who was it again that stated that freedom is only maintained through constant vigilance?
If you are not worried then Your natural rights have been abridged
the funny part about this discussion is that of the 2 former British colonies u would expect the FORMER PENAL Colony to have the most REBEL views and love there guns and anarchy the most.
[This message has been edited by Fallman (edited 04-19-2009).]
IP: Logged
04:24 AM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Originally posted by AusFiero: That is a load of crap. Some criminals will still get guns yes. Most wont as if they are regulated properly it jsut makes it way to hard for the average criminal to even find them. I am sick of seeing this type of BS when you dont even live in a country where they work. How can people constantly state these so called facts when it has never ever been tried where they live? No benchmark, no fact. They also protect people from those who have guns and then in a fit of rage use them instead of fists or another lesser weapon. You cant outrun someone who has gone temporarily over the edge when he is shooting at you. You can outrun his fists, or knife, or bat etc.
Why do people feel they need to own guns anyway? Is the USA that screwed up that so many seem paranoid and feel they must have a gun to survive? I am quite happy living in a place where I dont feel I need a gun just to survive, which is the impression I get of many pro-gun people on this forum.
Work out some trends of your own with these statistics.
Stats talk. Compared to the countries of the western alliance like Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand etc America is in a bad way with or without firearms. Regulating firearms is only going to improve it. Regulating is not banning guns, it is putting proper ownership guidelines in place and banning weapons designed for purely killing people. Handguns really have no use for anything but the intention of killing people. Does anyone here go hunting with a hand gun? Come to think of it we still have hand guns here. But we cant carry the damn things around as they are locked away in safes in the pistol clubs where they are able to be used.
Of all these stats we all have a lot to learn from Canada. They don't seem to even rate in any of the lists involving murder and gun deaths at all.
just a quick check on the site that you reference here shows that your country suffers from a lot of crime... We (as Americans) are not used to being victims
who was it again that stated that freedom is only maintained through constant vigilance?
If you are not worried then Your natural rights have been abridged
the funny part about this discussion is that of the 2 former British colonies u would expect the FORMER PENAL Colony to have the most REBEL views and love there guns and anarchy the most.
And the reason we dont is because we have seen both ways it can be. Australia used to be a free for all when it came to weapons, in my lifetime.
On the crime post. Of course we have crime, every country has crime. Having weapons isn't going to stop that. It hasn't stopped it in the USA has it?
Anyway I was always bought up to believe there is really only one right in your life. Everything in your life is a priviledge that you have a right to earn. Something to think about. Regulating firearms make people have to earn the right to own them, through their own actions. I have a license to drive, it was't a right, as many seem to think it is, I had to earn it. The same should apply for anything that affects people around you.
As for some posts here twistng words and misconstrueing. Why bother? You really aren't even trying to see things from a different perspective. That is all I have to say so hopefully at least someone has at least tried to look at things form a different perspective.
IP: Logged
08:40 PM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
just a quick check on the site that you reference here shows that your country suffers from a lot of crime... We (as Americans) are not used to being victims
so just by the site you reference i would think that guns would be a good thing for the citizens to have...
=todd=
Nice try Todd at twisting the stats. Selecting just ones we are high in. I could post twice as many different crimes where the USA is higher. Go look for yourself.
The total crime one is ridiculous because it is based on what individual governments rate as crimes. Ours rate every reported incident as crime. Did you know someone grafittiing a building makes the 120 residents of that building a victim of crime? A car rear ends a bus in traffic and the incident is reported. Well all 50 passengers are now a victim of a crime.
IP: Logged
08:49 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Anyway I was always bought up to believe there is really only one right in your life. Everything in your life is a priviledge that you have a right to earn. Something to think about. Regulating firearms make people have to earn the right to own them, through their own actions. I have a license to drive, it was't a right, as many seem to think it is, I had to earn it. The same should apply for anything that affects people around you.
I think that is our primary disagreement, we view freedom differently. You seem to believe it means privileges doled out by those in charge, and subject to be taken away when they feel like it. I believe in rights, which we have inherently, until we lose them due to our own actions.
IP: Logged
09:17 PM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
I think that is our primary disagreement, we view freedom differently. You seem to believe it means privileges doled out by those in charge, and subject to be taken away when they feel like it. I believe in rights, which we have inherently, until we lose them due to our own actions.
Word.
IP: Logged
09:53 PM
Fallman Member
Posts: 156 From: College Place, Wa USA Registered: Sep 2001
I think that is our primary disagreement, we view freedom differently. You seem to believe it means privileges doled out by those in charge, and subject to be taken away when they feel like it. I believe in rights, which we have inherently, until we lose them due to our own actions.
I couldn't have said it better Btw AusFiero, Did u even READ the article i posted??? If u had u would realize that gun ownership actually does decrease violent crime.
IP: Logged
10:08 PM
Apr 20th, 2009
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
And the reason we dont is because we have seen both ways it can be. Australia used to be a free for all when it came to weapons, in my lifetime.
On the crime post. Of course we have crime, every country has crime. Having weapons isn't going to stop that. It hasn't stopped it in the USA has it?
Anyway I was always bought up to believe there is really only one right in your life. Everything in your life is a priviledge that you have a right to earn. Something to think about. Regulating firearms make people have to earn the right to own them, through their own actions. I have a license to drive, it was't a right, as many seem to think it is, I had to earn it. The same should apply for anything that affects people around you.
As for some posts here twistng words and misconstrueing. Why bother? You really aren't even trying to see things from a different perspective. That is all I have to say so hopefully at least someone has at least tried to look at things form a different perspective.
In America, Thomas Jefferson poetically announced that the natural rights of people are those that Governments nor people can take away from you. The Declaration of Independence states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
When Jefferson wrote "among" he was implying that there are more rights other than life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That is why they created the Bill of Rights. And even since then, more rights have been secured for the people.
But in the last 30 or so odd years, the US Government has not determined a new right that belongs to the people, in fact, there hasn't been a shift towards more liberty and less restriction and oversight for several decades.
IP: Logged
12:06 AM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
That is why they created the Bill of Rights. And even since then, more rights have been secured for the people.
The BOR wasn't written to grant rights to the citizens. We are assumed to have rights inherently. If you read the Constitution and the BOR, you'll see that it does not grant rights to the people, it grants limited powers to the govt. Rights, along with the ultimate power (the vote) are the province of the people. This is a departure from most other forms of govt, in which govt has all the rights and powers, and decides which privileges to grant to the citizens.
The BOR was not meant to enumerate our rights, but rather it was added protection for certain rights--in general those which the founders felt would be among the first to be weakened by a tyrannical govt. As such, it does not create or grant any rights, it simply protects a few essential rights. In fact, there was a debate at the time whether or not it should be written, as some felt future generations would come to view it as an all-inclusive list of our rights.
The role of govt is not to create our rights, it is to defend them.
edit to add: This is why I never understood how the 2nd was interpreted to apply only to a state-run militia. Govt has no rights, only powers. The people have rights, so since the word "right" was used it was talking specifically about an ability of the people, not a power of the govt.
[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 04-20-2009).]
IP: Logged
12:31 AM
PFF
System Bot
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
The BOR wasn't written to grant rights to the citizens. We are assumed to have rights inherently. If you read the Constitution and the BOR, you'll see that it does not grant rights to the people, it grants limited powers to the govt. Rights, along with the ultimate power (the vote) are the province of the people. This is a departure from most other forms of govt, in which govt has all the rights and powers, and decides which privileges to grant to the citizens.
The BOR was not meant to enumerate our rights, but rather it was added protection for certain rights--in general those which the founders felt would be among the first to be weakened by a tyrannical govt. As such, it does not create or grant any rights, it simply protects a few essential rights. In fact, there was a debate at the time whether or not it should be written, as some felt future generations would come to view it as an all-inclusive list of our rights.
The role of govt is not to create our rights, it is to defend them.
Exactly.
That is why I mention that Thomas Jefferson said "among" these rights, meaning there were many more not mentioned in the Deceleration of Independence. The Bill of Rights was not a granting of rights, as you said. I agree with that. But what it did was list more rights that the people inherently had. And with that, if doesn't even stop with the BOR.
There is even ones that aren't even spelled out in the Constitution that under judicial review are considered basic human rights, such as the Right to Travel and the Right to Privacy.
IP: Logged
12:41 AM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
That is why I mention that Thomas Jefferson said "among" these rights, meaning there were many more not mentioned in the Deceleration of Independence. The Bill of Rights was not a granting of rights, as you said. I agree with that. But what it did was list more rights that the people inherently had. And with that, if doesn't even stop with the BOR.
There is even ones that aren't even spelled out in the Constitution that under judicial review are considered basic human rights, such as the Right to Travel and the Right to Privacy.
Problem is, a lot of people have taken the position that because a right isn't mentioned in the Constitution, we don't have it. The fact that they completely misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution (and by extension, our form of govt) is scary.
IP: Logged
12:43 AM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
I think that is our primary disagreement, we view freedom differently. You seem to believe it means privileges doled out by those in charge, and subject to be taken away when they feel like it. I believe in rights, which we have inherently, until we lose them due to our own actions.
Again you misquote me. Try reading for a change. Priviledges are not doled out by anyone. They are earn't by responsible individuals. All you are showing is a total disregard for anyone except yourself if you beleive the BS you are spouting. Your inherent right. What a laugh. The day you earn something is the day you appreciate it.
And again it realy has nothing to do with what this thread is about.
IP: Logged
12:45 AM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
Originally posted by AusFiero: They are earn't by responsible individuals. Your inherent right. What a laugh. The day you earn something is the day you appreciate it.
I do not recognize your or anyone's authority to tell me that I must somehow earn what God himself has given me. But that's okay, go ahead and surrender the rights you don't feel you have earned... Just don't expect me to surrender mine.
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 04-20-2009).]
IP: Logged
12:53 AM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Again you misquote me. Try reading for a change. Priviledges are not doled out by anyone. They are earn't by responsible individuals. All you are showing is a total disregard for anyone except yourself if you beleive the BS you are spouting. Your inherent right. What a laugh. The day you earn something is the day you appreciate it.
And again it realy has nothing to do with what this thread is about.
Where did I misquote you? You said, and I quote "Everything in your life is a priviledge that you have a right to earn." A privilege is something that is given to you by those in power, and is subject to revocation through no action of your own.
I'm not disregarding your viewpoint, I'm simply disagreeing with it. Have you ever read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? Do you understand the basis on which this country was founded? It wasn't based on privileges, it was based on individual rights--rights that are held inherently by the people.
IP: Logged
12:53 AM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Ok lets take that line literally then. Using the same sort of interpretation people here seem to be using it to prove their rights. It is the right of a serial killer to kill, because it makes him happy. It is the right of an imprisoned person to kill the guard and escape to seek his liberty. If life is a right why do so many USA states take it away from convicted killers? Afterall, they was only exercising their rights aren't they?
So as you can see, interpretation is the key here as it is in any "document".
IP: Logged
12:57 AM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
T I do not recognize your or anyone's authority to tell me that I must somehow earn what God himself has given me. But that's okay, go ahead and surrender the rights you don't feel you have earned... Just don't expect me to surrender mine.
Ahh just another one misquoting. God did not give you fire arms or a vehicle. If he exists he did't really give you any right except the right to be born. The rest is up to you. So I am not expecting you to surrender anything. Read back through your sentence and see how screwed up it is. What god gave you LOL. Oh and I dont have to surrender anything. I live in a very free country where people as a whole respect that some decisions are made for the good of the population, not the indiviual. Kinda like nature works really. For the good of the herd. Take that rule out of nature and there wouldn't be much of it left.
IP: Logged
01:04 AM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Ok lets take that line literally then. Using the same sort of interpretation people here seem to be using it to prove their rights. It is the right of a serial killer to kill, because it makes him happy. It is the right of an imprisoned person to kill the guard and escape to seek his liberty. If life is a right why do so many USA states take it away from convicted killers? Afterall, they was only exercising their rights aren't they?
So as you can see, interpretation is the key here as it is in any "document".
Wow, either you're really not understanding or you're just looking for an argument. Do you not see that the act of killing is depriving someone else of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
My right to do as I please is not to be construed as to deny others their rights. When we deprive others of their rights, our own rights are subject to forfeiture. We are fined, or sentenced to prison, or sentenced to die depending on the severity of our crime.
A lawful society demands that limits be placed on absolute freedom. Some do this by assuming all of the power and so severely limiting the people that they have no rights. This country took a different path, i.e. that of a minimum amount of power being granted to the govt, while the people kept their rights and the majority of the power. That's the key, limiting some rights to try and ensure the maximum amount of freedom was retained by all. However, it was deemed that certain rights not be limited as they were essential to preserving rights for all. Hence, the BOR was created, which is where the right to keep and bear arms receives its protection.
Again, that's a difference between a right and a privilege. A privilege can be taken away through no action of your own. A right can only be lawfully forfeited due to an individual's abuse of freedom.
IP: Logged
01:09 AM
tmur115 Member
Posts: 888 From: Battle Ground WA Registered: Jan 2006
Nice try Todd at twisting the stats. Selecting just ones we are high in. I could post twice as many different crimes where the USA is higher. Go look for yourself.
The total crime one is ridiculous because it is based on what individual governments rate as crimes. Ours rate every reported incident as crime. Did you know someone grafittiing a building makes the 120 residents of that building a victim of crime? A car rear ends a bus in traffic and the incident is reported. Well all 50 passengers are now a victim of a crime.
lol... really I'm sorry (Really I am) this was not ment as a attack on your country or way of life... just an observation from a website you posted. and i did go look for myself the US was not 1st (by capita) in any of the crimes listed on your site, however i expected it would. yes i did pick the top ones, just as you did for your example.
Originally posted by AusFiero: Ahh just another one misquoting.
I pressed the *QUOTE* button. I 100% did NOT misquote you. Try again...
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: God did not give you fire arms or a vehicle. If he exists he did't really give you any right except the right to be born. The rest is up to you.
He gave me the right to live, and the right to protect that life. You may not agree with it but that's fine, I don't NEED you to agree with it. Try again...
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: So I am not expecting you to surrender anything.
Of course you are. You are asking me to surrender my guns for the good of the herd. Try again...
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: Read back through your sentence and see how screwed up it is.
Okay. I read it again. Don't see anything screwed up about it. YOU may think its wrong, but, as I keep saying, I don't need you approval. Try again...
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: What god gave you LOL. Oh and I dont have to surrender anything. I live in a very free country where people as a whole respect that some decisions are made for the good of the population, not the indiviual. Kinda like nature works really. For the good of the herd. Take that rule out of nature and there wouldn't be much of it left.
Right... "for the good of the herd" lol, great example... The injured animal gets left behind to be eaten, all for the good of the herd. Try again...
IP: Logged
01:13 AM
PFF
System Bot
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Originally posted by AusFiero: I live in a very free country where people as a whole respect that some decisions are made for the good of the population, not the indiviual. Kinda like nature works really. For the good of the herd. Take that rule out of nature and there wouldn't be much of it left.
Wow.
Most animal populations are highly competitive, even among herd animals. When food is tight, there isn't a push to divide everything up equally, it's everybody for themselves. Herds also tend to let crippled animals die, and in some species, the young are eaten when food sources aren't plentiful.
IP: Logged
01:17 AM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
See you 2 finally are understanding. The sick left behind is a great example. It is for the good of the herd. The sick animal certainly doesnt like the idea, as he has to die so the lions dont chase the fit animals. So the sick animal right to live was sacrificed? The majority lived because the majority ruled. Same as eating the young. The young dont like it so there goes their right to live too. Both of you just reinforced the exact point I was making.
IP: Logged
01:26 AM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
See you 2 finally are understanding. The sick left behind is a great example. It is for the good of the herd. The sick animal certainly doesnt like the idea, as he has to die so the lions dont chase the fit animals. So the sick animal right to live was sacrificed? The majority lived because the majority ruled. Same as eating the young. The young dont like it so there goes their right to live too. Both of you just reinforced the exact point I was making.
What, that might makes right? That the weakest members of society don't deserve protection? That we should be like animals and not care for those weaker than we are? That those in charge should determine who has privileges and who doesn't?
Or am I twisting your words again?
edit to add: I'm headed to bed, so please don't take my lack of response tonight to mean I'm not interested in replying.
[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 04-20-2009).]
IP: Logged
01:30 AM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
See you 2 finally are understanding. The sick left behind is a great example. It is for the good of the herd. The sick animal certainly doesnt like the idea, as he has to die so the lions dont chase the fit animals. So the sick animal right to live was sacrificed? The majority lived because the majority ruled. Same as eating the young. The young dont like it so there goes their right to live too. Both of you just reinforced the exact point I was making.
Thank you. You've reinforced MY point as well... This is where we started:
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: Why do people feel they need to own guns anyway? Is the USA that screwed up that so many seem paranoid and feel they must have a gun to survive? I am quite happy living in a place where I dont feel I need a gun just to survive, which is the impression I get of many pro-gun people on this forum.
The answer to that question is simple - I may seem paranoid because I feel I need to own guns so that screwed up people like YOU cannot throw me to the wolves for "the good of the herd..."
Its been said that democracy is two Wolves and a Lamb voting on what's for dinner.
That's why America is a Democratically elected Republic (not a democracy). We have a Constitution because we recognize that there are certain rights that must be protected so that they can NEVER be taken away, no matter what the "herd" may think.
Lastly, who decides what's for the good of the herd anyway? The majority? Your majority is not RIGHT simply because they have greater numbers. If you'll permit me a bit of hyperbole - the majority of Turks though the Armenians should die? Was that OKAY because the herd said it was so? How about the Germans vs. the Jews? That was all just for the good of the herd, right?
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 04-20-2009).]
IP: Logged
01:32 AM
Fallman Member
Posts: 156 From: College Place, Wa USA Registered: Sep 2001
I see AusFiero has yet to grasp the SIMPLE PRINCIPLES our FREE NATION was founded on. But you cant expect to much more from a guy whose nation was founded as a penal colony. As we see in the USA alot of Criminals seem to enjoy the loss of freedoms their activities bring. And it seems that that attitude is unfortunately passed on to there descendants.
As far as WE THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We have chosen to limit GOVERNMENT because WE THE PEOPLE BELIEVE that governments power are founded in WE THE PEOPLE. AND we the people reserve ALL RIGHTS not specifically delegated to the states or federal government for OURSELVES. Our Government was SPECIFICALLY limited because of the excesses of the BRITISH EMPIRE and our belief and that of our founding fathers that power originates with the people. Although if u read the Diaries and letters of founding fathers at the time they FEARED the heard mentality of people and set up the UNITED STATES of AMERICA as a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY to protect the "SPECIAL INTERESTS" (aka people who do not agree with the heard). They foresaw what absolute power AND CROWD THINK would do. Crowds and Groups when panic do not think long term and tend to take quick action that sacrifices way way way to much for the sake of temporary relief to a much larger problem, that will reoccur when dealt with in panic and with out the long view in sight. Can anyone say PATRIOT ACTS 1 & 2
anyway sorry for the caps i wasnt yelling wasnt even up set just dont know how to do italics or bold in here. so only way i new to emphasize my points.
[This message has been edited by Fallman (edited 04-20-2009).]
IP: Logged
02:32 AM
DRA Member
Posts: 4543 From: Martinez, Ga, USA Registered: Oct 1999
Nice try Todd at twisting the stats. Selecting just ones we are high in. I could post twice as many different crimes where the USA is higher. Go look for yourself.
The total crime one is ridiculous because it is based on what individual governments rate as crimes. Ours rate every reported incident as crime. Did you know someone grafittiing a building makes the 120 residents of that building a victim of crime? A car rear ends a bus in traffic and the incident is reported. Well all 50 passengers are now a victim of a crime.
Statistics are compiled to make a point, usually the person or group who funds or request the complimation of the numbers point. If you gather enough data almost any view point can be "proved" or "disproved".
The actual chances of something happening or actually happening to a specific individual are actually 50/50, it either will happen or it will not.
If you want to talk about specific scientific probabilities, then many more factors than have been presented in any of the statistics I have seen MUST be taken into account. Some of those include population density, region or area, climate or weather, local cultural diversity or belief systems, educational levels and opportunities, housing and living conditions, disparity or equality of wealth, should I go on?
If subject A lives in a remote area where he may never see another human in his lifetime what are his odds of being involved in a violent crime or any crime for that matter? If subject B lives in a high population density impoverished area what are the odds that he will be involved in a violent crime or any other crime? If subject A and B live in the same country there is no difference in the odds either of these will be involved in a crime of any sort based on the per capita statistics, these statistics are skewed. These statistics are generated to support some individual or groups point or agenda.
I support the individual right to keep and bear arms regardless of whether it is for individual protection, protection from unreasonable or unjust Govermental rule, sporting activities such as trap skeet and other types of competative shooting, or hunting and food gathering purposes. I have personally found having a handgun has helped me avoid being a victim of violent crime at least two specific times in my lifetime, maybe more since quite a few people know that I may or may not be armed at any given time. I have enjoyed taking wild game for the dinner table and have enjoyed more than a few trips to a range to blow off a few rounds. I consider myself a responsible gun owner and see absolutely no reason why I should not be allowed to continue to own a firearm or firearms.
I very rarely see the point in argueing or debating the point of individual gun ownership simply because most people have their mind made up either for themselves or by someone else, I usually give my .02 and happily agree to disagree. That seems to be the best path to follow especially amongst friends. Everyone has a right to an opinion, having the right to impose that opinion on others is questionable at best.
Have a good day Gentlemen!
PS. Every free man has the right to the pursuit of happiness, that is not a promise that they will actually ever achieve it!
------------------ Dealing with failure is easy: work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle: you've solved the wrong problem, work hard to improve.
[This message has been edited by DRA (edited 04-20-2009).]
IP: Logged
04:02 AM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
I see AusFiero has yet to grasp the SIMPLE PRINCIPLES our FREE NATION was founded on. But you cant expect to much more from a guy whose nation was founded as a penal colony. As we see in the USA alot of Criminals seem to enjoy the loss of freedoms their activities bring. And it seems that that attitude is unfortunately passed on to there descendants.
Ohh I am hurt now. The argument is lost when you resort to name calling. I grasp the principles it was founded on very well. Perhaps you better look up your own history. About 50,000 of the first people sent to America were also convicts LOL.
IP: Logged
04:16 AM
Fallman Member
Posts: 156 From: College Place, Wa USA Registered: Sep 2001
Your right name calling isn't called for. Wasn't Going for name calling. Was only drawing a point from the fact that your ancestors didn't have a choice on migration to your land. ours by far choose to immigrate because of the draconian regulations imposed by European countries of the time. For the most part i admire Aussies. But when they insist on giving up FUNDAMENTAL and as the constitution puts it NATURAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, (not God given i'm not going to start that argument no matter what my personal beliefs) that is where i must insist on disagreeing with them. I may never own a gun but i will always defend the right of all people not just US Citizens to self defense and the right to SELF DETERMINATION, including the RIGHT TO BARE ARMS.
Im sorry for any misunderstandings i just plain and simply disagree with you. Especially when the plain and simple facts disagree with you as well. The total crime rates dont mean anything only per-capita crime rates are even close to a valid form of measurement. Why European countries and certian others including Canada and possibly Australia continue to support several systems that are slowly draining these countries of resources and bankrupting them and at the same time trying to infect the USA with the same ideas that have been proven to not work. Specifically the Universal health care IDEA. It doesnt work and never will because not all humans believe in the same health ideas. Who wants to wait years for basic procedures.
Anyway back to the subject at hand AusFiero did u read the article Are u disagreeing that GB, Canada, and Australia have higher violent crime rates per-capita then the USA. or are u refusing to read articles and surveys because the truth doesnt concern you? Im asking you a simple thing. Read the article and show me the proof that its assertions are wrong.
IP: Logged
05:00 AM
Fallman Member
Posts: 156 From: College Place, Wa USA Registered: Sep 2001
Nice try Todd at twisting the stats. Selecting just ones we are high in. I could post twice as many different crimes where the USA is higher. Go look for yourself.
The total crime one is ridiculous because it is based on what individual governments rate as crimes. Ours rate every reported incident as crime. Did you know someone grafittiing a building makes the 120 residents of that building a victim of crime? A car rear ends a bus in traffic and the incident is reported. Well all 50 passengers are now a victim of a crime.
What you dont seem to grasp is that we aren't twisting stats. If u read the article you would realize that. I know every citizen defends his country becauese its HIS. I will be the first to admit my country isnt perfect, we have our faults and downfalls. But what we don't do is twist the facts. You are the one who has twisted things you quote facts from a cite and when you are quoted back from the same site u get angry because someone finds stats that counter your own. Do u understand that all stats must be held in ratio to the population or they mean nothing. otherwise you could have a country like Monaco that has 2000 or so Violent Crimes and would seem low compared to the total violent crimes in other countries hell its probably lower then Australia. but when u start comparing total populations i think u would find that they actually have more murders per person than just about any other country.
BTW just looking at the burglary stats if u read that article u would realize that your burglary rates went wild right after u outlawed most weapons.
[This message has been edited by Fallman (edited 04-20-2009).]
Originally posted by AusFiero: Freedom is having trust in your own rulers and not having to worry abotu them.
I almost feel sorry for you, but it sounds like you want this.
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero:
So allowing people to have armour piercing untraceable weapons is a good thing. Right.
no one "allows" me to do anything on something that there should be no law on. I would go into it further, but others have tried, but you seem to like being a sheep. the point is, we are free today because of our rights, and not even completely free... they have slowly been taking them away and trying to do more over the years.
IP: Logged
01:09 PM
PFF
System Bot
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
<excerpt> We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of com- mentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fun- damental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American concep- tion of ordered liberty that we have inherited.17 We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Four- teenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.
IP: Logged
03:20 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Go buy some of these, Im willing to bet that if it will kill an elephant, it will certainly blow through body armor.
You don't need an elephant killer to defeat most armor. The majority of police wear "soft" armor, which is designed for protection from pistol rounds. Hard plate armor, the type which can withstand rifle fire, is heavy and not comfortable for extended wear. It's more of a SWAT-type thing that what a patrol officer would wear.
Originally posted by AusFiero: Nice try Todd at twisting the stats. Selecting just ones we are high in. I could post twice as many different crimes where the USA is higher. Go look for yourself.
The total crime one is ridiculous because it is based on what individual governments rate as crimes. Ours rate every reported incident as crime. Did you know someone grafittiing a building makes the 120 residents of that building a victim of crime? A car rear ends a bus in traffic and the incident is reported. Well all 50 passengers are now a victim of a crime.
Old friend, you are the one who said "Stats talk" and then you get contorted when your own stats are used against your point of view and then try to discredit the stats in the links that you posted? Come on now, you can't have it both ways. After reading your comments that were insulting to me and my way of life in the country that I love (we are not all screwed up and paranoid as you think we are), I did a lot of Googling on your country's gun laws and the effects they have had on crime. For every website within your country (I limited my search to just Australia) that said something good and positive, there were as many or more that had statistics to show the negative impact. Go look for yourself. Anyway, back to your question- "Why do people feel they need to own guns anyway?" I own a gun because it is right and freedom guaranteed by the Constitution's Bill of Rights. If we don't stand up for EVERY freedom and right and one gets taken away, what stops those in power from taking away our other rights? What's next- Freedom of the press? Freedom of religion? Trial by jury? Cruel and unusual punnishment? You can't un-ring the bell, and once it tolls on the end of one freedom, the others will be next.
IP: Logged
07:21 PM
tmur115 Member
Posts: 888 From: Battle Ground WA Registered: Jan 2006
Originally posted by AusFiero: I live in a very free country where people as a whole respect that some decisions are made for the good of the population, not the indiviual. Kinda like nature works really. For the good of the herd. Take that rule out of nature and there wouldn't be much of it left.
again I fail to see your point...
you have Medicare, which is funded out of general tax revenue, pays for hospital and medical services. Medicare covers all Australians, you also have a Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. (free or cheap meds for all) social security (retirment pension) a welfare system, a rent assistance program....
this is NOT how nature works... the weak are left to die, not given free food, housing, and healthcare....
=todd=
ps I'm still waiting for the link's on how the US is the worst per capita
IP: Logged
11:40 PM
Apr 21st, 2009
Fallman Member
Posts: 156 From: College Place, Wa USA Registered: Sep 2001
