Trevor Tosspot admits he seeks a total ban on the private ow

[dechucka]

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jog8do$fal$1@dont-email.me...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hrCdnbIL7JCZYTfSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E929F2F8BChopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xfadnaUAL5puRTfSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7KdndPBOcbvWjTSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip


Isn't the 2nd amendment all about the militia ;-)

Get back under your rock you stupid troll

it is isn't it

Get back under your rock, you stupid AND ignorant troll.

must suck for an aussie to point out to you what your constitution
states

However, he is wrong. There is no requirement for militia membership
for
the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Second Amendment addresses
the
state militias (the national militia is addressed in ArtI(8)(16)) but
what it is is a statement that gives *a* reason for the protection of
that right.

I agree and understand that the courts have taken a very liberal view of
what a militia is

Really? So what exactly do you think a militia is?

an organised military force of civilians

 

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6CBA2B719hopewell@216.196.121.131...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hrCdnbIL7JCZYTfSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E929F2F8BChopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xfadnaUAL5puRTfSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7KdndPBOcbvWjTSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip


Isn't the 2nd amendment all about the militia ;-)

Get back under your rock you stupid troll

it is isn't it

Get back under your rock, you stupid AND ignorant troll.

must suck for an aussie to point out to you what your constitution
states

However, he is wrong. There is no requirement for militia membership
for the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Second Amendment
addresses the state militias (the national militia is addressed in
ArtI(8)(16)) but what it is is a statement that gives *a* reason for
the protection of that right.

I agree and understand that the courts have taken a very liberal view
of what a militia is

Actually, the militia is defined in federal and state statutes. Here is
the federal definition of its militia. It is in 10 USC 311:

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311
01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

Now, the different states may have different definitions of their state
militias but, in general, they will agree with the federal statute.



Additionally, our Supreme Court has said that militia membership is NOT
required and has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

as I said they have taken a very liberal view

 

[dechucka]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:yuydne1mB-StyDbSnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xfadnaUAL5puRTfSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7KdndPBOcbvWjTSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip


Isn't the 2nd amendment all about the militia ;-)

Get back under your rock you stupid troll

it is isn't it

Get back under your rock, you stupid AND ignorant troll.

must suck for an aussie to point out to you what your constitution states

You're a fucking ignoramus who can't read for comprehension
The only thing that "sucks" around here is the vacuum between your ears

calm down have a glass of moonshine and a nice rock on your chair

 

[dechucka]

"Rheilly Phoull" <rheilly@bigslong.com> wrote in message
newsO6dnSebm_7KITbSnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

On 5/2/2012 4:45 AM, dechucka wrote:

you have epilepsy

And you're fool enough to imagine that is a funny comment.

Better to have a fool believe I allegedly have epilepsy,
than an alleged epileptic know you're a fool !

sorry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_seizure

It's about time you clowns shut this one down !!

why? don't like it don't read it

 

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F938AEA2Bhopewell@216.196.121.131...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vNSdnZU7RcH6rTHSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6892E61A7hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bZudnapp8ew5aTfSnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E90C996F17hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in news:rK-dnQBqZ-
XwTTfSnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E5FE98F640hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:m7adne2oxu3wLzTSnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:h4-dnUd6eenmzz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X62dnRCZRYHxqD7SnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:d8qdnZZqRe_FrT7SnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:z9qdnXzjO_q9lz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:q_6dneF1ZoQo8T_SnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UsmdnWMdjZHsITzSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

snip

Dealing with a 5 stupid year old is easier
Which current gun licensing laws in Australia
Be SPECIFIC, instead of trying to weasel with vague
generalizations.

that is specific as one can get

I'll accept that as an admission you don't know

as a gun owner I do and those are the laws

fyi
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/subordle
g+
512+
2006+FIRST+0+N

LOL
You need a permission to own a paint-ball gun
You need a permit to stage paint-ball games
Talk about a nanny state.
Ironic that since gun control was clamped down post Port
Arthur, things have gotten worse.

have they?

Yes they have
http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered
in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning
most
guns
and making it a crime to use a gun defensively,
armed robberies rose by 51%,
unarmed robberies by 37%,
assaults by 24%
and kidnappings by 43%.
While murders fell by 3%,
manslaughter rose by 16%."
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime,"
USA Today (May 9, 2002).
See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley,
"Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur,"
The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).

I'll stop there because that statement is BS

Prove it, false weasel-boi
But remember
If you get punished for keeping a loaded gun for self
defense,
you
have
effectively made it illegal to use a gun defensively, by making
it IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS you already have a loaded gun at hand.
In which case the government can come after you for using
that
gun
defensively.


it is not illegal to use a gun defensively in Australia, most
guns in Aus were not banned post 1996

While that is true, it is illegal in Oz to purchase or to carry
one
for
the stated purpose of self defense.

correct in all but very limited cases

With a few million citizens, "all but very limited" doesn't help
much.

but not really needed in Aus

Ahhhh, no one is ever murdered or a victim of violent crime in OZ?
Methinks you are full of shit.

and the consequences of "carry for
protection" laws in the US can be seen by the mess they are in.

What mess is that?

Interestingly it is very hard to find info on defensive gun use in
the US, one figure put around is 2.5 million per year but the crimes
that led to guns being drawn don't seem to be reported to the
authorities

You can look at Gary Kleck's study.....that is where the .25 million
number
comes from.
You can look at the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Study) it
comes up with 80,000 to 108,000 per year and never asks about DGUs.
You can also look at the following surveys:

Field 1976 3,052,717
Burdua 1977 1,414,544
DM1a 1978 2,141,512
DM1b 1978 1,098,409
Hart 1981 1,797,461
Ohio 1982 771,043
Mauser 1990 1,487,342
Gallup 1991 777,153
Gallup 1993 1,621,682
LA Times 1994 3,609,682
Tarrance 1994 764,036

so it isn't really that big a safeguard



Oh, I don't know. I would much rather be part of those in the surveys
above than one of the 10-12,000 who die from some street scab with a gun.

so all were used successfully to save loves, data doesn't say that

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 5/11/2012 8:38 AM, dechucka wrote:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F938AEA2Bhopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vNSdnZU7RcH6rTHSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6892E61A7hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bZudnapp8ew5aTfSnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E90C996F17hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in news:rK-dnQBqZ-
XwTTfSnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E5FE98F640hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:m7adne2oxu3wLzTSnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:h4-dnUd6eenmzz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X62dnRCZRYHxqD7SnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:d8qdnZZqRe_FrT7SnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:z9qdnXzjO_q9lz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:q_6dneF1ZoQo8T_SnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UsmdnWMdjZHsITzSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

snip

Dealing with a 5 stupid year old is easier
Which current gun licensing laws in Australia
Be SPECIFIC, instead of trying to weasel with vague
generalizations.

that is specific as one can get

I'll accept that as an admission you don't know

as a gun owner I do and those are the laws

fyi
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/subordle
g+
512+
2006+FIRST+0+N

LOL
You need a permission to own a paint-ball gun
You need a permit to stage paint-ball games
Talk about a nanny state.
Ironic that since gun control was clamped down post Port
Arthur, things have gotten worse.

have they?

Yes they have
http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered
in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning
most
guns
and making it a crime to use a gun defensively,
armed robberies rose by 51%,
unarmed robberies by 37%,
assaults by 24%
and kidnappings by 43%.
While murders fell by 3%,
manslaughter rose by 16%."
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime,"
USA Today (May 9, 2002).
See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley,
"Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur,"
The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).

I'll stop there because that statement is BS

Prove it, false weasel-boi
But remember
If you get punished for keeping a loaded gun for self
defense,
you
have
effectively made it illegal to use a gun defensively, by making
it IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS you already have a loaded gun at hand.
In which case the government can come after you for using
that
gun
defensively.


it is not illegal to use a gun defensively in Australia, most
guns in Aus were not banned post 1996

While that is true, it is illegal in Oz to purchase or to carry
one
for
the stated purpose of self defense.

correct in all but very limited cases

With a few million citizens, "all but very limited" doesn't help
much.

but not really needed in Aus

Ahhhh, no one is ever murdered or a victim of violent crime in OZ?
Methinks you are full of shit.

and the consequences of "carry for
protection" laws in the US can be seen by the mess they are in.

What mess is that?

Interestingly it is very hard to find info on defensive gun use in
the US, one figure put around is 2.5 million per year but the crimes
that led to guns being drawn don't seem to be reported to the
authorities

You can look at Gary Kleck's study.....that is where the .25 million
number
comes from.
You can look at the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Study) it
comes up with 80,000 to 108,000 per year and never asks about DGUs.
You can also look at the following surveys:

Field 1976 3,052,717
Burdua 1977 1,414,544
DM1a 1978 2,141,512
DM1b 1978 1,098,409
Hart 1981 1,797,461
Ohio 1982 771,043
Mauser 1990 1,487,342
Gallup 1991 777,153
Gallup 1993 1,621,682
LA Times 1994 3,609,682
Tarrance 1994 764,036

so it isn't really that big a safeguard



Oh, I don't know. I would much rather be part of those in the surveys
above than one of the 10-12,000 who die from some street scab with a gun.

so all were used successfully to save loves, data doesn't say that

**Except that the "data" is not really data. It's all wild speculation,
based on highly flawed surveys.

For that reason, the only data of interest is that compiled by the FBI
and/or US police forces.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F938AEA2Bhopewell@216.196.121.131...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vNSdnZU7RcH6rTHSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6892E61A7hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bZudnapp8ew5aTfSnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E90C996F17hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in news:rK-dnQBqZ-
XwTTfSnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E5FE98F640hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:m7adne2oxu3wLzTSnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:h4-dnUd6eenmzz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X62dnRCZRYHxqD7SnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:d8qdnZZqRe_FrT7SnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:z9qdnXzjO_q9lz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:q_6dneF1ZoQo8T_SnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UsmdnWMdjZHsITzSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

snip

Dealing with a 5 stupid year old is easier
Which current gun licensing laws in Australia
Be SPECIFIC, instead of trying to weasel with vague
generalizations.

that is specific as one can get

I'll accept that as an admission you don't know

as a gun owner I do and those are the laws

fyi
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/subordle
g+
512+
2006+FIRST+0+N

LOL
You need a permission to own a paint-ball gun
You need a permit to stage paint-ball games
Talk about a nanny state.
Ironic that since gun control was clamped down post Port
Arthur, things have gotten worse.

have they?

Yes they have
http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered
in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning
most
guns
and making it a crime to use a gun defensively,
armed robberies rose by 51%,
unarmed robberies by 37%,
assaults by 24%
and kidnappings by 43%.
While murders fell by 3%,
manslaughter rose by 16%."
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime,"
USA Today (May 9, 2002).
See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley,
"Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur,"
The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).

I'll stop there because that statement is BS

Prove it, false weasel-boi
But remember
If you get punished for keeping a loaded gun for self
defense,
you
have
effectively made it illegal to use a gun defensively, by making
it IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS you already have a loaded gun at hand.
In which case the government can come after you for using
that
gun
defensively.


it is not illegal to use a gun defensively in Australia, most
guns in Aus were not banned post 1996

While that is true, it is illegal in Oz to purchase or to carry
one
for
the stated purpose of self defense.

correct in all but very limited cases

With a few million citizens, "all but very limited" doesn't help
much.

but not really needed in Aus

Ahhhh, no one is ever murdered or a victim of violent crime in OZ?
Methinks you are full of shit.

and the consequences of "carry for
protection" laws in the US can be seen by the mess they are in.

What mess is that?

Interestingly it is very hard to find info on defensive gun use in
the US, one figure put around is 2.5 million per year but the crimes
that led to guns being drawn don't seem to be reported to the
authorities

You can look at Gary Kleck's study.....that is where the .25 million
number
comes from.
You can look at the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Study) it
comes up with 80,000 to 108,000 per year and never asks about DGUs.
You can also look at the following surveys:

Field 1976 3,052,717
Burdua 1977 1,414,544
DM1a 1978 2,141,512
DM1b 1978 1,098,409
Hart 1981 1,797,461
Ohio 1982 771,043
Mauser 1990 1,487,342
Gallup 1991 777,153
Gallup 1993 1,621,682
LA Times 1994 3,609,682
Tarrance 1994 764,036

so it isn't really that big a safeguard



Oh, I don't know. I would much rather be part of those in the surveys
above than one of the 10-12,000 who die from some street scab with a gun.

Sorry and should add that if these figures are correct than surely
police data would back them up

 

On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:04:55 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 5/11/2012 8:38 AM, dechucka wrote:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F938AEA2Bhopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vNSdnZU7RcH6rTHSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6892E61A7hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bZudnapp8ew5aTfSnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E90C996F17hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in news:rK-dnQBqZ-
XwTTfSnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E5FE98F640hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:m7adne2oxu3wLzTSnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:h4-dnUd6eenmzz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X62dnRCZRYHxqD7SnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:d8qdnZZqRe_FrT7SnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:z9qdnXzjO_q9lz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:q_6dneF1ZoQo8T_SnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UsmdnWMdjZHsITzSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

snip

Dealing with a 5 stupid year old is easier
Which current gun licensing laws in Australia
Be SPECIFIC, instead of trying to weasel with vague
generalizations.

that is specific as one can get

I'll accept that as an admission you don't know

as a gun owner I do and those are the laws

fyi
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/subordle
g+
512+
2006+FIRST+0+N

LOL
You need a permission to own a paint-ball gun
You need a permit to stage paint-ball games
Talk about a nanny state.
Ironic that since gun control was clamped down post Port
Arthur, things have gotten worse.

have they?

Yes they have
http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered
in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning
most
guns
and making it a crime to use a gun defensively,
armed robberies rose by 51%,
unarmed robberies by 37%,
assaults by 24%
and kidnappings by 43%.
While murders fell by 3%,
manslaughter rose by 16%."
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime,"
USA Today (May 9, 2002).
See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley,
"Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur,"
The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).

I'll stop there because that statement is BS

Prove it, false weasel-boi
But remember
If you get punished for keeping a loaded gun for self
defense,
you
have
effectively made it illegal to use a gun defensively, by making
it IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS you already have a loaded gun at hand.
In which case the government can come after you for using
that
gun
defensively.


it is not illegal to use a gun defensively in Australia, most
guns in Aus were not banned post 1996

While that is true, it is illegal in Oz to purchase or to carry
one
for
the stated purpose of self defense.

correct in all but very limited cases

With a few million citizens, "all but very limited" doesn't help
much.

but not really needed in Aus

Ahhhh, no one is ever murdered or a victim of violent crime in OZ?
Methinks you are full of shit.

and the consequences of "carry for
protection" laws in the US can be seen by the mess they are in.

What mess is that?

Interestingly it is very hard to find info on defensive gun use in
the US, one figure put around is 2.5 million per year but the crimes
that led to guns being drawn don't seem to be reported to the
authorities

You can look at Gary Kleck's study.....that is where the .25 million
number
comes from.
You can look at the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Study) it
comes up with 80,000 to 108,000 per year and never asks about DGUs.
You can also look at the following surveys:

Field 1976 3,052,717
Burdua 1977 1,414,544
DM1a 1978 2,141,512
DM1b 1978 1,098,409
Hart 1981 1,797,461
Ohio 1982 771,043
Mauser 1990 1,487,342
Gallup 1991 777,153
Gallup 1993 1,621,682
LA Times 1994 3,609,682
Tarrance 1994 764,036

so it isn't really that big a safeguard



Oh, I don't know. I would much rather be part of those in the surveys
above than one of the 10-12,000 who die from some street scab with a gun.

so all were used successfully to save loves, data doesn't say that

**Except that the "data" is not really data. It's all wild speculation,
based on highly flawed surveys.

Of course, you have said that 80,000 DGU per year is a reasonable
number.

For that reason, the only data of interest is that compiled by the FBI
and/or US police forces.

You mean the only "data" ***YOU*** are interested in. It fits your
bias.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 5/11/2012 11:12 AM, ozarkheart@yahoo.com wrote:

On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:04:55 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 5/11/2012 8:38 AM, dechucka wrote:

"RD Sandman"<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F938AEA2Bhopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka"<dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vNSdnZU7RcH6rTHSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman"<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6892E61A7hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka"<dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bZudnapp8ew5aTfSnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman"<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E90C996F17hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka"<dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in news:rK-dnQBqZ-
XwTTfSnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman"<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E5FE98F640hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka"<dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:m7adne2oxu3wLzTSnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa"<SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:h4-dnUd6eenmzz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka"<dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X62dnRCZRYHxqD7SnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa"<SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:d8qdnZZqRe_FrT7SnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka"<dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:z9qdnXzjO_q9lz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa"<SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:q_6dneF1ZoQo8T_SnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka"<dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UsmdnWMdjZHsITzSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

snip

Dealing with a 5 stupid year old is easier
Which current gun licensing laws in Australia
Be SPECIFIC, instead of trying to weasel with vague
generalizations.

that is specific as one can get

I'll accept that as an admission you don't know

as a gun owner I do and those are the laws

fyi
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/subordle
g+
512+
2006+FIRST+0+N

LOL
You need a permission to own a paint-ball gun
You need a permit to stage paint-ball games
Talk about a nanny state.
Ironic that since gun control was clamped down post Port
Arthur, things have gotten worse.

have they?

Yes they have
http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered
in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning
most
guns
and making it a crime to use a gun defensively,
armed robberies rose by 51%,
unarmed robberies by 37%,
assaults by 24%
and kidnappings by 43%.
While murders fell by 3%,
manslaughter rose by 16%."
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime,"
USA Today (May 9, 2002).
See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley,
"Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur,"
The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).

I'll stop there because that statement is BS

Prove it, false weasel-boi
But remember
If you get punished for keeping a loaded gun for self
defense,
you
have
effectively made it illegal to use a gun defensively, by making
it IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS you already have a loaded gun at hand.
In which case the government can come after you for using
that
gun
defensively.


it is not illegal to use a gun defensively in Australia, most
guns in Aus were not banned post 1996

While that is true, it is illegal in Oz to purchase or to carry
one
for
the stated purpose of self defense.

correct in all but very limited cases

With a few million citizens, "all but very limited" doesn't help
much.

but not really needed in Aus

Ahhhh, no one is ever murdered or a victim of violent crime in OZ?
Methinks you are full of shit.

and the consequences of "carry for
protection" laws in the US can be seen by the mess they are in.

What mess is that?

Interestingly it is very hard to find info on defensive gun use in
the US, one figure put around is 2.5 million per year but the crimes
that led to guns being drawn don't seem to be reported to the
authorities

You can look at Gary Kleck's study.....that is where the .25 million
number
comes from.
You can look at the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Study) it
comes up with 80,000 to 108,000 per year and never asks about DGUs.
You can also look at the following surveys:

Field 1976 3,052,717
Burdua 1977 1,414,544
DM1a 1978 2,141,512
DM1b 1978 1,098,409
Hart 1981 1,797,461
Ohio 1982 771,043
Mauser 1990 1,487,342
Gallup 1991 777,153
Gallup 1993 1,621,682
LA Times 1994 3,609,682
Tarrance 1994 764,036

so it isn't really that big a safeguard



Oh, I don't know. I would much rather be part of those in the surveys
above than one of the 10-12,000 who die from some street scab with a gun.

so all were used successfully to save loves, data doesn't say that

**Except that the "data" is not really data. It's all wild speculation,
based on highly flawed surveys.

Of course, you have said that 80,000 DGU per year is a reasonable
number.

**Incorrect.

For that reason, the only data of interest is that compiled by the FBI
and/or US police forces.

You mean the only "data" ***YOU*** are interested in. It fits your
bias.

**No. Data is data. Speculation is what has been presented by you.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I4qdnU7Wj5ejqDHSnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6CBA2B719hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hrCdnbIL7JCZYTfSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E929F2F8BChopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xfadnaUAL5puRTfSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7KdndPBOcbvWjTSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip


Isn't the 2nd amendment all about the militia ;-)

Get back under your rock you stupid troll

it is isn't it

Get back under your rock, you stupid AND ignorant troll.

must suck for an aussie to point out to you what your constitution
states

However, he is wrong. There is no requirement for militia membership
for the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Second Amendment
addresses the state militias (the national militia is addressed in
ArtI(8)(16)) but what it is is a statement that gives *a* reason for
the protection of that right.

I agree and understand that the courts have taken a very liberal view
of what a militia is

Actually, the militia is defined in federal and state statutes. Here is
the federal definition of its militia. It is in 10 USC 311:

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311
01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

Now, the different states may have different definitions of their state
militias but, in general, they will agree with the federal statute.



Additionally, our Supreme Court has said that militia membership is NOT
required and has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

as I said they have taken a very liberal view

A statute is NOT written by the courts, stupid

 

[dechucka]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:C6KdnfTcLuNdKzHSnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I4qdnU7Wj5ejqDHSnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6CBA2B719hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hrCdnbIL7JCZYTfSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E929F2F8BChopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xfadnaUAL5puRTfSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7KdndPBOcbvWjTSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip


Isn't the 2nd amendment all about the militia ;-)

Get back under your rock you stupid troll

it is isn't it

Get back under your rock, you stupid AND ignorant troll.

must suck for an aussie to point out to you what your constitution
states

However, he is wrong. There is no requirement for militia membership
for the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Second Amendment
addresses the state militias (the national militia is addressed in
ArtI(8)(16)) but what it is is a statement that gives *a* reason for
the protection of that right.

I agree and understand that the courts have taken a very liberal view
of what a militia is

Actually, the militia is defined in federal and state statutes. Here is
the federal definition of its militia. It is in 10 USC 311:

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311
01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

Now, the different states may have different definitions of their state
militias but, in general, they will agree with the federal statute.



Additionally, our Supreme Court has said that militia membership is NOT
required and has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

as I said they have taken a very liberal view

A statute is NOT written by the courts, stupid

but it certainly is interpreted by the Courts. Must suck to have to have
your own system explained by an Aussie

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F938AEA2Bhopewell@216.196.121.131...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vNSdnZU7RcH6rTHSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6892E61A7hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bZudnapp8ew5aTfSnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E90C996F17hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in news:rK-dnQBqZ-
XwTTfSnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E5FE98F640hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:m7adne2oxu3wLzTSnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:h4-dnUd6eenmzz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X62dnRCZRYHxqD7SnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:d8qdnZZqRe_FrT7SnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:z9qdnXzjO_q9lz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:q_6dneF1ZoQo8T_SnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UsmdnWMdjZHsITzSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

snip

Dealing with a 5 stupid year old is easier
Which current gun licensing laws in Australia
Be SPECIFIC, instead of trying to weasel with vague
generalizations.

that is specific as one can get

I'll accept that as an admission you don't know

as a gun owner I do and those are the laws

fyi
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/subordle
g+
512+
2006+FIRST+0+N

LOL
You need a permission to own a paint-ball gun
You need a permit to stage paint-ball games
Talk about a nanny state.
Ironic that since gun control was clamped down post Port
Arthur, things have gotten worse.

have they?

Yes they have
http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered
in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning
most
guns
and making it a crime to use a gun defensively,
armed robberies rose by 51%,
unarmed robberies by 37%,
assaults by 24%
and kidnappings by 43%.
While murders fell by 3%,
manslaughter rose by 16%."
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime,"
USA Today (May 9, 2002).
See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley,
"Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur,"
The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).

I'll stop there because that statement is BS

Prove it, false weasel-boi
But remember
If you get punished for keeping a loaded gun for self
defense,
you
have
effectively made it illegal to use a gun defensively, by making
it IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS you already have a loaded gun at hand.
In which case the government can come after you for using
that
gun
defensively.


it is not illegal to use a gun defensively in Australia, most
guns in Aus were not banned post 1996

While that is true, it is illegal in Oz to purchase or to carry
one
for
the stated purpose of self defense.

correct in all but very limited cases

With a few million citizens, "all but very limited" doesn't help
much.

but not really needed in Aus

Ahhhh, no one is ever murdered or a victim of violent crime in OZ?
Methinks you are full of shit.

and the consequences of "carry for
protection" laws in the US can be seen by the mess they are in.

What mess is that?

Interestingly it is very hard to find info on defensive gun use in
the US, one figure put around is 2.5 million per year but the crimes
that led to guns being drawn don't seem to be reported to the
authorities

You can look at Gary Kleck's study.....that is where the .25 million
number
comes from.
You can look at the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Study) it
comes up with 80,000 to 108,000 per year and never asks about DGUs.
You can also look at the following surveys:

Field 1976 3,052,717
Burdua 1977 1,414,544
DM1a 1978 2,141,512
DM1b 1978 1,098,409
Hart 1981 1,797,461
Ohio 1982 771,043
Mauser 1990 1,487,342
Gallup 1991 777,153
Gallup 1993 1,621,682
LA Times 1994 3,609,682
Tarrance 1994 764,036

so it isn't really that big a safeguard



Oh, I don't know. I would much rather be part of those in the surveys
above than one of the 10-12,000 who die from some street scab with a gun.

Funny how that point just goes right by chucklehead, and is completely
ignored by it.

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsoWdnR6JY6sg1zHSnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F938AEA2Bhopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vNSdnZU7RcH6rTHSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6892E61A7hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:bZudnapp8ew5aTfSnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E90C996F17hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in news:rK-dnQBqZ-
XwTTfSnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E5FE98F640hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:m7adne2oxu3wLzTSnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:h4-dnUd6eenmzz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X62dnRCZRYHxqD7SnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:d8qdnZZqRe_FrT7SnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:z9qdnXzjO_q9lz7SnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:q_6dneF1ZoQo8T_SnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UsmdnWMdjZHsITzSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

snip

Dealing with a 5 stupid year old is easier
Which current gun licensing laws in Australia
Be SPECIFIC, instead of trying to weasel with vague
generalizations.

that is specific as one can get

I'll accept that as an admission you don't know

as a gun owner I do and those are the laws

fyi
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/subordle
g+
512+
2006+FIRST+0+N

LOL
You need a permission to own a paint-ball gun
You need a permit to stage paint-ball games
Talk about a nanny state.
Ironic that since gun control was clamped down post Port
Arthur, things have gotten worse.

have they?

Yes they have
http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered
in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning
most
guns
and making it a crime to use a gun defensively,
armed robberies rose by 51%,
unarmed robberies by 37%,
assaults by 24%
and kidnappings by 43%.
While murders fell by 3%,
manslaughter rose by 16%."
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime,"
USA Today (May 9, 2002).
See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley,
"Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur,"
The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).

I'll stop there because that statement is BS

Prove it, false weasel-boi
But remember
If you get punished for keeping a loaded gun for self
defense,
you
have
effectively made it illegal to use a gun defensively, by making
it IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS you already have a loaded gun at hand.
In which case the government can come after you for using
that
gun
defensively.


it is not illegal to use a gun defensively in Australia, most
guns in Aus were not banned post 1996

While that is true, it is illegal in Oz to purchase or to carry
one
for
the stated purpose of self defense.

correct in all but very limited cases

With a few million citizens, "all but very limited" doesn't help
much.

but not really needed in Aus

Ahhhh, no one is ever murdered or a victim of violent crime in OZ?
Methinks you are full of shit.

and the consequences of "carry for
protection" laws in the US can be seen by the mess they are in.

What mess is that?

Interestingly it is very hard to find info on defensive gun use in
the US, one figure put around is 2.5 million per year but the crimes
that led to guns being drawn don't seem to be reported to the
authorities

You can look at Gary Kleck's study.....that is where the .25 million
number
comes from.
You can look at the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Study) it
comes up with 80,000 to 108,000 per year and never asks about DGUs.
You can also look at the following surveys:

Field 1976 3,052,717
Burdua 1977 1,414,544
DM1a 1978 2,141,512
DM1b 1978 1,098,409
Hart 1981 1,797,461
Ohio 1982 771,043
Mauser 1990 1,487,342
Gallup 1991 777,153
Gallup 1993 1,621,682
LA Times 1994 3,609,682
Tarrance 1994 764,036

so it isn't really that big a safeguard



Oh, I don't know. I would much rather be part of those in the surveys
above than one of the 10-12,000 who die from some street scab with a gun.

Sorry and should add that if these figures are correct than surely
police data would back them up

Why ?
In most cases the incidents are NOT reported to the police for a variety of
reasons
1) It's not worth the addintional bother and waste of time
2) In some jurisdictions, it would cause unnecessary grief from the
police
Unlike you most people are not stupid.

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5t6dnZI4rJfDrzHSnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:yuydnexmB-StyDbSnZ2dnUVZ_qkAAAAA@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hrCdnbIL7JCZYTfSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E929F2F8BChopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xfadnaUAL5puRTfSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7KdndPBOcbvWjTSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip


Isn't the 2nd amendment all about the militia ;-)

Get back under your rock you stupid troll

it is isn't it

Get back under your rock, you stupid AND ignorant troll.

must suck for an aussie to point out to you what your constitution
states

However, he is wrong. There is no requirement for militia membership
for
the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Second Amendment addresses
the
state militias (the national militia is addressed in ArtI(8)(16)) but
what it is is a statement that gives *a* reason for the protection of
that right.

I agree and understand that the courts have taken a very liberal view of
what a militia is

No they have not

yes they have

That's just YOUR ignorant (as usual) interpretation

no that is the courts.

Must suck to have an Aussie telling you about the constitution as you are
to ignorant

The definition of the militia has NOT been done by the Courts, dummy
It was made by STATUTE.
Which is WHY the USC was quoted or that definition

So no, it doesn't "suck" to have an ignorant Aussie blather his ignorance on
just about anything
It's a perfect occasion to demonstrate YOUR ignorance, you ignorant git.

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OuWdnTLrhZZkrjHSnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jog8do$fal$1@dont-email.me...


"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hrCdnbIL7JCZYTfSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E929F2F8BChopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xfadnaUAL5puRTfSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7KdndPBOcbvWjTSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip


Isn't the 2nd amendment all about the militia ;-)

Get back under your rock you stupid troll

it is isn't it

Get back under your rock, you stupid AND ignorant troll.

must suck for an aussie to point out to you what your constitution
states

However, he is wrong. There is no requirement for militia membership
for
the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Second Amendment addresses
the
state militias (the national militia is addressed in ArtI(8)(16)) but
what it is is a statement that gives *a* reason for the protection of
that right.

I agree and understand that the courts have taken a very liberal view of
what a militia is

Really? So what exactly do you think a militia is?

an organised military force of civilians

Funny how the USC as a section defining the "UNORGANIZED militia"
Must suck to be an ignorant Assie like you

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:G5WdnawiB_1lKjHSnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:C6KdnfTcLuNdKzHSnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I4qdnU7Wj5ejqDHSnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6CBA2B719hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hrCdnbIL7JCZYTfSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E929F2F8BChopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xfadnaUAL5puRTfSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7KdndPBOcbvWjTSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip


Isn't the 2nd amendment all about the militia ;-)

Get back under your rock you stupid troll

it is isn't it

Get back under your rock, you stupid AND ignorant troll.

must suck for an aussie to point out to you what your constitution
states

However, he is wrong. There is no requirement for militia membership
for the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Second Amendment
addresses the state militias (the national militia is addressed in
ArtI(8)(16)) but what it is is a statement that gives *a* reason for
the protection of that right.

I agree and understand that the courts have taken a very liberal view
of what a militia is

Actually, the militia is defined in federal and state statutes. Here
is
the federal definition of its militia. It is in 10 USC 311:

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311
01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

Now, the different states may have different definitions of their state
militias but, in general, they will agree with the federal statute.



Additionally, our Supreme Court has said that militia membership is NOT
required and has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

as I said they have taken a very liberal view

A statute is NOT written by the courts, stupid

but it certainly is interpreted by the Courts.

Feel free to cite the cases where it was
Take as many screens as you need

Must suck to have to have your own system explained by an Aussie

Not really, since the asssie in question is a stupid ignorant fuck who know
far less than it imagines to know

 

[Scout]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:Q6udncBo2d80ITHSnZ2dnUVZ_tQAAAAA@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OuWdnTLrhZZkrjHSnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:jog8do$fal$1@dont-email.me...


"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hrCdnbIL7JCZYTfSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E929F2F8BChopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xfadnaUAL5puRTfSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7KdndPBOcbvWjTSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip


Isn't the 2nd amendment all about the militia ;-)

Get back under your rock you stupid troll

it is isn't it

Get back under your rock, you stupid AND ignorant troll.

must suck for an aussie to point out to you what your constitution
states

However, he is wrong. There is no requirement for militia membership
for
the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Second Amendment addresses
the
state militias (the national militia is addressed in ArtI(8)(16)) but
what it is is a statement that gives *a* reason for the protection of
that right.

I agree and understand that the courts have taken a very liberal view
of what a militia is

Really? So what exactly do you think a militia is?

an organised military force of civilians

Funny how the USC as a section defining the "UNORGANIZED militia"
Must suck to be an ignorant Assie like you

Further I will note that per his definition the National Guard isn't a
militia since they are all members of the US military.

 

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:GaidnXMHAb-orDHSnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F69242959Dhopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:A9OdnXCHY4tLaTfSnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E90FFE5066hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:16mdncDRcKK2TzfSnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E6036743Ehopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:A86dne2R4LNmLzTSnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:sIudnQNUsKQg0D7SnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Cq-dnV7xR5V9vT7SnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:Ge2dnVBiE_GshT7SnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xpCdnXiP96o9Yz_SnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:58idndmDU99fED_SnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:88CdnY7ZZMv2mz_SnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote
in message news:jnss73$gm1$21@dont-email.me...


"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newstSdnZRih-L-BzzSnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

I think the armed forces given their experience may
know about these
dangers

They may know about them, but since they rely on the
local suppliers to supply them, how long do you think
they will last if the turn on the very people they are
supposed to protect ?

come on a capitalist society like the US they'll always
be able to buy supplies

From whom?

How will they get it to where it is needed?

Do you think they can protect EVERYTHING 24/7/365?

I think they stand a better chance than some comparatively
lightly lightly armed militia

LOL
Tell that to the Swiss who have successfully done exactly
that for centuries
Tell that to the Fins when the stood up the Soviets in the
Winter War. Tell that to the Americans who did that to the
Brits at the beginning of their Revolution.
Tell that to Castro in Cuba
Tell that to the Costa Ricans in 2 if not 3 of their
revolutions.

do you want to go through the differences

Why don't you start with the similarities, moron.

there aren't any

Actually they are, but clearly you're not smart enough to
recognize
them

coming from a bloke who compares the US with Mexico but
discounts Canada that is hilarious


Well, the difference is mostly demographics. Think that might
have
a
tad to do with the differences?

I agree with you that there are differences but are you suggesting
that demographically the US is closer to Mexico than Canada?


Many parts of it are. Most of the US doesn't have a heavy duty
problem
with crime. Problem is that you only need to be a victim once to
die.


that is not true of being a victim in Aus



What isn't true? They don't die? It takes more than once?

because the most crime in Aus does not result in death.

Most crime in the US doesn't result in death. What's your point? That
most victims do not suffer death or injury? Okay.....

If you get

killed it is most likely by someone you know using something readily
on hand

Have you looked at the NCVS statistics? Here is a starting point:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245

Look under "Data Tables".


--

If you are trying find a laundry detergent that removes bloodstains
from clothing......perhaps, the problem is not your detergent...
You need to find a new circle of friends!!!


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

 

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:I4qdnU7Wj5ejqDHSnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6CBA2B719hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hrCdnbIL7JCZYTfSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E929F2F8BChopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xfadnaUAL5puRTfSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7KdndPBOcbvWjTSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip


Isn't the 2nd amendment all about the militia ;-)

Get back under your rock you stupid troll

it is isn't it

Get back under your rock, you stupid AND ignorant troll.

must suck for an aussie to point out to you what your constitution
states

However, he is wrong. There is no requirement for militia
membership
for the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Second Amendment
addresses the state militias (the national militia is addressed in
ArtI(8)(16)) but what it is is a statement that gives *a* reason for
the protection of that right.

I agree and understand that the courts have taken a very liberal view
of what a militia is

Actually, the militia is defined in federal and state statutes. Here
is
the federal definition of its militia. It is in 10 USC 311:

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311
01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

Now, the different states may have different definitions of their
state
militias but, in general, they will agree with the federal statute.



Additionally, our Supreme Court has said that militia membership is
NOT
required and has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

as I said they have taken a very liberal view

On what? What the militia is (your first statement)? It has been
defined pretty much the same since 1792.

Or do you mean the Supreme Court in the Heller decision? That came about
in 2008, but was basically what has been claimed for decades.

--

If you are trying find a laundry detergent that removes bloodstains
from clothing......perhaps, the problem is not your detergent...
You need to find a new circle of friends!!!


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

 

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:G5WdnawiB_1lKjHSnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:C6KdnfTcLuNdKzHSnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I4qdnU7Wj5ejqDHSnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04F6CBA2B719hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:hrCdnbIL7JCZYTfSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA04E929F2F8BChopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xfadnaUAL5puRTfSnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:S7KdndPBOcbvWjTSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip


Isn't the 2nd amendment all about the militia ;-)

Get back under your rock you stupid troll

it is isn't it

Get back under your rock, you stupid AND ignorant troll.

must suck for an aussie to point out to you what your
constitution
states

However, he is wrong. There is no requirement for militia
membership for the right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the Second
Amendment addresses the state militias (the national militia is
addressed in ArtI(8)(16)) but what it is is a statement that
gives *a* reason for the protection of that right.

I agree and understand that the courts have taken a very liberal
view of what a militia is

Actually, the militia is defined in federal and state statutes.
Here is the federal definition of its militia. It is in 10 USC
311:

CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311
01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all
able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in
section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who
have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the
United States and of female citizens of the United States who
are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members
of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec.
1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A,
title V, Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

Now, the different states may have different definitions of their
state militias but, in general, they will agree with the federal
statute.



Additionally, our Supreme Court has said that militia membership is
NOT required and has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear
arms.

as I said they have taken a very liberal view

A statute is NOT written by the courts, stupid

but it certainly is interpreted by the Courts. Must suck to have to
have your own system explained by an Aussie

That is why we have the courts. Our system works off of a system of
counter balances with three equal branches of government. The executive,
the legislative and the judicial.


--

If you are trying find a laundry detergent that removes bloodstains
from clothing......perhaps, the problem is not your detergent...
You need to find a new circle of friends!!!


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)