CDZ 2nd amendmant and arms

[2aguy]

Go ahead....have a chuckle at yourselves. It'll do ya good.

I really could care less what an Aussie thinks. He's also wrong on most of the facts. He is certainly wrong that there have been no massacres.

He's got the American gun nut pegged.

They have their gun problems which are increasing, not going down, and since they too imported large numbers of immigrants from violent, anti western cultures...they are going to see a spike in all kinds of crime....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...Australia, with all of their gun laws can't stop criminals from getting guns.....

From June 18, 2015....

Gun found every two days in Melbourne s red zone


Police are discovering guns in cars every two days in Melbourne's north-west, which has been dubbed the "red zone" by officers concerned about a growing gangster culture in the region.

The alarming figure, obtained from The Police Association, follows anecdotal and statistical evidence of a burgeoning gun culture among young men in the city's north-western fringe.

Police working in the large region, which includes Broadmeadows, Sunshine and Werribee, have reported:

• Firearm-related incidents, such as drive-by shootings, every six days.
• An increasing trend of children as young as 16 carrying guns.
• Regularly finding guns in cars, including sawn-off shotguns and an automatic machine gun, during routine car intercepts.
• Guns stolen from rural homes being used in violent crime in the north-west. Some 530 guns were stolen in rural Victoria in 2013.

It comes as the Crime Statistics Agency released figures on Thursday showing an almost threefold jump in firearm offences in the north-west over the past five years, from 581 in the year to March 2011 to 1332 in the 12 months to April 2015.

A similar trend was reported statewide, with firearm offences rising more than 50 per cent to 13,626.

The figures follow recent high-profile shootings in which two men have been killed - one in Keysborough, the other in Altona Meadows - and significant gun seizures by police. In March, an automatic machine gun was found during a car intercept in Sunbury, and in February, an M16 assault rifle and Thureon machine gun were seized in raids on homes in the city's west.

So much for their gun turn in.....

A Thureon machine gun........

 

[2aguy]

Australian gun crime...going up...they banned guns....American gun crime, going down, as more that 12.8 million Americans now carry guns for self defense........

 

[2aguy]

And here we go an actual news report on video about the increase in gun crime in Gun Ban Australia......let's see if the comic can make jokes about this.....

Gun crime red zone

 

[LoneLaugher]

Is it safer to live in Australia or in the United States?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Is it safer to live in Australia or in the United States?

It is safer in the US. Australia has all kind of violent crime.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the 2nd means no limitations on armed citizens, why are knives controlled and limited?

Although inalienable, the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Consequently, the issue is not whether government may or may not restrict access to certain kinds and types of weapons – as government is clearly authorized to do so – but whether a given regulatory policy comports with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[2aguy]

Is it safer to live in Australia or in the United States?

If you stay out of democrat controlled cities it is the same.

 

[2aguy]

Is it safer to live in Australia or in the United States?

It is safer in the US. Australia has all kind of violent crime.

And Australia has a huge rape problem...there was a thread on it in the Australia forum here on U.S. message....

 

[Auld Phart]

You might want to reread the 2nd.

It states: "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."


It does NOT state: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[danielpalos]

You might want to reread the 2nd.

It states: "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."


It does NOT state: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't have a reading comprehension problem.

The People are the Militia. What part of that is so difficult to understand?

 

[Auld Phart]

You might want to reread the 2nd.

It states: "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."


It does NOT state: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't have a reading comprehension problem.

The People are the Militia. What part of that is so difficult to understand?

The amendment gives the right to the people, not the militia.

You do not have to be a member of a militia to 'qualify' for that right.

what part of that do you not understand?

 

[danielpalos]

You might want to reread the 2nd.

It states: "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."


It does NOT state: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't have a reading comprehension problem.

The People are the Militia. What part of that is so difficult to understand?

The amendment gives the right to the people, not the militia.

You do not have to be a member of a militia to 'qualify' for that right.

what part of that do you not understand?

The People are the Militia.

 

[Auld Phart]

Were women allowed to own weapons?

They were part of the 'people',

BUT...

They weren't allowed to belong to militias.

History of the U.S. Militia

"Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59."

I guess children under the age of 16 couldn't own weapons, nor, depending where they lived, could people over the age of 45, (59 in some areas).

No, the 'people' weren't the militia.

At least, not as far as the 2nd was concerned.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you claiming the People are not the Militia? Or, are you just quibbling in modern times?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Auld Phart]

Are you claiming the People are not the Militia? Or, are you just quibbling in modern times?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

No, I'm STATING that you didn't have to be in a militia to have the right to own a firearm.

That right was given to the people, not the militia.

Just like it states in the 2nd.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you claiming the People are not the Militia? Or, are you just quibbling in modern times?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

No, I'm STATING that you didn't have to be in a militia to have the right to own a firearm.

That right was given to the people, not the militia.

Just like it states in the 2nd.

No one is claiming you have to be in a militia to own private property in the class called Arms. Keep and bear is not the same nor equivalent to acquire and possess. Those rights for Individuals are secured in State Constitutions regardless of militia service, well regulated:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

There are no Individual Rights with the Collective terms; Militia and the People (who are the militia).

It is a simple fallacy of composition.

Also, the subject of Arms is socialized for the militia of the United States should we have to quibble this point:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

And, this is the statutory reason why well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for several United States or the Union:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

[Auld Phart]

Hilarious.

the right was given to the people, ALL the people.

Not just males between the ages of 16-45, (59 in some areas).

Parse it all you like.

you still lose.

 

[danielpalos]

Hilarious.

the right was given to the people, ALL the people.

Not just males between the ages of 16-45, (59 in some areas).

Parse it all you like.

you still lose.

How do I lose when you have nothing but fallacy to work with.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

All people is inclusive.

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.

The People is not all inclusive.

 

[Auld Phart]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, THE PEOPLE.

not the select group that qualified for duty in the militia.

THE PEOPLE

How can you lose?

By continuing on your current track.

Keep parsing.

I enjoy laughing at you.