Thread: Unconstitutional Action and Gun Laws

Thank, for your answers.Its always been awkward understanding this issue when you come from a country that has not had a civil war and even in ww2 the japs only bombed Darwin spasmodically and our only revolution, at the goldfeilds at Ballarat lasted for 20 minutes.Been pretty damn quite down here apart from those last two episodes in our history.

Well, the construction of that sentence is open for interpretation if you had put the semicolon where it was placed in the original text.

But regardless, I think that all laws and regulations should pass the 'common sense' test. I can respect the idea that people should be able to defend themselves. However, the idea that violent criminals should have that right is going too far imo.

Likewise, the constitution failed to properly define 'arms' because it was not necessary at the time. However, the term 'arms' can include nuclear weapons, high explosives, cruise missiles... etc. And the US and the world in generl would be a much more dangerous place if people were allowed to have those.

So while I understand the argument for unlimited gun ownership, there have to be some reasonable limitations if you don't want society to implode.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Well, the construction of that sentence is open for interpretation if you had put the semicolon where it was placed in the original text.

But regardless, I think that all laws and regulations should pass the 'common sense' test. I can respect the idea that people should be able to defend themselves. However, the idea that violent criminals should have that right is going too far imo.

Likewise, the constitution failed to properly define 'arms' because it was not necessary at the time. However, the term 'arms' can include nuclear weapons, high explosives, cruise missiles... etc. And the US and the world in generl would be a much more dangerous place if people were allowed to have those.

So while I understand the argument for unlimited gun ownership, there have to be some reasonable limitations if you don't want society to implode.

Violent Criminals do not have this right. To say or even imply they do is simply not true. Maybe I misunderstood your post.

I've got quite a few friends online from other countries and nearly all of them seem to think that just anyone can get a gun in the US. This is also simply not true.

There is quite a bit of common sense over here...just not enough politicians with any to speak of. And i'll tell ya right now I didn't vote for the guy in charge of my state.





Vote for me if joo want to live.

...

Originally Posted by Bruno

However, the term 'arms' can include nuclear weapons, high explosives, cruise missiles... etc. And the US and the world in generl would be a much more dangerous place if people were allowed to have those.

That's right. Thank God only non-people are allowed to have those.

Originally Posted by honedright

That's right. Thank God only non-people are allowed to have those.

If I remember correctly, soldiers are only allowed to handle service weapons while on duty, right?

@joki: if you want to fight your own home army, then you die. There is a TON of problems facing the US today. The 'what if you have to fight your own army' consideration is one of the most silly to base decisions on. The entire US government election process is still working according to the rules. Whoever is in charge, YOU put them there.

@59caddy: you seem to be prepared for full urban warfare. Personally, I think it is so farfetched that it is not worth bothering about. I don't know about the US, but here, armed burglary and home assault are exceedingly rare. That said, I have no problem with people arming themselves for that scenario because it is in their home. However, an arms race between people getting their hands on missiles and high explosives can only end badly.

Originally Posted by Bruno

If I remember correctly, soldiers are only allowed to handle service weapons while on duty, right?

Two words: Fort Hood.

Is that a yes or a no?

Originally Posted by honedright

Two words: Fort Hood.

They were unarmed at the time of the attack. Weapons are issued for maintenance, training and when it's time to get on the plane and wonder what idiot on earth has done something stupid this time.

Originally Posted by Bruno

If I remember correctly, soldiers are only allowed to handle service weapons while on duty, right?

@joki: if you want to fight your own home army, then you die. There is a TON of problems facing the US today. The 'what if you have to fight your own army' consideration is one of the most silly to base decisions on. The entire US government election process is still working according to the rules. Whoever is in charge, YOU put them there.

Kind of like our ragtag band of founders defied an entire nation and built arguably the greatest nation on earth did? Just kinda, you know, died?


Hmm.

History books can be a great place to look for political insight.

Originally Posted by JokiJo

Kind of like our ragtag band of founders defied an entire nation and built arguably the greatest nation on earth did? Just kinda, you know, died?


Hmm.

History books can be a great place to look for political insight.

Hey here's a fun history fact: If the French hadn't jumped in to block the English from sending troops and equipment, the founders would have been hung, drawn and quartered for high treason... if they had survived the massacre of course, which is doubtful.

From France in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secretly approached by Louis XVI and Vergennes, Beaumarchais was given authorization to sell gunpowder and ammunition for close to a million pounds under the veil of the Portuguese company Rodrigue Hortalez et Compagnie. The aid given by France would ultimately contribute to George Washington's survival against the British onslaught. France accommodated American frigates that committed piracy against British merchant ships, provided economic aid, either as donations or loans, and also offered technical assistance, granting some of its military strategists "vacations", so they could assist American troops.

The 1781 Battle of the Chesapeake caused a part of the British fleet to flee, making possible the entrapment of Charles Cornwallis' army at Yorktown, Virginia, where he hopelessly awaited the promised British reinforcements. Cornwallis was trapped between American and French forces on land and the French fleet on the sea. The French alliance was crucial in the decisive victory of the patriots at Yorktown on October 17, 1781, which could not have been achieved if not for the French Navy under Admiral François Joseph Paul de Grasse. Cornwallis formally surrendered on October 19, ending major hostilities in North America.

Think of that, next time you eat fries.