massachusetts proposed gun control

Not to mention a NY judge at that, of all the states to use as a reference!

It is true the US government considers the Nat'l Guard to be a militia but that is by their narrow and unofficial definition per the SCOTUS. How can a professional military force that has sworn an oath to the President of the US, takes its orders from the government, is deployed with the regular Army in overseas conflicts and is paid by the government be considered a militia by any reasonable definition. The Nat'l Guard is a standing army just like any other reserve unit.
 

The civil war, Indian wars & the heady days of the "Wild West' are now well & truly behind the US, the citizens have no need of armaments. It's one thing to have a weapon/s for 'sporting pleasure' as many 'civilised' , (tongue in cheek) countries do, but for households to be armed to the extent that the law allows, is archaic.

 
I don't think that in Australia we have anything like a militia. We have a standing army of professional soldiers and weekend reservists. After that we have professional police forces at state and federal levels.

In my mind militias are a worry. We have seen militias in operation in East Timor where they terrorised the local population on behalf of the Indonesians and the insurgents in the Middle East are referred to as militias. They have some internal organisation and ISIS does seem to be well co-ordinated but well regulated? By whom?

I can understand the National Guard being an acceptable militia according to the American Constitution but can any one point to another organisation that could be termed a "well regulated militia" ? That is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.
 
I don't mean to be insulting but I really don't care what the laws or attitudes are in AU or NZ or anywhere outside the US for that matter. In America we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights both of which requiring constant protection through the vigilance of the general public or the rights contained in those documents will vanish like a wisp of smoke. That is what the gun rights issue is about, not about who may hunt and who may not.

The majority of firearms in American homes are of the sporting type and most American gun owners are hunters and/or target sport shooters and we the citizens will decide if we want to own a firearm or not, not some bureaucrat. Criminal firearm owners represent a small percentage of the whole who would greatly enjoy a totally defenseless public upon which to prey.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
I don't think that in Australia we have anything like a militia. We have a standing army of professional soldiers and weekend reservists. After that we have professional police forces at state and federal levels.

In my mind militias are a worry. We have seen militias in operation in East Timor where they terrorised the local population on behalf of the Indonesians and the insurgents in the Middle East are referred to as militias. They have some internal organisation and ISIS does seem to be well co-ordinated but well regulated? By whom?

I can understand the National Guard being an acceptable militia according to the American Constitution but can any one point to another organisation that could be termed a "well regulated militia" ? That is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.
Click to expand...
When our constitution was written and the Second Amendment was added, there was no such thing as a National Guard. This is not a militia. It is just another part of the regular military, and they are sent overseas just like any other part of the miliary here.
The original wording plainly said that every person had the right to self-defence, but that these people would also be called upon in times of need as a militia. They had to have their own weapons, horse, knapsack, ammunition, and anything else needed for the defense of the country.
If you think about it like a house catching on fire, and the fire spreads. The fire engine comes, but if the fire keeps on spreading, then every person that can help stop the fire is going to help. They are not truly firemen, just people protecting their homes, and their neighbor's homes.
The militia is basically the same thing. The original wording specifically says that every person has the right to own weapons, and that this right shall not be taken away from him.
It has nothing to do with being a sportsman or hunting, and everything to do with self-defense.

Suppose America were attacked by China, Russia, or some other country. We would then have every person that owned any kind of a weapon out there fighting for our freedom, and that would be our militia. The same thing would hold true if Australia were attacked, and needed every available person to help defend the country.
 
Last edited:
The same thing would hold true if Australia were attacked, and needed every available person to help defend the country.
Click to expand...
If Australia is attacked by an invading force then we're stuffed. Small arms in the hands of civilians wouldn't achieve much against a multitude of Chinese soldiers, even if every man, woman and child were to be armed to the teeth with a storage dump of bullets in the backyard.

On the other hand, during WW II a unit of militia (army reserves) held up the Japanese overland advance towards Port Moresby and bought time for more seasoned troops to be brought up. This was the first time the Japanese army was driven backwards in the Pacific War. They were a well trained and well regulated militia in every sense of the word and were entitled to keep their weapons at home when not engaged in active duty. But we don't need a bill of rights to grant them that right. It's just common sense.
 
Warri, you are absolutely right, it IS just common sense ! We should not need a Bill of Rights to grant us that basic ability to defend ourself, our family, our homes, and when necessary, our country. (Self-defense is the first rule of survival, and something that every human being will probably need in one way or another during their lifetime. )
However, that being said, our founding fathers had seen what happened in England, and some of the other countries, and they wanted to protect our right to self-defense, not just for themselves, but for the future generations of Americans. So, they made sure that it was plainly specified in our Bill of Rights.

To be sure, all the recent episodes of people seeming to just "lose it" and start shooting people is a terrible thing. Whether it is the drugs, the violent movies and video games, or some form of mind control causing this to be happening more and more; it is happening everywhere, and taking away guns from responsible people will not stop it, it will only make us better targets.
It is , in fact, one of the very reasons we still need guns to be able to defend ourselves nowdays.
 
Your founding fathers had a well founded fear that Britain might attempt to take back its former colonies. I think that is a dead issue now.
In Australia we have long had a fear of invasion by Asian hordes from the north. When it did seem likely we were engaged in an all in war and it was our alliances that served us best. Although Britain was too busy elsewhere to lend a hand, the Americans realised that we had strategic value because of our location and chose to engage the Japanese before they managed to land any troops on our soil. Against the air attacks on Darwin small arms were not much use but antiaircraft guns did a lot of damage. They were manned by regular army (at least once by some completely naked ones, having scrambled from the showers).

I guess I'm saying that I place more weight on treaties, alliances and trade that I do on an armed civilian population to defend against invasion.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Your founding fathers had a well founded fear that Britain might attempt to take back its former colonies. I think that is a dead issue now.
In Australia we have long had a fear of invasion by Asian hordes from the north. When it did seem likely we were engaged in an all in war and it was our alliances that served us best. Although Britain was too busy elsewhere to lend a hand, the Americans realised that we had strategic value because of our location and chose to engage the Japanese before they managed to land any troops on our soil. Against the air attacks on Darwin small arms were not much use but antiaircraft guns did a lot of damage. They were manned by regular army (at least once by some completely naked ones, having scrambled from the showers).

I guess I'm saying that I place more weight on treaties, alliances and trade that I do on an armed civilian population to defend against invasion.
Click to expand...

I believe our founding fathers had more than a fear of Britian. I believe they were aware of the fact there would always be someone to take from other be it life or possessions. I believe they had a desire to create a place people could live with out those fears. That is not a dead issue.
All of the treaties, alliances and trade do not protect me from someone who wants to harm my family or take my life or
my loved ones. Yes we have law enforcement officer and I have called on them for help. When it comes down to it. I am the last line of defense. We have people who want to take that away from me and leave me at the mercy of evil people.
 
There are those who think it's wise to cede their constitutional rights and freedoms to the government under the guise of being "safer", very foolish because once lost those liberties can never be regained. Government exists solely for government, it's an inherent trait of government to grow ever larger and more powerful just as it's a trait of those in government to think themselves more wise and far above than the lowly masses who elected them. Those who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights knew the nature of government, themselves in fact, they wrote protections into the governing documents that they felt would enable the nation to survive and prosper. Unfortunately we now have a couple of pampered generations too spoiled to regulate their own actions, too lazy to work, too weak to fend for themselves who are giving to the very body that desires nothing more than absolute control exactly that absolute control over every aspect of their lives. Sad indeed.
 
Now THATS a great post...Mind if I use this in other forums?

marinaio said:
There are those who think it's wise to cede their constitutional rights and freedoms to the government under the guise of being "safer", very foolish because once lost those liberties can never be regained. Government exists solely for government, it's an inherent trait of government to grow ever larger and more powerful just as it's a trait of those in government to think themselves more wise and far above than the lowly masses who elected them. Those who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights knew the nature of government, themselves in fact, they wrote protections into the governing documents that they felt would enable the nation to survive and prosper. Unfortunately we now have a couple of pampered generations too spoiled to regulate their own actions, too lazy to work, too weak to fend for themselves who are giving to the very body that desires nothing more than absolute control exactly that absolute control over every aspect of their lives. Sad indeed.
Click to expand...
 
If you think it's of some value or you can get some mileage out of it use it by all means. I do hope it's used in the context I intended but I always assume that anything I post on the internet is then out of my control.
 
marinaio said:
There are those who think it's wise to cede their constitutional rights and freedoms to the government under the guise of being "safer", very foolish because once lost those liberties can never be regained. Government exists solely for government, it's an inherent trait of government to grow ever larger and more powerful just as it's a trait of those in government to think themselves more wise and far above than the lowly masses who elected them. Those who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights knew the nature of government, themselves in fact, they wrote protections into the governing documents that they felt would enable the nation to survive and prosper. Unfortunately we now have a couple of pampered generations too spoiled to regulate their own actions, too lazy to work, too weak to fend for themselves who are giving to the very body that desires nothing more than absolute control exactly that absolute control over every aspect of their lives. Sad indeed.
Click to expand...




YES! YES! YES! It is sad indeed.
 
The fact that a topic that, in my opinion, should represent a basic understanding of our rights and liberties as Americans has actually reached 100 argumentative posts is a little disconcerting!
 
Ralphy1 said:
Why is that other civilized countries have gun control that seems to work?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you said seems to work. While it is true that "gun crime" is lower you need to look at the bigger picture, while "gun crime" is lower in most cases violent crime is higher. I could never figure the reason for separating gun crime and violent crime. If I am attacked it doesn't matter much if I am stabbed, clubbed, or shot the result is I am in a world of hurt. At least some if not most countries with gun control also restrict pepper spray, knives, etc. In other words a law abiding citizen isn't even allowed to protect themselves. These controls have no effect on the bad guns they only effect the law abiding citizen.
My other real gripe is that the news services are so liberal they don't even report stories where a decent citizen uses a gun to protect themselves or if they do it's gets turned around to say it was unnecessary use of force.
Some countries go so far as to reclassify some violent crimes into different categories in order to reduce at least on paper the actual violent crime rate.
In Australia prior to their idiotic gun ban there was no such thing as home invasion now it is epidemic, since it's new they don't as far as I know even have a name for it.
OK, I'll get off my soap box and get back to my first cup of coffee.
 
I use my 9 mm for protection here at he house. I have a concealed weapons permit, but seldom carry my gun, which when carrying a concealed weapon, I opt for my 25 mm. I use my rifles to hunt game, not people. I am not interested in killing anyone, unless I feel threatened by a break-in in my own home. I did enough of that in Vietnam and it is not pleasant, no matter what the circumstance. I knew guys in the war that actually enjoyed killing people and bragged about it at our reunions. I never felt the "rush" that a few said they did when killing someone. Most time, when in combat, you just return fire and hope that you hit a target. However, there are time when you will get an open shot and see your victim go down.
 
Combat is one thing but citizens being armed to the teeth is another...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top