The New Gun Free Australia.

[Jerrymac]

Let's kick this horse some more.

From this blog,

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/


Shall not be infringed : "The U.S. Department of Justice re-confirmed in December 2004 that the Second Amendment is very clear in that it pertains to individuals. It also confirmed that the term 'militia' referred to a citizen militia comprised of adult male civilians, not a governmental agency such as the National Guard. What has very clearly been neglected, however, is the latter part of the Second Amendment which very clearly states that the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' (emphasis added by this author). And yet our right is being infringed on a constant basis from all levels of government. And the U.S. Justice Department seems to come up empty-handed when it comes down to enforcing its position on an individual right."

[thegolfpsycho]

You guys are pointing out alot of benefits of gun ownership for protection.  I always thought the 2nd amendment was written to protect us citizens from our government.  In many scenarios, the people that military, police, security forces were created to protect, become victims of those armys.  Individual ownership of weapons is part of the checks and balances that hopefully keep us all from becoming victims.  

As an additional point.  Guerilla warfare is extremely costly in lives and finances, to overcome.  Our forefathers new this.  So.. they made sure that weapons were not taken out of the citizens hands.   How foolish would it be for an invading army to march in formation almost anywhere in this county?

Of course, I could be wrong, and have been known to imbibe on occasion.

[Jerrymac]

Didn't I say that? Maybe just hinted, but yes that is the reason for the people to keep and bear arms. And it also means any weapons that the military has.

[asleitch]

There are fully automatic weapons that are illegal to own unless you have a federal license of some sort.

The lapse on Monday of the 10-year-old federal assault weapons ban has gun rights groups and gun control advocates squaring off over whether the law was purely cosmetic or crucial to public safety.

Gun rights groups say the ban applied to guns that were no more dangerous than legal guns, and only looked more fearsome. Gun control advocates say the weapons that are now available can shoot more bullets faster, and could kill cops and innocents.

The 1994 ban, signed by President Clinton, outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it, which it did not. That means firearms like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s can now be legally bought.

... I was meaning the above, a Uzi is the type of thin I mean by a mini-machine gun. Easy to conceal, quick to repeat fire, difficult to aim (i.e. so no benefit to hunting etc).

Adam

[Jerrymac]

What has hunting got to do with anything? I don't hunt. In the famous words of R. Nixon, "I am not a crook." I haven't even gone out and shot cans for many years. But I have the guns. And I am going to keep  them. Why? Just in case I should need them for what ever.

In order for an Uzi to be legal it can not fire but one round everytime the trigger is pulled. If it is manipulated to fire in a full automatic manner then the person has broken a law. Most any semi-auto firearm can be fixed quickly to fire fully auto. I only need a piece of string tied on one little piece of the mechanism of the AR-15 to make it fire as such. No I have not done it.

[Lesli]

. And it also means any weapons that the military has.

Does that mean I get to have WMD? Woo-hoo!

[Jerrymac]

What do you think "shall not be infringed" means?

[Yarra_Valley]

As an Australian, I find it necessary to offer some actual evidence for some of the claims in this lovely warm thread.

In 2001 a created an argumentative essay on the impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms (NAF). Its scored a perfect mark.

The basis for my argument was evidence provided by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Given its now 2005 this would be an excellent time for me to further research trends and gain a more accurate perspective of the impact of the NAF.

As I'm currently working abroad, I will be unable to obtain the original essay and update it for some time.  It is complete with footnotes so anyone will be able to follow my findings and draw their own conclusions, and perhaps present something of interest which has not yet occurred to me.

I invite anyone to go to www.aic.gov.au or www.abs.gov.au to conduct their own research. Whilst I haven't completed reading this thread yet, there is substantial misinformation on both sides of this argument.

On a personal note, this is an argument I'm very passionate about, and I have drawn my own conclusion. I have witnessed some of the passion which others also feel for this topic in this thread, but I urge those on both sides to study hard as there is a huge mound of research to be done in order to present a half reasonable viewpoint.

[Jerrymac]

OK. So you get rid of all the guns. And let's say the crime rate decreases drastically. Everybody is happy, well for awhile. Dispite best efforts and intentions, there will always be those that have to have power over the people. And then when they get a little they will want more and more. So everybody lays down their guns now and in twenty or more years you are faced with what these people in Zimbabwe are faced with.

This is what our second amendment is all about. It should not be reduced to hunting and sporting.

Residents plead for weapons to fight Mugabe
Mon 30 May 2005

      MUTARE - Residents in Zimbabwe's eastern Mutare city - driven to
desperation after their informal businesses were destroyed by the
government - pleaded for weapons at the weekend to wage war against the government because they were just "fed up."

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/may30_2005.html#link1

[drgenegarris]

comes the kitchen knife lunacy

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=579102005

[1frozenhillbilly]

i can not own a firearm,  i was convicted of a felony crime (my crime did not involve any weapon).  none the less my "right" was taken from me.

i do not choose at this time to own a firearm because i basicaly believe in obeying the laws of my country even if i disagree with them.
 my wife to be is an avid shooter and my daughters are excelent shots with both a rifle and a pistol.  
the fact is if i wanted to have a firearm i can get one.  the only thing that stops me is my willingness to obey the law.
 i was stationed in japan when i was in the army.  not even the police are allowed to have firearms there,  if i wanted to go shooting i had a friend who was in tight with a local yakuza clan.  they had any thing you could want.  i mean anything from .22 rimfire to .50 browning machine guns.
  i think you see my point.

[Scooby]

I just thought I'd pipe in here.

The best reason to own a gun, is so that your government can't take away the right to own a gun.

I'm not a paranoid malitia nut-job. In fact, truth be known, the only gun I own is a 12 guage double barrel I inherited from my grandad 12 years ago. I still haven't shot it, and I keep meaning to take it to a gunsmith for a safety check before I shoot it, but I keep getting side tracked.

Anywho..... if the only folks that have guns are your government, then they wield too much power.

[Apis629]

comes the kitchen knife lunacy

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=579102005

I definately do not agree with that site.  Long knives serve a great perpose.  Do they expect me to be able to cut the diameter of a watermellon with a pearing knife or cut through cabage with a butter knife?