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

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05480E622EEChopewell@216.196.121.131...

"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

sorry regulated

 

[dechucka]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:tbudnQFso_MLPi_SnZ2dnUVZ_u8AAAAA@bright.net...

"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

stating a fact in a uestion is not ad hom

 

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05480BD1C10Ehopewell@216.196.121.131...

"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.

as I stated originally the courts interpret the legislation

 

[dechucka]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:tbudnQNso_MKPi_SnZ2dnUVZ_u8AAAAA@bright.net...

"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"..

wtf r u on about?

 

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA054783BA94FFhopewell@216.196.121.131...

"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?

not my role to critisise your highest court

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CZCdnUtVBPg7Zy_SnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news-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
newsuKdnWIP_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?

I'll leave you to ponder that
Who know ? You might even figure it out by the turn of the century.

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hIqdnRjrzY7KZi_SnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news-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

There you go being stupid again
You don't need to have someone else "make threats" to be threatened.

I once faced a brown bear at about 10 yards across a berry patch, while
hiking.
It was just as surprised as me.
It stood up, arms akimbo, but made no other move.
Did the bear behave threateningly ?
No
Was I in danger ?
Yes
Did I feel under threat ?
Absolutely

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4-6dnQFAJJxFZi_SnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"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
newsoWdnR6JY6sg1zHSnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

snip

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

that is specific as one can get

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

as a gun owner I do and those are the laws

fyi
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/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

Oh look
It's "banjo boy" time
Your unconditional surrender is accepted.

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:suGdncTegP64Yy_SnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"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
newstSdnZRih-L-BzzSnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

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

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

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

From whom?

How will they get it to where it is needed?

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

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

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

do you want to go through the differences

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

there aren't any

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

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


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

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


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


that is not true of being a victim in Aus



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

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

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

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

Which is true. basically. You could be killed anytime you become a
victim.

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

LOL
And there is quite a bit of crime in the US, and a lot of our criminals
end up dead.
I call that a good thing.
Why don't you just admit, that you're just afraid of losing family

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:itWdnSrMZ7jOYy_SnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"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

Only because like a stopped clock, you can occasionally be right
Although in your case, it's not twice a day, but more like once in a blue
moon.

And your claim that " the courts have taken a very liberal view of what a
militia" remains TOTAL ignorant cant on your part.

"

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AI2dndwCCo6pYi_SnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news42dncXMvOKXPS_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

I probably knew that long before you came along.

 

[dechucka]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
newsNadnf10tYrpiy7SnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CZCdnUtVBPg7Zy_SnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news-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
newsuKdnWIP_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?


I'll leave you to ponder that

you can't explain? Your argument is like you MORONIC

 

[dechucka]

a gun freak and a religious bigot. Banjo boy is showing it's true colours

Oh look
It's "banjo boy" time
Your unconditional surrender is accepted.

noted that you are an ignorant gun nut and a religious bigots. What do you
think? about blacks?

 

[dechucka]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:1aadnbGRnorHgS7SnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:suGdncTegP64Yy_SnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"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
newstSdnZRih-L-BzzSnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

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

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

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

From whom?

How will they get it to where it is needed?

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

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

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

do you want to go through the differences

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

there aren't any

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

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


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

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


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


that is not true of being a victim in Aus



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

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

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

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

Which is true. basically. You could be killed anytime you become a
victim.

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

LOL
And there is quite a bit of crime in the US, and a lot of our criminals
end up dead.

do they figures and cites please

I call that a good thing.
Why don't you just admit, that you're just afraid of losing family

why? we are safe I'm not so paranoid that I need to carry.

 

[dechucka]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:1aadnbCRnorGgS7SnZ2dnUVZ_qsAAAAA@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:itWdnSrMZ7jOYy_SnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"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

Only because like a stopped clock, you can occasionally be right
Although in your case, it's not twice a day, but more like once in a blue
moon.

And your claim that " the courts have taken a very liberal view of what a
militia" remains TOTAL ignorant cant on your part.

rather fucking stupid for you to argue against me than agree

 

[dechucka]

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:YpKdnW3S0ooUgC7SnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AI2dndwCCo6pYi_SnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news42dncXMvOKXPS_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

I probably knew that long before you came along.

"probably" ?

 

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05481DEECFD9hopewell@216.196.121.131...

"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.

They do interpret it because opinions on the same bit of legislation change
i.e. death penalty and Wade v?

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y7-dnePL-Zj8yS7SnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:1aadnbGRnorHgS7SnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:suGdncTegP64Yy_SnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"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
newstSdnZRih-L-BzzSnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

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

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

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

From whom?

How will they get it to where it is needed?

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

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

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

do you want to go through the differences

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

there aren't any

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

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


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

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


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


that is not true of being a victim in Aus



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

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

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

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

Which is true. basically. You could be killed anytime you become a
victim.

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

LOL
And there is quite a bit of crime in the US, and a lot of our
criminals end up dead.

do they figures and cites please

Start here
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

I call that a good thing.
Why don't you just admit, that you're just afraid of losing family

why? we are safe I'm not so paranoid that I need to carry.

So having insurance is paranoid ?
Are you also so clueless as to not have
insurance on your house and car ?
life insurance if you have a young family ?
No spare tire in your car ?
No fire extinguisher in your kitchen ?
No "survival kit" if you drive into hazardous areas with no support ?
Why are you so clueless that you choose to not anticipate possible problems
and prepare for them ?

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:waednZ3tcP8azi7SnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
newsNadnf10tYrpiy7SnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@bright.net...

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CZCdnUtVBPg7Zy_SnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news-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
newsuKdnWIP_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?


I'll leave you to ponder that

you can't explain? Your argument is like you MORONIC

Couldn't figure it out ??
No big surprise there
Here's a clue
Look up the definition of "Defensive Gun Use"
Start with this one
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=107

 

[SaPeIsMa]

"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gIWdnfr3CaVlzi7SnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

a gun freak and a religious bigot. Banjo boy is showing it's true
colours

Oh look
It's "banjo boy" time
Your unconditional surrender is accepted.

noted that you are an ignorant gun nut and a religious bigots. LOLWhat do
you think? about blacks?

LOL
"ignorant gun nut" ?
1) The ignorant part has been proven false with your repeated spankings
using facts
2) As to "gun nut", my collection of botte openers and cork screws is far
larger than my "gun collection"
Does that also make me a "bottle opener nut" and "Corkscrew nut" ?
3) How about the fact that I ride both bicycles and motorcycles
Does that also make me a "bicycle nut" and "motorcycle nut" ?
THe ONLY ignorant nut here is you
And you're too stupid and ignorant a nut to even know it

"religious bigots"(sic)
I'm an agnostic.
I have no problems with any religion whose input into society increases the
well-being and happiness of the people who follow it and the people around
them
One death cult that does NOT qualify is Islam
That's not bigotry, based on ignorant prejudice
THat's a conclusion arrived at by historical study.

As to blacks, or any other color for that matter.
Why should I spend much time fixating on something as superficial as
skin color ?
I leave that to little ignorant fascists like you