lol
probably
yes it is
buggered if i know
really? but probably a threat by a bear is more a wildlife situation"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:SOqdnR09tcqRYS_SnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
"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_-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
"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/inforc
e/ 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
The police HAVE failed to show up.
I answered it in term of Aus
in Aus those are valid dangers. In aus and other civilized countries it is"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
news
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 ?
but the consequence of this can be seen in your death and injury rates from"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
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
news
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.
I am not paranoid either. If something should happen, I simply have one
more option than you do.
in Aus most victims don't end up dead"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
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
news
...
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
As you have seen in the stats, that is also true of the US. What's your
point?
you did"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:J4WdnQe50tc1yS7SnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"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
Why should I agree with an ignorant idiot who is wrong ?
but when it comes before the courts they do"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:JridnWHeLakSYy_SnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
"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
Not unless there is a case that requires interpretation. The judiciary
does not sit around and interpret laws.
fair enough"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news
"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
news
"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" ?
Well there is a small chance that I may be wrong..
one line will do, interpretations of the death penalty"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8_KdnR8WuO-Fyy7SnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
"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?
Oh do cite us when "opinions on the same bit of legislation changed"
Take as many screens as you need
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:8_KdnR8WuO-Fyy7SnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
"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?
What bit of legislation was interpreted in Roe v Wade? Please be
specific and show that interpretation of that legislation was the
deciding factor in the decision. Take all the screens you need.
I agree with you that the courts only interpret when cases are in front of"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:SeCdnSI7QJy_ny7SnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
"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
You make it as a blanket statement like the judiciaries job is sit and
review legislation. It isn't. Only SOME legislation gets reviewed and
that is only if there is a case that reached the Supreme Court.
I stated they took a liberal interpretation"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news
"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
Then why even bring it up? You stated that you thought their opinions
were too liberal. How did you mean that?
I didn't
Good."RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0556C2732CE9hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:VvSdnXe3OemUZi_SnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@westnet.com.au:
"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
He will probably roam free no matter whether I call it in or not
unless I shoot him. Is that what you are suggesting?
the US is more stuffed than I thought, it is the wild wild west on
your street
You have never been in such a situation have you.
yes I have been robbed while working at a servo, so what
What'd he (or she) look like? Let's have a description that police
could operate on. Go for it.
as it was 25 odd years ago my memory is a bit vague but yes a decent
enough description was give at the time. One that match well enough
that the perp was found guilty of that robbery
We sometimes get them in towns. We also sometimes get mountain lions,"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0556CFB72031hopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:SOqdnR09tcqRYS_SnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
"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
"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
"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/inforc
e/ 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
The police HAVE failed to show up.
really? but probably a threat by a bear is more a wildlife situation
But I don't live in OZ and you are arguing US gun politics.
Not mine. I have had no injury and I am still very much alive. How old"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05579238A48Fhopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
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
news
m. 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.
I am not paranoid either. If something should happen, I simply have
one more option than you do.
but the consequence of this can be seen in your death and injury rates
from firearms, which is the point I am making
I have already shown you that in the US most victims do not end up dead"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA05578F3EA27Ahopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
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
news
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
As you have seen in the stats, that is also true of the US. What's
your
point?
in Aus most victims don't end up dead
Yep and I said that a week ago."RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0556D2BA944Ehopewell@216.196.121.131...
"dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:JridnWHeLakSYy_SnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
"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
Not unless there is a case that requires interpretation. The
judiciary
does not sit around and interpret laws.
but when it comes before the courts they do