

Originally Posted by fccexpert

Exactly what military grade weapons are you refering to. I hope you do not believe that a semi automatic AR-15 or AK-47 is a military grade weapon, because it is not (they are not assault rifles either). The military version of these rifles (which are true assualt rifles) are either fully automatic or capable of firing multi-round (usually three) bursts with a single pull of the trigger. The ammunition these rifles fire is actually less powerful than many common hunting rounds.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I would think that these weapons with a little knowhow and the right information could easily be converted back to fully auto. As to the killing power of these weapons I would suggest that anyone using these is not trying to take out a target at 1000 metres range.Proberly more like 100 metres, and who needs accuracy and power to kill at 100 metres or less when your on full auto? Basically those weapons were designed to kill people and nothing more, certainly were not made for hunting or sports shooting!

Originally Posted by JokiJo

Indeed. And a long with that, the 1st amendment should be limited to the spoken word and 18th century printing presses.

No, in order to hold our own militia we need nationally competent weapons. In my opinion, we should be able to own the same infantry kit as a solider. A militia isn't just an ideal we should hold to our hearts for great great grandpas sake. It should be a real line of defense against threats foreign and DOMESTIC. Whether that be fellow countryman, government, or drug addicts.

Back then, a black powder rifle is the equivalent of a shoulder fired rocket or large caliber mounted machine gun, much the same as the internet is a 21st century version or a printing press.


Don't for a moment think our founders weren't as smart as modern man. They have forseen problems that have come to pass hundreds of years after their deaths. We dismiss their wisdom so easily.

Sure. Let's give everybody military grade weapons. I'm sure Timothy McVeigh would've loved loading up his van with C4 at walmart. Would you draw the line somewhere? Nukes? Biological weapons?