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

[Scout]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1sadnZBkP7ZvPi3SnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"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


does "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" sound familiar but the district of Columbia v. Heller took a
liberal view of what a "well regulated militia" is

Really?

Please cite exactly where in DC vs Heller where SCOTUS took a "liberal view"
of what a "well regulated militia" is. I expect specific quotes and cites
from the ruling.

 

[Scout]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ib6dnf_Bfdj9OS3SnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:192dne4J3KLMYjHSnZ2dnUVZ_rAAAAAA@bright.net...

"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

The abortion cases, religion in schools

I do not believe that either of those have anything to do with militias and
what you claim is the "liberal view" they have for what the militia is.

Care to try again without attempting to change the subject?

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XYqdnY8EC4FyPC3SnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

snip

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

you've been so threatened you draw your gun but don't report it.
Interesting

Next time read through all the way BEFORE responding to avoid showing your
ignorance

2) In some jurisdictions, it would cause unnecessary grief from the
police
Unlike you most people are not stupid.

I think the figures are vastly over rated

LOL
DENIAL is not a river in Africa, dedummy.

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NeGdnWgW37HfPy3SnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0506BFDD5B39hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
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/subord
le 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



When even as you suggested, most of these involve no shots fired or the
police? How would the police generate data if they are not involved?

People are so threatened they draw a gun but don't report it thus letting
crims run free. bizarre argument

Silly dedummy.
Presumes that making a police report automatically results in an arrest.

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1p-dnRcw7JsrPy3SnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:Q6udncFo2d80ITHSnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@bright.net...

"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.

read the rulings and learn

I did
IN your case that statement should be
"Read the ruling and stay ignorant">

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FPOdnSEOIv9JPy3SnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0506A6E4C8B3hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
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




Part of the problem in communicating is that your definition of liberal
is different from ours when it comes to politics.

liberal is a word not a political party

Mmmm
Tell that to the Canadians.

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1sadnZBkP7ZvPi3SnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"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


does "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" sound familiar but the district of Columbia v. Heller took a
liberal view of what a "well regulated militia" is

Thank you for the demonstration that you can actualy quote something and be
TOTALLY clueless about it's meaning.
Apparently, you're one to the stupid ones, ignorant f the use and meaning of
the "Well-regulated"expresion in the 18th Century.
Clue for the dedummy.
It does not mean enshrouded in laws and regulations

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ib6dnf_Bfdj9OS3SnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:192dne4J3KLMYjHSnZ2dnUVZ_rAAAAAA@bright.net...

"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

The abortion cases, religion in schools

What cases
Do't forget to EXPLAIN EXACTLY how those cases support your contention
Or run away as you usually do.

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
knows far less than it imagines to know

 

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:XYqdnY8EC4FyPC3SnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

snip

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

you've been so threatened you draw your gun but don't report it.
Interesting

In most cases, that is true. You may not draw it.....you may just it be
known that you are armed. Have I been there? Yep.

2) In some jurisdictions, it would cause unnecessary grief from
the police
Unlike you most people are not stupid.

I think the figures are vastly over rated

The 2.3 million? I agree. I personally feel that it more on the order
of about 250K per annum. Even our National Crime Victimization Survey
comes up with 80K - 108K and it never even asks about them.


--

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:NeGdnWgW37HfPy3SnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0506BFDD5B39hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
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/subo
rd le 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



When even as you suggested, most of these involve no shots fired or
the police? How would the police generate data if they are not
involved?

People are so threatened they draw a gun but don't report it thus
letting crims run free. bizarre argument

Let's go through this for moment.

You stop in gas station on a lonely road
A truck that was behind on the road also pulls in
You get approached by a couple of people intent on robbing you.
You let them know you are armed.
They decide not to test your resolve to fire
They get back in their truck, car, whatever and drive away.
You really have no police power to arrest them
You have no way to subdue and secure them
You may be in an area where gun possession if frowned upon by the local
police.
The threat is over
You have places to be.

Are you going to stop and call the police?
All you have is description (probably rather vague) of two unknown perps
What good will calling the police and waiting really do?

--

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:1-
mdnW0K_MgYPy3SnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05069A1B90B2hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.....

you said "Problem is that you only need to be a victim once to die."

Which is true. basically. You could be killed anytime you become a
victim. That would be true of the 100th time or the first time. In
either case, once you are killed, it won't happen again.


--

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:1p-dnRcw7JsrPy3SnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:Q6udncFo2d80ITHSnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@bright.net...

"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.

read the rulings and learn

The rulings are based on the statutes, mon ami. The courts don't
legislate.

--

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:FPOdnSEOIv9JPy3SnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0506A6E4C8B3hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
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




Part of the problem in communicating is that your definition of
liberal
is different from ours when it comes to politics.

liberal is a word not a political party

Yep. What he is saying that when that word is applied to politics in OZ
it has a different connotation than it does when applied to politics in
the US.

--

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:1sadnZBkP7ZvPi3SnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"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


does "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" sound familiar but the district of Columbia v. Heller took
a liberal view of what a "well regulated militia" is

See you are using one connotation of the word "liberal". Another
connotation is that the liberal Justices on that Court are Breyer,
Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor. The conservative Justice on the Court are
Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. The usual swing vote on that Court
(one who may go either way) is Kennedy. The decision in Heller was the 4
conservative Justices voted for Heller. The 4 liberal Justices voted for
District of Columbia. Kennedy voted with the conservative group of
Justices. Therefore the end vote was conservatives 5, liberals 4.

IOW, what is considered in the US as a conservative vote not a liberal
one.



--

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]

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:joqbru$21h$3@dont-email.me:

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1sadnZBkP7ZvPi3SnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"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


does "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" sound familiar but the district of Columbia v. Heller
took a liberal view of what a "well regulated militia" is

Really?

Please cite exactly where in DC vs Heller where SCOTUS took a "liberal
view" of what a "well regulated militia" is. I expect specific quotes
and cites from the ruling.

By "liberal" he is using the definition "loose" not the political
definition.

--

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)

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0536241234E5hopewell@216.196.121.131...

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:joqbru$21h$3@dont-email.me:



"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1sadnZBkP7ZvPi3SnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"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


does "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" sound familiar but the district of Columbia v. Heller
took a liberal view of what a "well regulated militia" is

Really?

Please cite exactly where in DC vs Heller where SCOTUS took a "liberal
view" of what a "well regulated militia" is. I expect specific quotes
and cites from the ruling.




By "liberal" he is using the definition "loose" not the political
definition.

Doesn't matter either way
dechucklehead NEVER provides clear cites
it's only capable of waving it's hand in the general direction and expect
you to do the work to support it's asinine claims

 

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Ib6dnf_Bfdj9OS3SnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:192dne4J3KLMYjHSnZ2dnUVZ_rAAAAAA@bright.net...

"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

The abortion cases, religion in schools

snip

Actually, per political definition in the US, those are decisions that
favor liberals. As was Kelo v Connecticut. Conservative decisions (as
considered in the US) are Citizens United, Heller, McDonald, etc.. What
you need to understand is that the term "liberal" has different
definition depending on its use. Politically it means one thing, in
other uses it may mean something different. Here is the definition of
liberal:

YouTube Town Hall www.youtube.com/YTTownHall Same Issues. Different
Views. Watch Political Stances On Big Issues.
Liberals www.ask.com/Liberals Get Liberals Find Liberals
Dictionary.com's Mobile Apps www.dictionary.com/mobile Ad-Free, Offline
Content, Audio Pronunciation and More! Take Millions of Words With You
Everywhere. Download Now!
Ads
libˇerˇal
[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political
party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom
possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental
protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to
matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward
dissident artists and writers.
EXPAND
noun
14.
a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or
religion.
15.
( often initial capital letter ) a member of a liberal party in politics,
especially of the Liberal party in Great Britain.


1
a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b
archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2
a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b : given or
provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : ample,
full
3
obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4
: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5
: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or
traditional forms
6
a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b
capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or
associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of
or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with
ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual
participation in government, and constitutional, political, and
administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
— libˇerˇalˇly adverb
— libˇerˇalˇness noun
See liberal defined for English-language learners ť
See liberal defined for kids ť
Examples of LIBERAL

She is a liberal Democrat who married a conservative Republican.
She has a liberal attitude toward sex.
He made a very liberal donation to the museum.
Many fishermen keep their holes from freezing over with liberal
injections of antifreeze. —Time, 28 Feb. 1974
[+]more

Origin of LIBERAL
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a
freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English le-odan
to grow, Greek eleutheros free
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to LIBERAL
Synonyms: broad-minded, nonconventional, nonorthodox, nontraditional,
open-minded, progressive, radical, unconventional, unorthodox
Antonyms: conservative, conventional, hidebound, nonprogressive, old-
fashioned, orthodox, stodgy, traditional
[+]more
Synonym Discussion of LIBERAL
liberal, generous, bountiful, munificent mean giving or given freely and
unstintingly. liberal suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness
in the thing or amount given <a teacher liberal with her praise>.
generous stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or
importance of the gift <a generous offer of help>. bountiful suggests
lavish, unremitting giving or providing &lt;children spoiled by bountiful
presents&gt;. munificent suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or
princes <a munificent foundation grant>.
Learn More About LIBERAL

--

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" &lt;dechucka1@hotmail.com&gt; wrote in
news:OY-dnf-Ocb_sOS3SnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" &lt;rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net&gt; wrote in message
news:XnsA0506A34B6425hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" &lt;dechucka1@hotmail.com&gt; wrote in
news:G5WdnawiB_1lKjHSnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" &lt;SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com&gt; wrote in message
news:C6KdnfTcLuNdKzHSnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@bright.net...

"dechucka" &lt;dechucka1@hotmail.com&gt; wrote in message
news:I4qdnU7Wj5ejqDHSnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

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


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


"SaPeIsMa" &lt;SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com&gt; wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" &lt;dechucka1@hotmail.com&gt; 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.

my point

was???

--

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" &lt;dechucka1@hotmail.com&gt; wrote in
news:xuudnRpinKcUOS3SnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" &lt;rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net&gt; wrote in message
news:XnsA05069FC737E8hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" &lt;dechucka1@hotmail.com&gt; wrote in
news:I4qdnU7Wj5ejqDHSnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


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


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


"SaPeIsMa" &lt;SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com&gt; wrote in message
news:bMGdnUgXmLFx8TfSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" &lt;dechucka1@hotmail.com&gt; 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.

yes

To which? Or to both?

--

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)

 

[dechucka]

"SaPeIsMa" &lt;SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com&gt; wrote in message
newsuKdnWIP_ZMGdS3SnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" &lt;dechucka1@hotmail.com&gt; wrote in message
news:XYqdnY8EC4FyPC3SnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
snip

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

you've been so threatened you draw your gun but don't report it.
Interesting


Next time read through all the way BEFORE responding to avoid showing your
ignorance

i did, you made a very stupid arguement

2) In some jurisdictions, it would cause unnecessary grief from the
police
Unlike you most people are not stupid.

I think the figures are vastly over rated

LOL
DENIAL is not a river in Africa, dedummy.

you have no data