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

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Z5GdnYSkEInBWSzSnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053B28F72090hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:p_-dnXj0qYRRECzSnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:2KadnVq-xtRUdC3SnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@bright.net...

"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

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

strawman arguement. If you report the crime there is a better chance
of an arrest


In some areas that would mean the chances would go from less than 1%
to just over 1%.

a great benefit. I'm more and more believing that DGU figures by
survey are complete and utter BS
You may feel free to believe what you want. As am I. I find my gun to be
of a great benefit and, guess what? It is always there, it is always
ready, I don't need to dial 911 and I don't have to wait. I have been in
situations before and it has never failed me or failed to show up.

--

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: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 ?
Yep, but that law was legislated by the Congress not the Court. And it
was enforced by the Executive. See how the three divisions work
together?

--

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: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
Yes, but they interpret them from the words in the statutes or
legislation. It is very rare when legislation is developed by the
judiciary. That only happens when a law is declared unconstitutional but
changing a few words in it will make it OK. The decision will say what
is unconstitutional about the law....the legislature may look at that and
reword some of it to get by that complaint.

--

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: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
No, they didn't. Perhaps you should read the actual decision:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/07-290.html

rather than a video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNN7_TOvaUo


--

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:abidnRwg_ay1VSzSnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:joqbrv$21h$4@dont-email.me...


"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?

They have to do with the Supreme Court interpreting legislation and i
should add the death penalty laws. These have been legal or not
dependent on the supreme courts interpretatation
Only if there is a case challenging them on constitutional grounds. The
courts do not review legislation or interpret it unless there appears to
be a problem that is coming up through the court system.


--

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" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0547E8C99A92hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.
dedummy keeps trying to claim the opposite of what it said originally when
it's shown to be wrong
Not the first time either.
 
"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
You do realize that NO ONE on that video is a part of SCOTUS, right?

Nor is anyone going to sit through an hour and forty minutes of dialog
waiting to see if you have a point somewhere in there.
If you're going to post a video (particularly a long one) you need to
indicate the time marks for the specific area of interest.

Further, why are you basing your statement on others OPINION of what was
said.

Why not simply show us in the ruling issued by SCOTUS where they said what
you claim?

Here, I'll even give you a link to the ruling.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Further, you do realize that "well organized" does not appear ANYWHERE in
the 2nd Amendment?

So why do you think SCOTUS should find that the militia needs to something
that isn't even discussed?

Anyway, it's clear you're still utterly ignorant of the facts of the subject
area you brought up.
 
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:p-ednROu4sFMES_SnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@bright.net...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FYGdnbxy7L2SECzSnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:puKdnWIP_ZMGdS3SnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@bright.net...

"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 additional 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


You're the one assuming a gun was drawn
SO it's really your "stupid argument" (sic)
how else do you use a gun defensively?
>
 
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0547C9093001hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.
let the perp roam free, good idea
You have never been in such a situation have you.
yes I have been robbed while working at a servo, so what
 
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:p-ednRKu4sFJES_SnZ2dnUVZ_sYAAAAA@bright.net...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
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 or just let the perp run free?


What crime was that, dummy ?
Scaring off a would be goblin before it does anything is not a crime in
EITHER direction.
so Sandman is just randomly using his gun defensively when not being
threatened, scary
 
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0547F4AF5E62hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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!!!
thank god we don't need to carry here
 
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:4aGdnfFB8YYODC_SnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@bright.net...
"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.


If you're a woman in Australia, you definitely have to be
But unlike American women, you don't have the right to be armed to avoid
being raped
And with their increasing Muslim population, Australian women are even
more at risk, since those Muslims somehow imagine that they have a right
to rape women that they classify as whores because they don't hew to a
Muslim dress code

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/australia-muslim-who-said-raping-woman-was-part-of-cultural-differences-gets-14-years-of-prison-dawa.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=muslims+rape+australian+woman
"Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks"
a gun freak and a religious bigot. Banjo boy is showing it's true colours
 
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0547FDA5117Ehopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Z5GdnYSkEInBWSzSnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA053B28F72090hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:p_-dnXj0qYRRECzSnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:2KadnVq-xtRUdC3SnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@bright.net...

"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

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

strawman arguement. If you report the crime there is a better chance
of an arrest


In some areas that would mean the chances would go from less than 1%
to just over 1%.

a great benefit. I'm more and more believing that DGU figures by
survey are complete and utter BS

You may feel free to believe what you want. As am I. I find my gun to be
of a great benefit and, guess what? It is always there, it is always
ready, I don't need to dial 911 and I don't have to wait. I have been in
situations before and it has never failed me or failed to show up.

yet you don't report these crimes
 
snip

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.
so crime prevention isn't important in the Us

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.
but carrying a gun in the US for self defense isn't illegal so your argument
is null and void
 
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:WpednYMYQcwxAC_SnZ2dnUVZ_tUAAAAA@bright.net...
"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
well there is a lot of crime in Aus and very few victims end up dead
 
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:h9udnTkPGIdHAy_SnZ2dnUVZ_ukAAAAA@bright.net...
"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).
WOW so you finally agree with me
 
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05480155FD16hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
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 ?



Yep, but that law was legislated by the Congress not the Court.
but interpreted by the Court

And it
was enforced by the Executive. See how the three divisions work
together?

--

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" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0547E8C99A92hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.
No it wasn't go back and look
 
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:dvadnTSDwIULKS_SnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@bright.net...
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0547E8C99A92hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"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.



dedummy keeps trying to claim the opposite of what it said originally
when it's shown to be wrong
please show me where I said the judiciary set the law?
 
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:eek:42dncXMvOKXPS_SnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@bright.net...
"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,
WELL DONE YOU RECOGNISE THAT, now try comprehending the difference
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top