So unless you can stpp all crime you may as well not bother. Got it.

One of the lessons I learned from the response to 9/11 was that constitutional governance is always in great peril when an anxious, angry mob, one willing to cede power to the government for the illusion of safety, exists.

Truer words have not been uttered (or typed).

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

"When terrorists attacked a school in Maalot in 1974, Israel did not declare every school a gun-free zone. It passed a law mandating armed security in schools, provided weapons training to teachers and today runs frequent active shooter drills. There have been only two school shootings since then, and both have ended with teachers killing the terrorists"

Except no teacher in Israel is actually armed and there are no guns in any classroom, instead Israeli law requires schools to have armed guards specifically trained in handling firearms. Also Isreali gun laws make it exceedingly difficult for anyone to actually obtain a gun, in fact using many of the restrictions you people say don't work. This is in addition to the fact that Israel has mandatory military service meaning every citizen is trained in proper firearm technique and safety.   

Source: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/ta...fault.aspx

Which I support for EVERY NATION!  But try and pass that ideal to the liberal population of the US and watch the fur fly.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

These arguments are absurd. Why not just be honest and say you like owning guns and dont want to give them up?

You will look like a selfish douche but at least not look ridiculous

Waiving the white flag it seems.  At least you did not devolve into personal insults which is the norm these days from both sides of all arguments.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Waving the white flag to what?

Everyone keeps saying you need your own gun to protect yourself from other people with guns. The police may get away with shooting you because they fear you have a gun.

Seems guns are killing your freedoms from afar.

---

So what you are saying is the us is full of bad people but their aren't any here in Australia.

So what causes that? Social inequality?

Are you saying Australia is full of bad people who would commit mass murder, but don't simply because they don't own guns?  Are they truly not bright enough to figure out another way?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

These arguments are absurd. Why not just be honest and say you like owning guns and dont want to give them up?

You will look like a selfish douche but at least not look ridiculous

I have a right to my guns and will never willingly surrender them to anyone.

In the unlikely event it ever comes to this, "willingly" will be irrelevant, it will be up to you if the fingers pried from your precious weapon are cold and dead, or warm and living.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I have a right to my guns and will never willingly surrender them to anyone.

In the unlikely event it ever comes to this, "willingly" will be irrelevant, it will be up to you if the fingers pried from your precious weapon are cold and dead, or warm and living.

Your post contradicts itself. If his willingness decides life or death, it most certainly will be relevant. I know you meant to say Mama Government would get his guns regardless, but I'm sure he understands that, considering his use of the word willingly.

---

Wasnt there a huge gun attack in texas only a couple of months ago? I may be remembering wrong, there are so many it is hard to keep up.

This doesn't happen in australia at all thankfully common sense laws were brought in

Time you set honesty to "On."

How many Spree Shootings were there in Australia before the Port Arthur Massacre?

How do you classify events such as the 2002 Melbourne University attack or the 2014 Sydney Siege so that they aren't considered to be Mass Shooting events?

The answer to the first is "7" since 1971. Hardly an epidemic.

The answer to the second is "we modified the thresholds for categorization to improve the outcomes of our law." This is exactly the same kind of funny math that's used to say the USA has poorer health outcomes and mortality rates than other countries. The truth is not the numbers, but how the numbers are compiled.

So, Australia enacted a draconian law, to address a problem that really didn't exist, modified the measures of the law's success to inflate the quantifiable results, and then Aussies come to America and puff out their chests about how smart they are.

More importantly, the mass shootings in Australia prior to 1971 overwhelmingly were enacted by the government against the people of Australia, something the "gun culture" of the USA is designed to prevent. Hence the words of our Founders like Thomas Jefferson and Noah Webster:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

And of course, for the fools who think the 2nd Amendment wasn't encoded to preserve and individual right, there's this simple statement of fact:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

But I wouldn't expect you to understand such sentiments since your Daddy Government does all the thinking for you. There's actually a really germane quote about you and your country, made by Pitt the Younger:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Since we know you aren't the tyrant, then you find yourself as the latter.

Because words written in the 18th century about the proposed governance of an agrarian society of 4 million, 700,000 of which were slaves and 95% of free men were farmers, have  timeless relevance in a country of over 320 million, 80% living in urban areas. Do you think even Jefferson, Webster or Pitt foresaw a day when a 19 year old would be able to easily purchase a gun designed for maximum casualties and use it to mow down innocents?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Time you set honesty to "On."

How many Spree Shootings were there in Australia before the Port Arthur Massacre?

How do you classify events such as the 2002 Melbourne University attack or the 2014 Sydney Siege so that they aren't considered to be Mass Shooting events?

The answer to the first is "7" since 1971. Hardly an epidemic.

The answer to the second is "we modified the thresholds for categorization to improve the outcomes of our law." This is exactly the same kind of funny math that's used to say the USA has poorer health outcomes and mortality rates than other countries. The truth is not the numbers, but how the numbers are compiled.

So, Australia enacted a draconian law, to address a problem that really didn't exist, modified the measures of the law's success to inflate the quantifiable results, and then Aussies come to America and puff out their chests about how smart they are.

More importantly, the mass shootings in Australia prior to 1971 overwhelmingly were enacted by the government against the people of Australia, something the "gun culture" of the USA is designed to prevent. Hence the words of our Founders like Thomas Jefferson and Noah Webster:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

And of course, for the fools who think the 2nd Amendment wasn't encoded to preserve and individual right, there's this simple statement of fact:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

But I wouldn't expect you to understand such sentiments since your Daddy Government does all the thinking for you. There's actually a really germane quote about you and your country, made by Pitt the Younger:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Since we know you aren't the tyrant, then you find yourself as the latter.

Because words written in the 18th century about the proposed governance of an agrarian society of 4 million, 700,000 of which were slaves and 95% of free men were farmers, have  timeless relevance in a country of over 320 million, 80% living in urban areas. Do you think even Jefferson, Webster or Pitt foresaw a day when a 19 year old would be able to easily purchase a gun designed for maximum casualties and use it to mow down innocents?

They wouldn't care - why don't you understand this?

They rose up against their government - the only way they succeeded was because they had the modern warfare weaponry to do it. And yes, at that time, muskets were modern warfare weaponry.

---

In the unlikely event it ever comes to this, "willingly" will be irrelevant, it will be up to you if the fingers pried from your precious weapon are cold and dead, or warm and living.

Your post contradicts itself. If his willingness decides life or death, it most certainly will be relevant. I know you meant to say Mama Government would get his guns regardless, but I'm sure he understands that, considering his use of the word willingly.

A gun can be unwillingly surrendered without sacrificing one's life. If you have a car repossessed and they just come and get it, you didn't surrender it willingly.

And yes, if it ever comes down to the Apocalypse the NRA has programmed y'all to expect, Mama Government isn't coming armed with something your AR-15 is going to stop. You can give it up to save your skin, or get buried with it in the rubble. If you save your skin, would you say you did it willingly?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Your post contradicts itself. If his willingness decides life or death, it most certainly will be relevant. I know you meant to say Mama Government would get his guns regardless, but I'm sure he understands that, considering his use of the word willingly.

A gun can be unwillingly surrendered without sacrificing one's life. If you have a car repossessed and they just come and get it, you didn't surrender it willingly.

And yes, if it ever comes down to the Apocalypse the NRA has programmed y'all to expect, Mama Government isn't coming armed with something your AR-15 is going to stop. You can give it up to save your skin, or get buried with it in the rubble. If you save your skin, would you say you did it willingly?

And you think our soldiers will just say, "YES MASSAH!" to the government telling them to confiscate weapons? NOOOOPE. Most of them are gun owners.

---

Because words written in the 18th century about the proposed governance of an agrarian society of 4 million, 700,000 of which were slaves and 95% of free men were farmers, have  timeless relevance in a country of over 320 million, 80% living in urban areas. Do you think even Jefferson, Webster or Pitt foresaw a day when a 19 year old would be able to easily purchase a gun designed for maximum casualties and use it to mow down innocents?

They wouldn't care - why don't you understand this?

They rose up against their government - the only way they succeeded was because they had the modern warfare weaponry to do it. And yes, at that time, muskets were modern warfare weaponry.

They wouldn't care? Really? Is everything in the original Constitution so sacred? Then why have an amendment process and a Supreme Court to interpret?

The farmers had modern warfare weaponry? Cannons, too?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

A gun can be unwillingly surrendered without sacrificing one's life. If you have a car repossessed and they just come and get it, you didn't surrender it willingly.

And yes, if it ever comes down to the Apocalypse the NRA has programmed y'all to expect, Mama Government isn't coming armed with something your AR-15 is going to stop. You can give it up to save your skin, or get buried with it in the rubble. If you save your skin, would you say you did it willingly?

And you think our soldiers will just say, "YES MASSAH!" to the government telling them to confiscate weapons? NOOOOPE. Most of them are gun owners.

Exactly, which is why the fear of the gun seizing Apocalypse is ridiculous. Thank you for making my point for me.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Your post contradicts itself. If his willingness decides life or death, it most certainly will be relevant. I know you meant to say Mama Government would get his guns regardless, but I'm sure he understands that, considering his use of the word willingly.

A gun can be unwillingly surrendered without sacrificing one's life. If you have a car repossessed and they just come and get it, you didn't surrender it willingly.

And yes, if it ever comes down to the Apocalypse the NRA has programmed y'all to expect, Mama Government isn't coming armed with something your AR-15 is going to stop. You can give it up to save your skin, or get buried with it in the rubble. If you save your skin, would you say you did it willingly?

I could be wrong, but his post read as a last stand. And play with words all you want, but if one chooses life over death in that situation, they were willing to surrender theirs arms in trade for their life. Begrudgingly is perhaps the better word.

And I'm not sure what group you're mistakenly trying to lump me into. The last time I listened to anything the NRA said about anything was never. As I said in this thread, or maybe the other one, I'm not much of a gun guy. I'm more of a the government can go [BLEEP] itself kind of guy.

---

They wouldn't care - why don't you understand this?

They rose up against their government - the only way they succeeded was because they had the modern warfare weaponry to do it. And yes, at that time, muskets were modern warfare weaponry.

They wouldn't care? Really? Is everything in the original Constitution so sacred? Then why have an amendment process and a Supreme Court to interpret?

The farmers had modern warfare weaponry? Cannons, too?

Yes, the farmers did have their own cannons. And the merchants had ships with cannons. And every member of the miltia was expected to show up with his own rifle/musket and powder. So yes, your ignorance is showing.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

My lord. Some of you are acting like if they seize your guns it’s like taking your child.

I’m not saying they should but it’s a gun. I don’t care about anything in my house as much as some of you care about your guns.

---

My lord. Some of you are acting like if they seize your guns it’s like taking your child.

I’m not saying they should but it’s a gun. I don’t care about anything in my house as much as some of you care about your guns.

Never Again.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

My lord. Some of you are acting like if they seize your guns it’s like taking your child.

I’m not saying they should but it’s a gun. I don’t care about anything in my house as much as some of you care about your guns.

I have a right to self preservation. 

These rights aren’t given to us by man and can’t be taken away by one either.

---

My lord. Some of you are acting like if they seize your guns it’s like taking your child.

I’m not saying they should but it’s a gun. I don’t care about anything in my house as much as some of you care about your guns.

If they seize your guns what stops them from taking your child?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I always find it comical that the party that routinely derides law enforcement for their treatment of citizens seemingly possesses a great desire to enact more laws. As if more laws don't bring about more law enforcement. And I've heard the counter to that, that what's really wanted is better law enforcement. But that's not how government works. It's nothing, if not incompetent. So, while they're sobbing over some poor guy who was killed by the police while selling loose cigarettes, I wonder if they question who made it illegal to sell loose cigarettes to begin with.

---