| Author |
Message |
    
Danger_dave
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 10:36 pm: | 
|
Just for contrast - from googgle:
Australian Gun Reform Laws
The Firearms Act 1996 (Vic.) was passed by the Victorian Parliament on October 31st 1996 in accordance with the National Agreement on Firearms which aimed to create uniform gun laws Australia wide. The Act repealed the Firearms Act 1958 (Vic.) and the Firearms Act (Amendment) 1983 (Vic.) and established prohibitions on certain people and guns. Under the Act, a prohibited person was defined as anyone who had served a jail term for an indictable, assault or drug related offence or subject to a domestic violence intervention order.
New categories for guns were created and gun owners had to pass certain requirements and demonstrate genuine reason for owning a firearm as well as provide appropriate storage for the weapon. Strict fines and jail sentences were established for offenders, but owners of newly prohibited guns were able to surrender their weapons and receive compensated under the national guns amnesty. |
Oldog
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2008 - 11:33 pm: |
|
disarm the populace and debouch the currency to subdue a country!
John Birch |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 01:28 am: |
|
guns are the least of their worries. They should be more damned concerned about what an intelligent, skilled and hostile populace will create to replace the guns.
History should point no further than the MOLOTOV cocktail and the damage that can do. |
Jon
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 03:01 am: |
|
The Supreme Court did not give us the right to bear arms, they related that pre-existent fact to those in doubt about it. |
Kilroy
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 05:59 am: |
|
What is scary is that it was a 5-4 decision. That is one vote away from a swing in the other direction. With the upcoming "changes" in Washington, we all better start planning our escape routes..... |
Jaimec
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 09:48 am: |
|
We have a right to bear ARMS. Guns are just one form of armament.
Where can I get a flamethrower?? As George Carlin pointed out, flamethrowers are proof that somebody somewhere thought: "I'd love to be able to burn those people up, but I'm just not close enough."
Honest... I only want it to clear my sidewalks in the winter! |
Buellinachinashop
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 09:57 am: |
|
"Honest... I only want it to clear my sidewalks in winter!"
Me too...and summer and fall.......
 |
Swampy
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 10:11 am: |
|
I was just explaining to a girly lawyer friend what this means to me.......
Then I gave her the old "When the NRA call for support money I always tell them, I will only support you guys when you are a proponent of total confiscation of ALL personal firearms beginning tomorrow"
Otherwise you will be lulled to sleep while you are incrementaly disarmed.
I had to explain that the NRA will not involve itself with the little fights like the one in DC, or for state CCW law changes, but only in federal lobbying for firearm law changes, then do all the news bites acting like they were there all along fighting along side you when they won't even promote local causes. You do the work, we'll take the credit.
Sorry, I had to vent.....
Flame away! |
Swampy
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 10:12 am: |
|
By the way, the title to this thread is redundant, when did we not have a right to own guns? |
Buellinachinashop
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 10:18 am: |
|
In DC, since about the time Regan got shot. |
Glitch
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 10:39 am: |
|
 |
Cruisin
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 11:38 am: |
|
I am happy to hear the news. I know a lot of people that have mixed emotions about guns but I do agree that it's a choice I should be able to make.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I do love Vermont's gun laws (or shall I say, lack therof?). I think we're the most free of laws regarding guns. |
Daves
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 12:28 pm: |
|
I'm happy to know that 5 of the judges have read the constitution.
"shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me. |
Sub65chris
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 12:34 pm: |
|
We fianly can refer to the highest law in the lad when the facists strat to argue with me over my rights to keep and bear arms. we finally won something! |
Djkaplan
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2008 - 12:47 pm: |
|
I'm not what I would consider a 'gun guy', but I take advantage of all the freedoms offered by our constitution. That and I just love mechanical things that can make loud noises...
... so I have some real nice ones. |
Bigdaddy
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 04:46 am: |
|
I'm happy to know that 5 of the judges have read the constitution.
I'm happy too Dave! I can't understand how this wasn't a straight up 9 - 0 vote -- not surprised, but I just can't understand which constitution that the other 4 were using to base their decisions on.
Molon Labe! I used to have a job where that phrase was used often in all types of settings. It's now taken on a whole new meaning for me. |
Cudajohn
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 06:14 am: |
|
Go guns!!! I think D.C. will actually be a SAFER city now.
(Message edited by cudajohn on June 28, 2008) |
Retrittion
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 07:33 am: |
|
Umm, the wording is that a well regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms -- technically we would need to form local militias (ala the Eagles or what not) with structures and hierarchies that were in place solely to keep the government from overstepping it's bounds and infringing on people's rights or ruling by force. At the time this was a worthwhile thing to put into the document but it is time (in my opinion) to update it. Personally, just like with motorcycles I see plenty of idiots shooting guns who have no business doing it and are a hazard to themselves and others. I'd like to think that mandatory military service would at least make sure everyone understood the proper handling of a weapon and all but somehow I think the idiots would still strike.
BTW, I have a carry permit and own firearms for both utility and personal enjoyment.
Cheers! |
Daves
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 07:36 am: |
|
in the paper last night there was an article full of mayors and people from DC,Chicago and such saying how much more dangerous their cities would be now. they went on to talk about all the gun violence there in the past month/year etc.
HELLO, are they just too dense to realize that all these crimes took place after they banned guns?
If it is that bad when no one can legally own a handgun or carry a gun, then guns laws must work just swell? |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 07:36 am: |
|
Reactions to the Supreme Court striking down the DC gun ban
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hQLLpidXoyC-Yps 3BZNjINCoQWUgD91I10CO0
Despots are safer if the peasants are disarmed. Ask the Russian & Chinese Soviet leaders, or the Japanese Shoguns, or the Kings & Dictators world wide, for the last 14000 years.
Criminals too are far safer if the peasants are unarmed, ask anyone who went to that Chicago suburb to burgle in safety after the gun ban there. Much easier on the nerves to know the police protect you from the home owners. |
Tramp
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 07:56 am: |
|
It's a shame that an inalienable right, that should defy question, designed to allow the citizens of a free, new republic to defend themselves against the sort of absolute power that might choose to deprive them of their constitutional rights,
is now being redefined in order to allow carry to allow citizenry to defend themselves against this allegedly 'omega man' crime culture...
This right is inalienable, and should always have been recognized as such.
I have never needed a supreme court redefinition/decision to advise me of my natural rights-
As a natural American, sportsman, & NRA life member, I was born with my gun rights, and will die with them.
I'll take deer, grouse, duck & pheasant each year for my food, and I'll sleep with my Mossberg on the wall, and endeavour to find & purchase nice pre-'64 Mod. 94s whenever I'm fortunate enough to.
(Message edited by tramp on June 28, 2008) |
Loki
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 09:12 am: |
|
There was no redefinition in this SCOTUS ruling. Simply a reaffirmation of our constitutional rights. |
M1combat
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 01:01 pm: |
|
|
Cowboy
| | Posted on Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 05:34 pm: |
|
I just finished reading the concealed hand gun law in the state of Vermont,I must say they have the best system in North America.
Every one should check it out. |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 10:42 am: |
|
I find that many states make it hard for a person to carry the weapon the are allowed to own.
In Ga its a small fee and a fingerprint and you get a CCW. However the CC permit law in Ga prevetns carring the weapon in most places. Basic Ga CCW permit only help you carry your gun in your car conceled. Don't attempt to carry into most stores.
Moved to Kentucky and they want me to pay 125.00 to attend a class! WTH. I've got a valid permit from another state. I've got DHS security clearence. I'm a US Marine veteran and I need to pay 125.00 to attend a class on how to shoot a weapon!
125.00 is the issue. If the state wants to enforce some type of controll then they need to offer cheap test for those allready trained. |
Tramp
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 10:48 am: |
|
Asking a vet (esp. any vet w/Marksman, EIB, etc.) to pay to take an instructional course is redundant, insulting, and disrespectful to that vet's service.
Further, the US taxpayer footed that bill once, already, rendering it borderline unconstitutional.
This little fact really pisses me off. |
Johnnylunchbox
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 11:05 am: |
|
BTW bears don't have paws, they have feet. |
Cowboy
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 11:25 am: |
|
Johney if they did not have paws and maws there would not be any baby bears. |
Cowboy
| | Posted on Thursday, July 03, 2008 - 11:40 am: |
|
When baby bear sleep for winter he suck his paw this make paw very happy. |
Jayvee
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 10:43 pm: |
|
From what I've read, "well-regulated" militia does not mean covered by many regulations, but means, well-practiced, competent, ready for action (duty).
So I think there should be like a mandatory marksmanship qualification, and handling, maybe every 2 or 5 years. That would weed out a lot of bozos. I don't think many of the laws really "infringe" and I live in California! I can still obtain almost any kind of gun needful. Not certain things, but there are usually alternatives. |
|
