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

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yJWdnbjwUfNpECzSnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053607BF245Dhopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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
news:eek:oWdnR6JY6sg1zHSnZ2dnUVZ_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?

yes
Why ?
Have you got that much time to waste ?
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iLOdncQP-o-oEyzSnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05360EB74283hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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
news:ptSdnZRih-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.

BS in Aus most victims don't end up dead
They don't
Cite please

By the way, neither do they in the US..
So what's your point ?
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l4ydncUEldnrEyzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:2KadnVW-xtRUdC3SnZ2dnUVZ_oUAAAAA@bright.net...

"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

comprehension not your strong point?
Compared to your comprehension ?
I work at a level beyond Einstein
(Which frankly, even my kitchen sponge can achieve compared to you)
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:doidnVRlZqTfWCzSnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053B2B42A8B2hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:l4ydncUEldnrEyzSnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:2KadnVW-xtRUdC3SnZ2dnUVZ_oUAAAAA@bright.net...

"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

comprehension not your strong point?

What's your point? What are you looking at to develop that point?

that the supreme court interprets law ie Wade V ? DoC V ?
Well DOH !
Are you really this stupid ?
The Supreme Court of the US is the FINAL ARBITER of the law and it's meaning
and its applicability..
The same should be true for the Supreme Court in Australia.
(And if it's not, then you're still a colony of England).
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y7qdnW3lZa8OEyzSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053610F13B4Ahopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.

no but they interpret
That's not legislation BY ANY means, dedummy.
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i8mdndFEhZMnWCzSnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053B17825C96hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:y7qdnW3lZa8OEyzSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053610F13B4Ahopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.

no but they interpret



Yep...but the definition of the militia was done by statute, not the
courts and the court have interpreted that the same way most folks would
that speak English.

My point made
What point was that, dedummy
Did you even have a point ?
Do you even remember what it was (IF you had one) ?
Or are you just doing your usual feel-good dance to cover your ignorant ass
?

Now, if your comment is really about how the Court
interpreted history and the Second Amendment in Heller, you need to clear
about that not simply mumble your way around. Was it? Or was it about
the militia?

--

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" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1tOdnTkb2swrEyzSnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:2KadnVS-xtRXdC3SnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@bright.net...

"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.

big L verse little l

Both "liberal" and "Liberal" are words, dedummy..
(what a maroon).
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zt6dnRF8Oa5AEyzSnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053614762261hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.

big L verse little l
Try again stupid.
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:V7KdnYLg7vw_NyzSnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
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.

they ruled basically that a militia doesn't need to be "well organised" as
stated in the 2nd amendment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNN7_TOvaUo
LOL
Oh MAN !
You use Youtube as a cite ?
NO wonder you're so ignorant.

And there's NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment that "needs" that a "militia be
well-organized"
And by the way, the original meaning of "well regulated" does NOT mean
"well organized".
It's closer to "properly functioning"

Maybe instead of watching questionable sources on Youtube, you should
actually go read what Scalia wrote so brilliantly about the 2nd Amendment in
BOTH Heller AND MacDonald.
It would clean up a lot of the abyssal ignorance you suffer from so
egregiously.
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8dmdnbjFtu1XWSzSnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053AE3D6DC2Chopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:yJWdnbjwUfNpECzSnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053607BF245Dhopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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
news:eek:oWdnR6JY6sg1zHSnZ2dnUVZ_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?

yes



Most of the time here it is a waste of time. They have other things to
do and active crimes going on.

Probably is but it may help and does help the cops target crime. If I was
so scared I produced a gun I'd be telling the authority for the simple
reason it may help the community
LOL
Sure bub.
I didn't "produce" a gun.
I just wanted to male sure the grips were warm..
<snicker>
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g8adnR9Sw_6vWizSnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:uO-dnROKYd69qizSnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@bright.net...

"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

just click on the blue links and you will see them but probably not
understand them as you are a banjo playing good old thick brick boy
As I stated
dechucklehead NEVER provides CLEAR and APPLICABLE cites
A generic to ALL the statues does NOT qualify.
But dechucklehead is not that smart.
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:N_WdndgkLKr_VSzSnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:RNednXk4QI1kdy3SnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@bright.net...

"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.

you may have to comprehend and think. Does your sistermum still spoon feed
you?
I'll accept your ad hominem as an admission of defeat
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y8CdndkSktgzVSzSnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053635D8B98Bhopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:OY-dnf-Ocb_sOS3SnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0506A34B6425hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.

my point



was???
that the courts interpret the laws/constitution e.g. abortion, death
penalty
DOH !
A tautology
What do you think the purpose of the courts is, dedummy ?
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:856dneCBlPhXVSzSnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05363841CBB3hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xuudnRpinKcUOS3SnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05069FC737E8hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.

yes


To which? Or to both?

sorry, both
Too bad you're wrong on both
The USSC went back to make sure they were going by the ORIGINAL
definitions, which have recently been twisted out of shape by the
gun-grabbers
They did their jobs and clarified for all what the ORIGINAL meaning and
intent was.
Nothing "liberal" there at all
It actually qualifies more accurately as "conservative"..
 
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:856dneCBlPhXVSzSnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05363841CBB3hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:xuudnRpinKcUOS3SnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05069FC737E8hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.

yes


To which? Or to both?

sorry, both
What do you think that they got wrong or should change?

--

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" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:s8qdnci3hphrXizSnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053AE0A74584hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:m56dnc06u9fPECzSnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0535F9DC2281hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.

did you report the crime

Nope. No need....it was over.

or just let the perp run free?

I had no need to get hassled by the police over a crime and
descriptions
that they would really do nothing with. In many cases, they won't
even
show up.

not very community spirited are you

Why should I sit and wait for someone who probably won't show up? And
even if they do, they won't be able to do much with a vague description.
It is not like describing your next door neighbor who you see every day.

You have never been in such a situation have you.

--

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" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:8dmdnbjFtu1XWSzSnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053AE3D6DC2Chopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:yJWdnbjwUfNpECzSnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053607BF245Dhopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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
news:eek:oWdnR6JY6sg1zHSnZ2dnUVZ_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?

yes



Most of the time here it is a waste of time. They have other things
to do and active crimes going on.

Probably is but it may help and does help the cops target crime.
They are already targetting crime. They often don't wish to get
interrupted at that unless the crime you are reporting is of higher
importance. It the incident is over, no one got hurt, the perps are
gone...that isn't very high priority.

If I
was so scared I produced a gun I'd be telling the authority for the
simple reason it may help the community
You have not been in that position and you don't know the conditions in
the US. Let me ask you this about OZ. Assume you are carrying a firearm
for self defense. A couple guys try to mug you. You scare them off with
the gun. Are you going to call the police? And face questions about why
you are carrying a gun when it is obvious you aren't hunting, you are in
a strange town and carrying a gun in OZ for the purpose of self defense
is illegal. You call the police to report a crime that most likely be
put in the wastebasket....face all those questions....possibly spend some
time in a cell yourself while the police sort things out and there will
be no followup? You will call the police? I don't think so.


--

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" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MfqdnTwwxfBoWSzSnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053B0FBDC4C9hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in news:iLOdncQP-o-
oEyzSnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05360EB74283hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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
news:ptSdnZRih-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.

BS in Aus most victims don't end up dead

In the US, most victims don't end up dead.

good we agree

snip
Just wanted to give you a cite since you were whining about not getting
one before. and to show you the math to back up my statement just in
case you needed it. ;)

--

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" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:i8mdndFEhZMnWCzSnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053B17825C96hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:y7qdnW3lZa8OEyzSnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053610F13B4Ahopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.

no but they interpret



Yep...but the definition of the militia was done by statute, not the
courts and the court have interpreted that the same way most folks
would that speak English.

My point made
Your original statement was that the judiciary set the law not the
legislature. That point was NOT made.



--

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" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4tydndNahO-
KWSzSnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053B26ADD6FBhopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:EZidnTZECbUXECzSnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:joqbrt$21h$1@dont-email.me...


"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
news:eek:oWdnR6JY6sg1zHSnZ2dnUVZ_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/su
bord 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

Perhaps, but police are often no longer your friends and justice is
just a empty noise.

Those that blame the victim....people like you...are greatly to
blame
for why people no longer seek out the police.

now you are just being paranoid

In some communities we have reason to be.

thank god I'm in Aus
IN my part of the country, we have freedom. I can openly carry a
firearm, carry one concealed with or without a permit. A permit to carry
concealed allows me to dine in a restaurant that serves alcohol. Some
folks like to drink some wine with dinner. The only restriction there is
that if you are armed, you cannot drink. Seems fair to me. The other
reason for having a permit to carry concealed is reciprocity with other
states.

In urban areas, I may be stopped and questioned by the local police if I
am openly carrying. In rural areas or small towns, no problem. I will
usually carry concealed, however, so that I don't frighten little old
ladies of either sex.

--

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)
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top