Australia's Example for Controlling Guns

[flyboy56]

They're not proposing to take away anyone's guns. They're banning the sale of future assault weapons like they banned the sale of machine guns in the 30's and we seem to have survived turning into a tyrannical state without everyone not being able to pack full autos. You never have had the right to bear any arm that man can create, they can ban semi autos if it can get through the house and senate.

The semi-auto rifle or gun is the only weapon other than a fully automatic gun that will defend against multiple attackers. They will never be able to ban those guns.

[veritas]

LMAO, you probably said the same thing about gay marriage and weed

Yes, because those are so comparable to gun confiscation. Good Lord...

[veritas]

Funny
The whole of North Korea has a few less people than the state of Texas so I don't know why than you never object when gun nutters use North Korea for comparisons.

Change your name to Decipio

Law abiding Americans with guns pose no threat to my freedom. Governments run amok can. That is the salient point. You either fail to grasp that or don't want to.

[genghiskhanraven]

The semi-auto rifle or gun is the only weapon other than a fully automatic gun that will defend against multiple attackers. They will never be able to ban those guns.

Haven't heard that one before
I'm good with killing multiple attackers breaking into my home with what I have
YouTube what a lot of these guys can do at the range without semi auto rifles, it's amazing

[genghiskhanraven]

Law abiding Americans with guns pose no threat to my freedom. Governments run amok can. That is the salient point. You either fail to grasp that or don't want to.

Yea I guess I'm not grasping the part where people think our government could run amok and go rogue on us if people can't buy new semi autos and high capacity magazines, didn't happen to us when they banned full autos way back in the 30's

[veritas]

Yea I guess I'm not grasping the part where people think our government could run amok and go rogue on us if people can't buy new semi autos and high capacity magazines, didn't happen to us when they banned full autos way back in the 30's

You can still buy a machine gun, just not a new one. The assault weapon ban won't pass nor should it as it will do nothing to lower crime or prevent massacres. (see Columbine) If they want to set up a uniform system of background checks, fine, but gun bans are a waste of time.

[ms maggie]

People who so actively debate the intentions of the Founders tend to forget that said intent can easily be found in the Declaration.

And the writings of Franklin and Jefferson, among others.

You don't like it now ? Fine. Change it. There's an avenue.

You can't draw a straight line from the Declaration to the Constitution.

[genghiskhanraven]

You can still buy a machine gun, just not a new one. The assault weapon ban won't pass nor should it as it will do nothing to lower crime or prevent massacres. (see Columbine) If they want to set up a uniform system of background checks, fine, but gun bans are a waste of time.

Well you speak the truth there, the new laws will probably have no impact since we have 300 million guns out there and any loon can do a lot of killing with or without semi autos

You agree to background checks and i also don't see the need for high capacity magazines and it's laughable when people say theyre needed to protect us from our nuclear armed government.
The relatively few people on the secondary market that can affoard a $20,000 full auto aren't the ones protecting our freedoms.

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/?...=&session_key=

[ms maggie]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, my bad.

The declaration of independence referred to rights retained by the .......Canadians?.............Mexicans?........... .Italians? Am I close?

.

Unalienable rights are an enlightenment notion and refer to rights endowed by the creator. And the Declaration doesn't delineate specific rights. Do you know what the Declaration was written for??? And to whom it was targeted?

[Contumacious]

Unalienable rights are an enlightenment notion and refer to rights endowed by the creator. And the Declaration doesn't delineate specific rights. Do you know what the Declaration was written for??? And to whom it was targeted?

The declaration of independence referred to rights retained by the .......Canadians?.............Mexicans?........... .Italians? Am I close?

.

[ms maggie]

The declaration of independence referred to rights retained by the .......Canadians?.............Mexicans?........... .Italians? Am I close?

.

Retained? As in held over? From when?

And to the extent the Declaration speaks of rights--philosophically, not concretely--it speaks to all mankind, so yes Mexicans and Italians (tho neither Mexico nor Italy were nations then, but you knew that right?)

[Smokey 1]

Retained? As in held over? From when?

And to the extent the Declaration speaks of rights--philosophically, not concretely--it speaks to all mankind, so yes Mexicans and Italians (tho neither Mexico nor Italy were nations then, but you knew that right?)

Thats true. The DOI spoke of "natural rights" which belong to everyone.

[llubon]

Yes, because those are so comparable to gun confiscation. Good Lord...

Who's taking your guns, the boogeyman. or maybe its delusion taking your guns.

I bet your building a bunker too.

[llubon]

Conspiracy Theorist, no one is taking your guns! LOL.

This is a hoot, a ton of SNL skits on here.

[flyboy56]

Haven't heard that one before
I'm good with killing multiple attackers breaking into my home with what I have
YouTube what a lot of these guys can do at the range without semi auto rifles, it's amazing

Not everyone goes to the range to practice their quick draw McGraw technique. Most just want a simple to use no brainer gun for protection.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

...like they banned the sale of machine guns in the 30's....

Incorrect, but thanks for playing.

[Contumacious]

Retained? As in held over? From when?

And to the extent the Declaration speaks of rights--philosophically, not concretely--it speaks to all mankind, so yes Mexicans and Italians (tho neither Mexico nor Italy were nations then, but you knew that right?)

Are Americans part of mankind?

And Jefferson - our Founding Father and 3rd president - was referring to rights "-philosophically, not concretely " whatever the flock that means - is relevant how.

.

[ms maggie]

Are Americans part of mankind?

And Jefferson - our Founding Father and 3rd president - was referring to rights "-philosophically, not concretely " whatever the flock that means - is relevant how.

.

Of course they are. Your question was whether the DOI was about rights "retained"??? by Italians, Canadiens, Mexicans. And the answer is yes.

And if you don't understand the difference between philosophically and concretely, well can't help you there.

[veritas]

Who's taking your guns, the boogeyman. or maybe its delusion taking your guns.

I bet your building a bunker too.

We were talking about Australia and they DID confiscate guns. Try to keep up. Or, you could just continue to bring in red herrings and straw men that have nothing to do with the subject.

[The Astute Reader(tm)]

We were talking about Australia and they DID confiscate guns. Try to keep up. Or, you could just continue to bring in red herrings and straw men that have nothing to do with the subject.

"Red herrings?" "Strawmen?" You're not seriously expecting a stand-up, honest debate from Lubejob, are you?