"Trust me: You believe in gun control"

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Tina Dupuy is a nationally syndicated op-ed columnist, freelance
investigative journalist, comedian and on-air commentator.

In this anti-gun editorial, she uses almost every possible logical
fallacy Sarah Brady could come up with, from atom bombs to "absolute
right" to "regulated militia" to George Zimmerman, all in fifteen
paragraphs!

Clearly a masterful comic piece sure to give anyone who actually knows
what the Second Amendment means a hearty chuckle.

http://www.bemidjipioneer.com/event/article/id/100040384/

Luckily for her and the bandwidth allocation of the Bemidji Pioneer,
there is no "comment" section.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:51:03 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Tina Dupuy is a nationally syndicated op-ed columnist, freelance
>investigative journalist, comedian and on-air commentator.
>
>In this anti-gun editorial, she uses almost every possible logical
>fallacy Sarah Brady could come up with, from atom bombs to "absolute
>right" to "regulated militia" to George Zimmerman, all in fifteen
>paragraphs!
>
>Clearly a masterful comic piece sure to give anyone who actually knows
>what the Second Amendment means a hearty chuckle.

Too bad you don't know what logical fallacies are.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:51:03 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Tina Dupuy is a nationally syndicated op-ed columnist, freelance
>>investigative journalist, comedian and on-air commentator.
>>
>>In this anti-gun editorial, she uses almost every possible logical
>>fallacy Sarah Brady could come up with, from atom bombs to "absolute
>>right" to "regulated militia" to George Zimmerman, all in fifteen
>>paragraphs!
>>
>>Clearly a masterful comic piece sure to give anyone who actually knows
>>what the Second Amendment means a hearty chuckle.
>
>Too bad you don't know what logical fallacies are.

You're lying. You use them a lot.

Why do you bother to comment at all if that's all you got? Are you
THAT afraid of me?

[chuckle]

[de...@dudu.org]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 05:13:46 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:51:03 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Tina Dupuy is a nationally syndicated op-ed columnist, freelance
>>>investigative journalist, comedian and on-air commentator.
>>>
>>>In this anti-gun editorial, she uses almost every possible logical
>>>fallacy Sarah Brady could come up with, from atom bombs to "absolute
>>>right" to "regulated militia" to George Zimmerman, all in fifteen
>>>paragraphs!
>>>
>>>Clearly a masterful comic piece sure to give anyone who actually knows
>>>what the Second Amendment means a hearty chuckle.
>>
>>Too bad you don't know what logical fallacies are.
>
>You're lying. You use them a lot.
>

You use them all the time. I am pointing out yours to you constantly.

>Why do you bother to comment at all if that's all you got? Are you
>THAT afraid of me?

Of a stupid old man like you? Hardly.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Mon, 28 May 2012 05:13:46 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:51:03 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tina Dupuy is a nationally syndicated op-ed columnist, freelance
>>>>investigative journalist, comedian and on-air commentator.
>>>>
>>>>In this anti-gun editorial, she uses almost every possible logical
>>>>fallacy Sarah Brady could come up with, from atom bombs to "absolute
>>>>right" to "regulated militia" to George Zimmerman, all in fifteen
>>>>paragraphs!
>>>>
>>>>Clearly a masterful comic piece sure to give anyone who actually knows
>>>>what the Second Amendment means a hearty chuckle.
>>>
>>>Too bad you don't know what logical fallacies are.
>>
>>You're lying. You use them a lot.
>>
>You use them all the time. I am pointing out yours to you constantly.

Then you won't have any trouble giving THREE examples of where you
pointed out and listed the logical fallacy I used.

We both know you won't.

>>Why do you bother to comment at all if that's all you got? Are you
>>THAT afraid of me?
>
>Of a stupid old man like you? Hardly.

[chuckle]

Yeah, you are, aren't you? Kewl!

[!Jones]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:51:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Clearly a masterful comic piece sure to give anyone who actually knows
>what the Second Amendment means a hearty chuckle.

Oh, *everyone* "actually knows what the Second Amendment means"; the
only problem is that, if you have a hundred people, you will have a
hundred different interpretations of its meaning... to each person,
their individual interpretation being intuitive and obvious. You'd
have a stronger position if you'd simply accept that and accommodate
the equivocation within your argument.

Is having a gun a human "right" per se in the same sense that the
right to believe and worship (or not) as one chooses choose is a
right? I would suggest that it has never been thus in any country in
the world; I'll take the United States as a representative example:

I don't have to go back far in history for my first point; when we
invaded Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, our first act after gaining site
control was to go door to door collecting all weapons. We would never
have gotten away with confiscating copies of the Qur'an; we didn't
smash the publishing machinery; we made sure Saddam had a lawyer and
received at least something that could be called a trial; however, we
confiscated the guns and nobody raised so much as an eyebrow.

If a person immigrates to the US, as soon as he or she sets foot on US
soil, the person may choose his or her (I'll just adopt the masculine)
church; he may speak and read freely; if charged with a crime, he has
the right to a lawyer... but he cannot have a gun.

If a US citizen is placed under a restraining order, he may attend
church; however, he cannot be in possession of a gun even though the
restraining order may have nothing to do with a gun.

If a person is convicted of a crime where the possible jail sentence
exceeds one year, then the person may never again own a gun regardless
of the crime or the sentence of the jury. Would we ever say that
anyone convicted of a crime cannot be a Methodist? Could that person
be ordered not to read the biography of Malcolm X? Would we deny them
representation in subsequent trials? I think not.

In the US, there are many restrictive laws addressing weapons; there
is no consistent law. A community may enact a local law. The Supreme
Court has never asserted that any of these violated the US
Constitution.

Thus, I suggest that, even in the US, weapon possession has never been
treated as a fundamental human right. The rights one enjoys in the US
are generally consistent with those exercised in any politically
stable country in the world... have you ever read, for example, the
Australian Constitution? What about the constitutions of France or
Germany? Fer cryin' out loud, the Bolivian Constitution guarantees
the same rights... and a Bolivian citizen with a clean record may also
have a gun.

I'm not really trying to gore your sacred cow, buddy, and I support
responsible gun ownership; however, such is not and never has been
regarded as a fundamental human right anyplace in the world including
in the United States. You have the *ability* to own a gun, not the
right to.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
news:h6s7s71nenv7msq5l...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:51:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
> Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Clearly a masterful comic piece sure to give anyone who actually knows
>>what the Second Amendment means a hearty chuckle.
>
> Oh, *everyone* "actually knows what the Second Amendment means"; the
> only problem is that, if you have a hundred people, you will have a
> hundred different interpretations of its meaning... to each person,
> their individual interpretation being intuitive and obvious. You'd
> have a stronger position if you'd simply accept that and accommodate
> the equivocation within your argument.
>
> Is having a gun a human "right" per se in the same sense that the
> right to believe and worship (or not) as one chooses choose is a
> right? I would suggest that it has never been thus in any country in
> the world; I'll take the United States as a representative example:
>
> I don't have to go back far in history for my first point; when we
> invaded Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, our first act after gaining site
> control was to go door to door collecting all weapons.

Actually, in Iraq, we allowed one AK per household.

We would never
> have gotten away with confiscating copies of the Qur'an; we didn't
> smash the publishing machinery; we made sure Saddam had a lawyer and
> received at least something that could be called a trial; however, we
> confiscated the guns and nobody raised so much as an eyebrow.
>
> If a person immigrates to the US, as soon as he or she sets foot on US
> soil, the person may choose his or her (I'll just adopt the masculine)
> church; he may speak and read freely; if charged with a crime, he has
> the right to a lawyer... but he cannot have a gun.

Which doesn't mean he won't have one. In the 'hood where some of my
relatives live, the joke is that you don't have to buy a gun....if you
want one just take it off one of the bodies that ended up in the street
during the night.

> If a US citizen is placed under a restraining order, he may attend
> church; however, he cannot be in possession of a gun even though the
> restraining order may have nothing to do with a gun.

True.

> If a person is convicted of a crime where the possible jail sentence
> exceeds one year, then the person may never again own a gun regardless
> of the crime or the sentence of the jury.

Not true. One can petition the court to regain that right. Not saying
you will get it but there is a proceudure for doing so. YMMV.

Would we ever say that
> anyone convicted of a crime cannot be a Methodist? Could that person
> be ordered not to read the biography of Malcolm X? Would we deny them
> representation in subsequent trials? I think not.
>
> In the US, there are many restrictive laws addressing weapons; there
> is no consistent law. A community may enact a local law.

Not one that affect ownership of any gun.

The Supreme
> Court has never asserted that any of these violated the US
> Constitution.

They have not yet been tested by that court. Of course, if someone
wants a gun, they can get one. You don't really believe that no one in
Morton Grove possesses a handun, do you?

> Thus, I suggest that, even in the US, weapon possession has never been
> treated as a fundamental human right.

It has never been treated as an absolute right.

The rights one enjoys in the US
> are generally consistent with those exercised in any politically
> stable country in the world... have you ever read, for example, the
> Australian Constitution? What about the constitutions of France or
> Germany? Fer cryin' out loud, the Bolivian Constitution guarantees
> the same rights... and a Bolivian citizen with a clean record may also
> have a gun.

Those laws, however, vary. In OZ, for example, one cannot purchase or
carry a gun for he explicit purpose of self defense. In Mexico, the
constution mentions the right to keep and bear arms.....try to get one if
you are not in the military or a cartel.........or know someone in the
ATF. ;)

> I'm not really trying to gore your sacred cow, buddy, and I support
> responsible gun ownership; however, such is not and never has been
> regarded as a fundamental human right anyplace in the world including
> in the United States. You have the *ability* to own a gun, not the
> right to.

You do unless that right has been removed vis due process. It may not be
the gun you want but.....


--

Road Kill!! It's what's for dinner.......


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It's a fundamental
human right.

Don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about it.

_____
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for
private use within the home in federal enclaves.
[D.C. v. Heller]

The Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to
the states, protecting an individual right to keep and bear
arms for self defense.
[MacDonald v. City of Chicago]

"On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion in
District of Columbia v. Heller. Justice Scalia, writing for the
majority, held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right
to possess handguns for use in self-defense in a person's home."
-bradycenter.org

[dechucka]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ro18s7h9b2hnfcl0g...@4ax.com...

So any American can have a firearm? Interesting

[!Jones]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 16:16:49 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It's a fundamental
>human right.
>
>Don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about it.

I never made the point that we *should* base US law on a survey of the
laws in other countries. You have the "right" to do anything not
specifically prohibited, I suppose... further, in order to prohibit
some action, the legislature needs some reasonable justification for
it. Therefore, I suppose that one can make a reasonable argument that
gun ownership is a right... I cannot think of a justification for
saying you cannot have a gun.

I tend to believe that we have taken our "rights" to the exclusion of
the other 'R'-word: responsibility. Living as I do, close to the
Mexican border, I am aware of what a huge industry smuggling really is
and how many people are involved in the shill sales. I also have
become aware of the magnitude of the cash involved. Of course, the
way we could end the war on our southern border is simple... we quit
buying the dope. (Right! "Just say NO!")

Jones

[!Jones]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:02:42 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Actually, in Iraq, we allowed one AK per household. True. Not true.

>One can petition the court to regain that right. Not saying
>you will get it but there is a proceudure for doing so. YMMV.

>Not one that affect ownership of any gun. They have not yet been

>tested by that court. Of course, if someone wants a gun, they can
>get one. You don't really believe that no one in Morton Grove

>possesses a handun, do you? It has never been treated as an absolute right.

>Those laws, however, vary. In OZ, for example, one cannot purchase or
>carry a gun for he explicit purpose of self defense. In Mexico, the
>constution mentions the right to keep and bear arms.....try to get one if
>you are not in the military or a cartel.........or know someone in the

>ATF. ;) You do unless that right has been removed vis due process.

>It may not be the gun you want but.....

I wasn't in Iraq, but I don't believe we allowed guns to remain... I
could easily be wrong on that, though.

In Mexico, you can buy an escopita at your local hardware store. If
you want a handgun, that's tougher. You join the Rurales ("National
Guard" in the US, but less organized) and it's done thus.

And, no... I do not believe that gun control laws are very effective;
we've covered that.

I gotta go pick up the spousal module at the grocery store or she'll
break my nose... I'm an abused husband!!!

Jones

[Oglethorpe]

"!Jones" <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in message
news:h6s7s71nenv7msq5l...@4ax.com...

The Supreme Court and the Congress of the United States of America disagree
with you.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Agreed.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

Try reading for comprehension. There is no right that is unlimited.
But you need due process before it's taken away.

You're Australian, aren't you? So you probably don't get it.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Mon, 28 May 2012 16:16:49 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
>Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It's a fundamental
>>human right.
>>
>>Don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about it.
>
>I never made the point that we *should* base US law on a survey of the
>laws in other countries. You have the "right" to do anything not
>specifically prohibited, I suppose... further, in order to prohibit
>some action, the legislature needs some reasonable justification for
>it. Therefore, I suppose that one can make a reasonable argument that
>gun ownership is a right... I cannot think of a justification for
>saying you cannot have a gun.

No, you made the point that it's not a "fundamental" human right. I'm
saying it is.

Just because the UN or some shit hole country doesn't recognize it as
being "fundamental" doesn't necessarily exclude it.

[dechucka]

"!Jones" <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in message
news:h6s7s71nenv7msq5l...@4ax.com...

Main difference is that Australia does not have a bill of rights so some of
our freedoms i.e. freedom of the press are granted by the High Court as
"implied" in the Constitution

As a matter of interest some of our constitution like freedom of religion/no
state religion were lifted from the American constitution and the American
constitution was used as a basis to write ours in some areas

snip

[bringyagrogalong]

On May 29, 11:55 am, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"dechucka" <dechuc...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
> >"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:ro18s7h9b2hnfcl0g...@4ax.com...
> >> >!Jones <sdafc...@lsdhf.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

What, mass shootings?

You're right, we haven't had any ever since we brought in gun control
legislation.

[Tom]

On May 29, 12:07 pm, bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> What, mass shootings?
>
> You're right, we haven't had any ever since we brought in gun control
> legislation.

Neither has New Zealand over the same period, and they didn't change
their laws?

[keithr]

On 29/05/2012 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> !Jones<sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>> On Mon, 28 May 2012 16:16:49 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
>> Schadenfreude<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It's a fundamental
>>> human right.
>>>
>>> Don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about it.
>>
>> I never made the point that we *should* base US law on a survey of the
>> laws in other countries. You have the "right" to do anything not
>> specifically prohibited, I suppose... further, in order to prohibit
>> some action, the legislature needs some reasonable justification for
>> it. Therefore, I suppose that one can make a reasonable argument that
>> gun ownership is a right... I cannot think of a justification for
>> saying you cannot have a gun.
>
> No, you made the point that it's not a "fundamental" human right. I'm
> saying it is.
>
> Just because the UN or some shit hole country doesn't recognize it as
> being "fundamental" doesn't necessarily exclude it.

During the time that I lived in the US I was a legal permanent resident
with a green card but I could not legally own a handgun. I was, in fact,
informed by the immigration lawyer who handled my green card application
that, should I acquire a handgun, I would be liable for jail followed by
deportation and a lifetime ban on re-entry to the US.

So, did the US government contravene my basic human rights?

[Trevor Wilson]

**Ask you bum-buddy, John McNamara how many Kiwi accents he hears in
prison. There's a HUGE number of Kiwis cluttering up Australian prisons
(compared to the number of Kiwis in the rest of Australian society. Why,
you may ask? My theory: New Zealand sends it's violent crims to Australia.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[bringyagrogalong]

You're wrong! There was a mass shooting in New Zealand over the same
period.

Too bad they didn't take a leaf out of Australia's book, they could
have saved a few lives.

With regard to Australia, between 1981 and 1996 there were 12 mass
shootings resulting in the senseless and preventable murder of 98
people.

Gun legislation was enacted after the last mass shooting in 1996 and
there have been no more since that time.

H-e-l-l-o ! No mass shootings in Australia since gun control
legislation was enacted.

Did you process that Jethro.

One doesn't need to be a member of Mensa to see the correlation
between gun ownership and mass shootings.

Unfortunately pro-gun exponents are on the other end of the IQ scale.

[de...@dudu.org]

Correlation does not prove causation.

>
>Unfortunately pro-gun exponents are on the other end of the IQ scale.

Mass shootings happen with guns because they are available, but are
not the cause of the sociopathy that motivates mass killers. In lieu
of guns someone can build a bomb with simple instructions and
materials available on the Internet, or simply plow a car at high
speed into a crowd of people. Far more lethal than a typical
shooting. So nobody in Australia in this time period ever drove a car
into a crowd of people. Is that because you banned automobiles?

[bringyagrogalong]

d...@dudu.org wrote:
> bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> >Tom <recalcitrant_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> > What, mass shootings?
>
> >> > You're right, we haven't had any ever since we brought in gun control
> >> > legislation.
>
> >> Neither has New Zealand over the same period, and they didn't change
> >> their laws?
>
> > You're wrong! There was a mass shooting in New Zealand over the same
> > period.
>
> > Too bad they didn't take a leaf out of Australia's book, they could
> > have saved a few lives.
>
> > With regard to Australia, between 1981 and 1996 there were 12 mass
> > shootings resulting in the senseless and preventable murder of 98
> > people.
>
> > Gun legislation was enacted after the last mass shooting in 1996 and
> > there have been no more since that time.
>
> > H-e-l-l-o !  No mass shootings in Australia since gun control
> > legislation was enacted.
>
> > Did you process that Jethro.
>
> > One doesn't need to be a member of Mensa to see the correlation
> > between gun ownership and mass shootings.
>
> Correlation does not prove causation.

In this case it does and I've provided the facts to prove it.

> > Unfortunately pro-gun exponents are on the other end of the IQ scale.
>
> Mass shootings happen with guns because they are available

So we're in agreement.

> but are not the cause of the sociopathy that motivates mass killers.

It seems a lot of mass killers are motivated by the power of guns.

> In lieu of guns someone can build a bomb with simple instructions
> and materials available on the Internet,

I think you'll find that a person who is pissed off over being sacked
and rushes home to get an automatic weapon to kill a few dozen co-
workers would have calmed down before he built himself a bomb.

> or simply plow a car at high speed into a crowd of people.
> Far more lethal than a typical shooting.

I'd rather face a nutcase in a car than a nutcase with an AK-47.

> So nobody in Australia in this time period ever drove a car
> into a crowd of people.

If you say so.

> Is that because you banned automobiles?

That last moronic statement bears out my earlier comment

[Gillard = Rudd in a frock]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 19:56:01 -0700 (PDT), bringyagrogalong
<sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:

>H-e-l-l-o ! No mass shootings in Australia since gun control
>legislation was enacted.

No doubt due to the brilliance of John Howard and the Coalition.
--

"One thing is sure - there will be no Gillard era. This is not a
20-year stretch. Civilised people's hands are already over their faces
every time she speaks. That cannot last. She has no power, no
influence, no friends, no learning. There's not much there."

Bob Ellis (ALP speech writer) on Dullard! http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv

"Gillard is part of a Melbourne-based gang Ellis dubs the "Mouse Pack",
which includes Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson.

"They twitch their whiskers and come out in favour of the Afghan war
without studying the problem or noting that an army intelligence
officer [independent MP Andrew Wilkie] holds the balance of power,"
Ellis says."

More Bob Ellis (ALP Speech writer) on Dullard! http://tinyurl.com/23jklvv

[bringyagrogalong]

Gillard = Rudd in a frock <flatulantdi...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > H-e-l-l-o !  No mass shootings in Australia since gun control
> > legislation was enacted.
>
> No doubt due to the brilliance of John Howard and the Coalition.

For all Howard's flaws he gets top marks for that.

It took a lot of guts to take on his own constituency.

[dechucka]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:73b8s7hgeol8lsfea...@4ax.com...

so basically you have restriction just like us, just less restrictive

[dechucka]

"keithr" <kei...@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:jq1d7h$5c2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

you should of taken them to court
>

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

Neither has New Zealand. Think much?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

There are always restrictions. Felons can't have guns. Children can't
buy guns. I don't think we let Australians buy guns either.

Other than that, I can buy and own whatever I want when I want it.

You think that's "just like you?"

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>keithr <kei...@nowhere.com.au> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

IMHO, yes.

[de...@dudu.org]

No, you did not. You merely said that the US with legal guns readily
available has more mass shootings than Australia which hasn't had any
recently and you attribute that solely to the gun ban in Australia
when you fail to consider other socio-economic factors that might make
someone turn murderous.

>
>> > Unfortunately pro-gun exponents are on the other end of the IQ scale.
>>
>> Mass shootings happen with guns because they are available
>
>So we're in agreement.

Mass killing happen. They happen here with guns because they are
available. If guns weren't available crazy people would find other
means.

>
>> but are not the cause of the sociopathy that motivates mass killers.
>
>It seems a lot of mass killers are motivated by the power of guns.

No, the guns are not the cause of their insanity.

>
>> In lieu of guns someone can build a bomb with simple instructions
>> and materials available on the Internet,
>
>I think you'll find that a person who is pissed off over being sacked
>and rushes home to get an automatic weapon to kill a few dozen co-
>workers would have calmed down before he built himself a bomb.
>
>> or simply plow a car at high speed into a crowd of people.
>> Far more lethal than a typical shooting.
>
>I'd rather face a nutcase in a car than a nutcase with an AK-47.

Depends on which sidewalk you happen to be standing on at the wrong
time.

>
>> So nobody in Australia in this time period ever drove a car
>> into a crowd of people.
>
>If you say so.

Has there? Anybody plow a car into a crowd of people killing and
injuring dozens in Australia? No? Is that because you banned cars?
No?

>
>> Is that because you banned automobiles?
>
>That last moronic statement bears out my earlier comment
>"Unfortunately pro-gun exponents are on the other end of the IQ
>scale".

You claimed a causation that hasn't been proven. I merely showed you
and example of your flawed logic. Perhaps it's not who you think it
is with the low IQ.

[!Jones]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:56:50 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>No, you made the point that it's not a "fundamental" human right. I'm
>saying it is.
>
>Just because the UN or some shit hole country doesn't recognize it as
>being "fundamental" doesn't necessarily exclude it.

I'm saying that the right to practice freedom of religion is a
"fundamental human right". By using that term, I'm claiming that it's
generally recognized and protected across international boundaries.
That right simply cannot be taken away from you; you gain that right
on the instant of your birth.

I'm further suggesting that gun ownership has never been treated thus
in the United States and I submit the following into evidence in
support of that suggestion:

1) Gun rights only apply to US citizens.

2) Gun rights may be arbitrarily removed for a variety of reasons; an
unrelated restraining order, for example.

3) When, where, and which weapon you may have vary widely from place
to place.

Finally, I'm saying that the practice in the US is basically
consistent with the rest of the world; you may have a gun virtually
everyplace given that you meet certain qualifications.

What is different is that, in the US, obtaining illegal weapons on the
street is trivially easy; the gun interests have made tracing these
weapons back to their source extremely difficult for law enforcement,
thus, I can buy a handgun today and turn it over to the druggies
tomorrow for a tidy profit. Yes, it is technically illegal; however,
because of the veil of secrecy shrouding the entire transaction, my
chances of detection are very slim indeed.

Jones

[!Jones]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:03:45 +1000, in talk.politics.guns "dechucka"
<dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Main difference is that Australia does not have a bill of rights so some of
>our freedoms i.e. freedom of the press are granted by the High Court as
>"implied" in the Constitution
>
>As a matter of interest some of our constitution like freedom of religion/no
>state religion were lifted from the American constitution and the American
>constitution was used as a basis to write ours in some areas

Laws will tend to do that.

Do you have the colloquial term: to "eighty-six" someone in a bar?

Drunk: "Gimme another whisky [hic], bartender!"

Bartender: "Sorry, pal; you're eighty-six."

Jones

[!Jones]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 20:10:12 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Oglethorpe"
<anti...@go.com> wrote:

>The Supreme Court and the Congress of the United States of America disagree
>with you.

Well, in general, SCOTUS appears to agree. There exist an
incomprehensible patchwork of state and municipal laws with varying
degrees of restriction and SCOTUS has yet to overturn any of them
citing the second amendment. I suppose that, if a state tried to say
that you cannot own a firearm, period, then it would probably fall
because that would be like abolishing broccoli... why do such a silly
thing?

Congress has yet to agree or disagree on any significant matter;
further, they seem to me to be moving further into cacophony, so I
doubt that there wi'll be anything approaching consensus issuing from
that body anytime soon.

Jones

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:56:50 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
>Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>No, you made the point that it's not a "fundamental" human right. I'm
>>saying it is.
>>
>>Just because the UN or some shit hole country doesn't recognize it as
>>being "fundamental" doesn't necessarily exclude it.
>
>I'm saying that the right to practice freedom of religion is a
>"fundamental human right". By using that term, I'm claiming that it's
>generally recognized and protected across international boundaries.

"generally recognized and protected across international boundaries."

is not a definition of "fundamental right" that I recognize.

>That right simply cannot be taken away from you; you gain that right
>on the instant of your birth.
>
>I'm further suggesting that gun ownership has never been treated thus
>in the United States and I submit the following into evidence in
>support of that suggestion:

Just because it's never been treated as such doesn't mean it's not
fundamental. Is voting a fundamental right?

>1) Gun rights only apply to US citizens.

You're saying there are NO other countries in the world where citizens
have RKBA?

>2) Gun rights may be arbitrarily removed for a variety of reasons; an
>unrelated restraining order, for example.

Gun rights cannot be removed without due process, AFAIK.

>3) When, where, and which weapon you may have vary widely from place
>to place.

Just because the right is not properly protected does not mean it
isn't a right.

>Finally, I'm saying that the practice in the US is basically
>consistent with the rest of the world; you may have a gun virtually
>everyplace given that you meet certain qualifications.

Using Australia as an example, your argument fails.

>What is different is that, in the US, obtaining illegal weapons on the
>street is trivially easy; the gun interests have made tracing these
>weapons back to their source extremely difficult for law enforcement,
>thus, I can buy a handgun today and turn it over to the druggies
>tomorrow for a tidy profit.

You can do the same in Australia or the UK, depending on how you
define "trivially easy."

[Chris Diesel]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:a2irp6...@mid.individual.net...

A typically hollow response from Trevor.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Chris Diesel" <die...@no.real.address.com.au> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

So the reason New Zealand doesn't have "gun crimes" is because its
criminals all go to Australia to commit crimes?

You mean, they go where the people are basically disarmed?

Hmmmmmmmm.

[Chris Diesel]

"bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:9e015835-4710-49d0...@oe8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> Tom <recalcitrant_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> > What, mass shootings?
>>
>> > You're right, we haven't had any ever since we brought in gun control
>> > legislation.
>>
>> Neither has New Zealand over the same period, and they didn't change
>> their laws?
>
> You're wrong! There was a mass shooting in New Zealand over the same
> period.

The last mass shooting in NZ occured in 1997. The last in Australia was
1996.

NZ still have allow semi automatc rifles and have no firearm registration.

While Australia banned semi automatic rifles in 1996, members of the NRA
still were permitted to have them until 1997 when the Defence Act which
allowed it was repealed.

http://www.ic-wish.org/WiSH%20Fact%20Sheet%20Mass%20shootings%20in%20Australia%20and%20New%20Zealand.pdf

[!Jones]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 06:27:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"generally recognized and protected across international boundaries."

>is not a definition of "fundamental right" that I recognize. Just because

>it's never been treated as such doesn't mean it's not fundamental. Is

>voting a fundamental right? You're saying there are NO other countries
>in the world where citizens have RKBA? Gun rights cannot be removed
>without due process, AFAIK. Just because the right is not properly
>protected does not mean it isn't a right. Using Australia as an example,
>your argument fails. You can do the same in Australia or the UK,

>depending on how you define "trivially easy."

Klaus, you're writing too quickly. Stop and read the posting first.
You're demolishing positions I never took... rebutting arguments I
never made.

The term "common law" means it is "traditional and inherent [...] even
in absence of an underlying statute" and accepted in all legal
systems. Examples include, but are not limited to self defense,
marriage, and non-violent political activity. If an idea is not
"generally recognized and protected across international boundaries,"
then it isn't common law.

< QUOTE >

You're saying there are NO other countries in the world where
citizens have RKBA?

< /QUOTE >

Please underline the part of my essay from whence you derive such a
patently absurd statement.

< QUOTE >

Gun rights cannot be removed without due process, AFAIK.

< /QUOTE >

They most certainly can be and frequently are. If a person is
referred to a mental health professional (Seung-Hui Cho, for example,)
the person arbitrarily loses gun rights. If a person becomes subject
to a restraining order, his or her gun rights are suspended. If a
person is convicted of a non-violent felony, see above. Yes, the
person has received due process wrt the conviction; however, the loss
of gun rights is simply tacked on to the conviction, not deliberated
and adjudicated by the jury.

I am not an advocate of removing gun rights; I'm simply suggesting
that "rights" is not the only "R'-word we should consider. I suggest
that with rights go responsibilities; i.e., when a person obtains a
gun legally, that person becomes responsible for the gun and its
subsequent use... or, thus I believe it should be.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
news:1n38s79a51p5hkjh0...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:02:42 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Actually, in Iraq, we allowed one AK per household. True. Not true.
>>One can petition the court to regain that right. Not saying
>>you will get it but there is a proceudure for doing so. YMMV.
>>Not one that affect ownership of any gun. They have not yet been
>>tested by that court. Of course, if someone wants a gun, they can
>>get one. You don't really believe that no one in Morton Grove
>>possesses a handun, do you? It has never been treated as an absolute
>>right. Those laws, however, vary. In OZ, for example, one cannot
>>purchase or carry a gun for he explicit purpose of self defense. In
>>Mexico, the constution mentions the right to keep and bear
>>arms.....try to get one if you are not in the military or a
>>cartel.........or know someone in the ATF. ;) You do unless that right
>>has been removed vis due process. It may not be the gun you want
>>but.....
>
> I wasn't in Iraq, but I don't believe we allowed guns to remain... I
> could easily be wrong on that, though.
>
> In Mexico, you can buy an escopita at your local hardware store. If
> you want a handgun, that's tougher. You join the Rurales ("National
> Guard" in the US, but less organized) and it's done thus.

You know how many gunshops there are in Mexico? From what I
understand...one. It is in Mexico City and is controlled by the Mexican
army.

> And, no... I do not believe that gun control laws are very effective;
> we've covered that.

Yes, I know. That is why I don't pick on you for being anti-gun. I
really don't think you are. ;)

> I gotta go pick up the spousal module at the grocery store or she'll
> break my nose... I'm an abused husband!!!

Been there........had to do that....

--

Road Kill!! It's what's for dinner.......


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:yPOdnSt_vpC0kFnS...@westnet.com.au:

>
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ro18s7h9b2hnfcl0g...@4ax.com...

>> >!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>

>> Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It's a fundamental
>> human right.
>

> So any American can have a firearm? Interesting
>
>

Nope. Not just any American can have one. There are restrictions on the
young, the mentally adjudicated, and a whole class of prohibited
possessors who lost that right via due process. Of course that probably
leaves around 200 million who can.

[RD Sandman]

bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in
news:b5e94e87-4766-46e9...@vy7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

You didn't have many before that legislation.

[RD Sandman]

bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in news:9e015835-4710-49d0-
8be2-161...@oe8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com:

It is a correlation........but not a causal result.

> Unfortunately pro-gun exponents are on the other end of the IQ scale.
>

[RD Sandman]

bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in
news:fb1a2377-793b-4595...@o3g2000pby.googlegroups.com:

Actually, in this case it does not or it would work *everywhere* That is
what causal relationships are. For example, and to make this very
simple, there is a correlation between obesity and Diet Coke, for
example. However, I don't think anyone feels that not drinking Diet Coke
will allow anyone to remain forever slim.

>> > Unfortunately pro-gun exponents are on the other end of the IQ
>> > scale.
>>
>> Mass shootings happen with guns because they are available
>
> So we're in agreement.

On that correlation, yes. However the presence of a gun does not cause
mass shootings. Dudu is correct when he states that bombs and cars
driven into crowds cause a lot of deaths and injuries and both have been
used in that manner.

>> but are not the cause of the sociopathy that motivates mass killers.
>
> It seems a lot of mass killers are motivated by the power of guns.

It may seem that way, but guns are used as a matter of convenience.
Although bombs are easy to make, most people don't know how to make
them. They do know how to shoot a gun. It is presented to them everyday
on television and it is a relatively simple mechanism....particularly to
the end user.

>> In lieu of guns someone can build a bomb with simple instructions
>> and materials available on the Internet,
>
> I think you'll find that a person who is pissed off over being sacked
> and rushes home to get an automatic weapon to kill a few dozen co-
> workers would have calmed down before he built himself a bomb.

Convenience. However, let's clean up your language a bit with reality
for the US. There are relatively very few automatic weapons in the hands
of civilians. There is that pesky background check, the $200 tax stamp
and an inability to legally purcahse one manufactured after 1986.

If, however, you are meaning the *semi* automatic type of firearm...there
are scads of those. They, however, are not automatics as they are not
capable of firing more than one shot per pull of the trigger just like
police officer Handy's revolver.

>> or simply plow a car at high speed into a crowd of people.
>> Far more lethal than a typical shooting.
>
> I'd rather face a nutcase in a car than a nutcase with an AK-47.

The AKs (with very few exceptions...see above) in the US are *semi*
automatic clones. One shot per pull of the trigger.

>> So nobody in Australia in this time period ever drove a car
>> into a crowd of people.
>
> If you say so.

Did anyone? You are there, we aren't.

>> Is that because you banned automobiles?
>
> That last moronic statement bears out my earlier comment
> "Unfortunately pro-gun exponents are on the other end of the IQ
> scale".

Actually, if you are claiming a causal effect of your gun control law,
that would be a good question. Are you?

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
news:mr28s75hdb8e9lf48...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 28 May 2012 16:16:49 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
> Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It's a fundamental
>>human right.
>>

>>Don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about it.
>
> I never made the point that we *should* base US law on a survey of the
> laws in other countries. You have the "right" to do anything not
> specifically prohibited, I suppose... further, in order to prohibit
> some action, the legislature needs some reasonable justification for
> it. Therefore, I suppose that one can make a reasonable argument that
> gun ownership is a right... I cannot think of a justification for
> saying you cannot have a gun.
>

> I tend to believe that we have taken our "rights" to the exclusion of
> the other 'R'-word: responsibility. Living as I do, close to the
> Mexican border, I am aware of what a huge industry smuggling really is
> and how many people are involved in the shill sales.

Most of them, it seems, were in the employ of F Troop.

I also have
> become aware of the magnitude of the cash involved. Of course, the
> way we could end the war on our southern border is simple... we quit
> buying the dope. (Right! "Just say NO!")

The big problem I have with Mexico is that since consumers in the US want
drugs, all that resultant drug trafficking is the fault of the US for
buying them. Now, since the cartels in Mexico want guns, all that
resultant gun trafficking is the fault of the US for supplying them.

Something appears to wrong with the logic behind those statements.

[RD Sandman]

keithr <kei...@nowhere.com.au> wrote in news:jq1d7h$5c2$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 29/05/2012 11:56 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>> !Jones<sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>

>>> On Mon, 28 May 2012 16:16:49 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
>>> Schadenfreude<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It's a fundamental
>>>> human right.
>>>>
>>>> Don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about it.
>>>
>>> I never made the point that we *should* base US law on a survey of
the
>>> laws in other countries. You have the "right" to do anything not
>>> specifically prohibited, I suppose... further, in order to prohibit
>>> some action, the legislature needs some reasonable justification for
>>> it. Therefore, I suppose that one can make a reasonable argument
that
>>> gun ownership is a right... I cannot think of a justification for
>>> saying you cannot have a gun.
>>

>> No, you made the point that it's not a "fundamental" human right. I'm
>> saying it is.
>>
>> Just because the UN or some shit hole country doesn't recognize it as
>> being "fundamental" doesn't necessarily exclude it.
>

> During the time that I lived in the US I was a legal permanent resident
> with a green card but I could not legally own a handgun. I was, in
fact,
> informed by the immigration lawyer who handled my green card
application
> that, should I acquire a handgun, I would be liable for jail followed
by
> deportation and a lifetime ban on re-entry to the US.
>
> So, did the US government contravene my basic human rights?
>
>

Recognition of rights are the result of citizenship and the citizen's
government recognizing those rights. Do the rights exist outside of
governmental recognition? Yes, but it will do you no good and may even
bring you harm if you attempt to practice them.

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:TbadnW9YcfEi9FnS...@westnet.com.au:

He had the right to do that. Of course to have standing in court he
would have to prove that not allowing him to own a firearm produced
'injury' in some manner. Like, perhaps, losing a family member or two to
a home invasion where he had been refused purchase of a gun for self
defense in his home.

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
news:u8f9s7trprlia9v9b...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:56:50 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
> Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>No, you made the point that it's not a "fundamental" human right. I'm
>>saying it is.
>>
>>Just because the UN or some shit hole country doesn't recognize it as
>>being "fundamental" doesn't necessarily exclude it.
>
> I'm saying that the right to practice freedom of religion is a
> "fundamental human right". By using that term, I'm claiming that it's
> generally recognized and protected across international boundaries.
> That right simply cannot be taken away from you; you gain that right
> on the instant of your birth.

Depending on the country of your birth. Try practicing as a Methodist in
Afghanistan.

> I'm further suggesting that gun ownership has never been treated thus
> in the United States and I submit the following into evidence in
> support of that suggestion:
>
> 1) Gun rights only apply to US citizens.

Not true. Gun rights are recognized in several countries....and denied
in several.

> 2) Gun rights may be arbitrarily removed for a variety of reasons; an
> unrelated restraining order, for example.

That is due process, munchkin. The only removal in the US that does not
require due process is age. Young folks can still own firearms, they
simply cannot purchase them until the age of 18 for long guns, 21 for
handguns.

> 3) When, where, and which weapon you may have vary widely from place
> to place.

Ture, but not as widely as you imply.

> Finally, I'm saying that the practice in the US is basically
> consistent with the rest of the world; you may have a gun virtually
> everyplace given that you meet certain qualifications.

Yes.

> What is different is that, in the US, obtaining illegal weapons on the
> street is trivially easy;

As it is virtually everywhere. The cost varies.

the gun interests have made tracing these
> weapons back to their source extremely difficult for law enforcement,

Hmmmm, really? Gun serials can be traced all through the product cycle
(except in one case of a Pacific rim company), the first purchaser and
subsequent sales through dealers as a used weapon. Ergo, whether it is
difficult or not depends on what you are considering as the source. Most
guns used in crime come from family and friends.

> thus, I can buy a handgun today and turn it over to the druggies
> tomorrow for a tidy profit. Yes, it is technically illegal; however,
> because of the veil of secrecy shrouding the entire transaction, my
> chances of detection are very slim indeed.

Until that gun turns up at a crime scene. Then they will have the person
that the gun was sold to by a dealer. There is no veil of secrecy, there
is the fact that sales of private property between citizens within a
state are not monitored by the feds. And rightly so, that is not a
constitional power granted to the federal government. Only interstate or
sales via a dealer are tracked by the federal government.

Now, 16 states have passed legislation to track those sales by requiring
them to be via license or permit to purchase or to involve either an FFL
or law enforcement to be involved in the sale.

[RD Sandman]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:4dj9s7dp37ilgc3i2...@4ax.com:

Except for age restrictions on purchase.

>>3) When, where, and which weapon you may have vary widely from place
>>to place.
>
> Just because the right is not properly protected does not mean it
> isn't a right.
>
>
>>Finally, I'm saying that the practice in the US is basically
>>consistent with the rest of the world; you may have a gun virtually
>>everyplace given that you meet certain qualifications.
>
> Using Australia as an example, your argument fails.
>
>
>>What is different is that, in the US, obtaining illegal weapons on the
>>street is trivially easy; the gun interests have made tracing these
>>weapons back to their source extremely difficult for law enforcement,
>>thus, I can buy a handgun today and turn it over to the druggies
>>tomorrow for a tidy profit.
>
> You can do the same in Australia or the UK, depending on how you
> define "trivially easy."
>
>> Yes, it is technically illegal; however,
>>because of the veil of secrecy shrouding the entire transaction, my
>>chances of detection are very slim indeed.
>
>

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
news:mih9s7l3fnk35aqah...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 28 May 2012 20:10:12 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "Oglethorpe"
> <anti...@go.com> wrote:
>
>>The Supreme Court and the Congress of the United States of America
>>disagree with you.
>
> Well, in general, SCOTUS appears to agree. There exist an
> incomprehensible patchwork of state and municipal laws with varying
> degrees of restriction and SCOTUS has yet to overturn any of them
> citing the second amendment.

Hmmmm, I suppose that you don't think that Heller or McDonald would
count? Both of them overturned local laws in each case but the
overriding decision was that between the two cases, the individual RKBA
was affirmed and applies to the federal government both on its property
and the state's.

I suppose that, if a state tried to say
> that you cannot own a firearm, period, then it would probably fall
> because that would be like abolishing broccoli... why do such a silly
> thing?

Municipalities have like some in the Chicago area like Morton Grove. Of
course, Morton Grove only addressed handguns.

> Congress has yet to agree or disagree on any significant matter;
> further, they seem to me to be moving further into cacophony, so I
> doubt that there wi'll be anything approaching consensus issuing from
> that body anytime soon.

At least not on guns.

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:CtOdnUjjRcUYs1nS...@westnet.com.au:

>
> "!Jones" <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in message
> news:h6s7s71nenv7msq5l...@4ax.com...

>> On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:51:03 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
>> Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Clearly a masterful comic piece sure to give anyone who actually

>>>knows what the Second Amendment means a hearty chuckle.

>>
>> Oh, *everyone* "actually knows what the Second Amendment means"; the
>> only problem is that, if you have a hundred people, you will have a
>> hundred different interpretations of its meaning... to each person,
>> their individual interpretation being intuitive and obvious. You'd
>> have a stronger position if you'd simply accept that and accommodate
>> the equivocation within your argument.
>>
>> Is having a gun a human "right" per se in the same sense that the
>> right to believe and worship (or not) as one chooses choose is a
>> right? I would suggest that it has never been thus in any country in
>> the world; I'll take the United States as a representative example:
>>
>> I don't have to go back far in history for my first point; when we
>> invaded Afghanistan and, later, Iraq, our first act after gaining
>> site control was to go door to door collecting all weapons. We would

>> never have gotten away with confiscating copies of the Qur'an; we

>> didn't smash the publishing machinery; we made sure Saddam had a
>> lawyer and received at least something that could be called a trial;
>> however, we confiscated the guns and nobody raised so much as an
>> eyebrow.
>>
>> If a person immigrates to the US, as soon as he or she sets foot on
>> US soil, the person may choose his or her (I'll just adopt the
>> masculine) church; he may speak and read freely; if charged with a
>> crime, he has the right to a lawyer... but he cannot have a gun.
>>
>> If a US citizen is placed under a restraining order, he may attend
>> church; however, he cannot be in possession of a gun even though the
>> restraining order may have nothing to do with a gun.
>>
>> If a person is convicted of a crime where the possible jail sentence
>> exceeds one year, then the person may never again own a gun
>> regardless of the crime or the sentence of the jury. Would we ever
>> say that anyone convicted of a crime cannot be a Methodist? Could

>> that person be ordered not to read the biography of Malcolm X? Would
>> we deny them representation in subsequent trials? I think not.

>>
>> In the US, there are many restrictive laws addressing weapons; there
>> is no consistent law. A community may enact a local law. The

>> Supreme Court has never asserted that any of these violated the US

>> Constitution.
>>
>> Thus, I suggest that, even in the US, weapon possession has never
>> been treated as a fundamental human right. The rights one enjoys in
>> the US are generally consistent with those exercised in any
>> politically stable country in the world... have you ever read, for
>> example, the Australian Constitution?
>

> Main difference is that Australia does not have a bill of rights so
> some of our freedoms i.e. freedom of the press are granted by the High
> Court as "implied" in the Constitution
>
> As a matter of interest some of our constitution like freedom of
> religion/no state religion were lifted from the American constitution
> and the American constitution was used as a basis to write ours in
> some areas

It was also used as a basis for most state constitutions in the US.

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
news:bch9s7h1lvt0gq4o8...@4ax.com:

That term also has a lot of other meanings.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eighty%20sixed

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/86

You are correct on its origin.

[JamesHutchinson]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
news:XnsA06262453...@216.196.121.131...

<^^^^

That's due process!
I can't think of a reason why a 3 year old should be able to buy a Colt.45
just because her play-pen mate stole a lollipop!
Besides, how would they pay for it? :)

[JamesHutchinson]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message

news:XnsA06263B4D...@216.196.121.131...

<^^^

I read that it was a MILITARY term ..Originally in the 50's... "AT-6" so
as to dispose of items that were no longer needed.
Phonetically , it became " 86" Kinda like Maxwell Smart!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86_(term)

[JamesHutchinson]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message

news:XnsA0625F763...@216.196.121.131...

!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
news:mr28s75hdb8e9lf48...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 28 May 2012 16:16:49 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
> Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It's a fundamental
>>human right.
>>
>>Don't really care what the rest of the world thinks about it.
>
> I never made the point that we *should* base US law on a survey of the
> laws in other countries. You have the "right" to do anything not
> specifically prohibited, I suppose... further, in order to prohibit
> some action, the legislature needs some reasonable justification for
> it. Therefore, I suppose that one can make a reasonable argument that
> gun ownership is a right... I cannot think of a justification for
> saying you cannot have a gun.
>
> I tend to believe that we have taken our "rights" to the exclusion of
> the other 'R'-word: responsibility. Living as I do, close to the
> Mexican border, I am aware of what a huge industry smuggling really is
> and how many people are involved in the shill sales.

Most of them, it seems, were in the employ of F Troop.

<^^^

LOVED that show!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVwFADi4Y38

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
news:i6n9s7hbeeuu9gh9o...@4ax.com:

Only if the notation of his commitment ends up in NICS. In the case of
Cho.....it did not.

If a person becomes subject
> to a restraining order, his or her gun rights are suspended.

Again, see updates to NICS and question h on the 4473.

If a
> person is convicted of a non-violent felony, see above. Yes, the
> person has received due process wrt the conviction; however, the loss
> of gun rights is simply tacked on to the conviction, not deliberated
> and adjudicated by the jury.

It is part and parcel of having a felony conviction.

> I am not an advocate of removing gun rights; I'm simply suggesting
> that "rights" is not the only "R'-word we should consider. I suggest
> that with rights go responsibilities; i.e., when a person obtains a
> gun legally, that person becomes responsible for the gun and its
> subsequent use... or, thus I believe it should be.

Yes....no question. There may be disagreement on how that should be
shown but....

[RD Sandman]

"JamesHutchinson" <Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote in
news:4fc50035$0$16931$607e...@cv.net:

True, but she has not been through due process. I would have trouble
finding her day in court. ;)

[RD Sandman]

"JamesHutchinson" <Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote in news:4fc501c4$0$23237
$607e...@cv.net:

>
>
> "RD Sandman" wrote in message
> news:XnsA06263B4D...@216.196.121.131...
>
> !Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
> news:bch9s7h1lvt0gq4o8...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:03:45 +1000, in talk.politics.guns "dechucka"
>> <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Main difference is that Australia does not have a bill of rights so
>>>some of our freedoms i.e. freedom of the press are granted by the High
>>>Court as "implied" in the Constitution
>>>
>>>As a matter of interest some of our constitution like freedom of
>>>religion/no state religion were lifted from the American constitution
>>>and the American constitution was used as a basis to write ours in
>>>some areas
>>
>> Laws will tend to do that.
>>
>> Do you have the colloquial term: to "eighty-six" someone in a bar?
>>
>> Drunk: "Gimme another whisky [hic], bartender!"
>>
>> Bartender: "Sorry, pal; you're eighty-six."
>
> That term also has a lot of other meanings.
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eighty%20sixed
>
> http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/86
>
> You are correct on its origin.

<^^^

I read that it was a MILITARY term ..Originally in the 50's... "AT-6"
so
as to dispose of items that were no longer needed.
Phonetically , it became " 86" Kinda like Maxwell Smart!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86_(term)

In the military, an AT-6 was an advanced single prop trainer with
retractable landing gear that looked somewhat like a Douglas Danutless.
It was a follow on to fixed landing gear, basic trainer, the BT-13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-6_Texan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT-13

[JamesHutchinson]

"RD Sandman" wrote in message

news:XnsA0627DAED...@216.196.121.131...

<^^^^

Like _I_ said :

"Another probable source of origin is; In the U.S. Navy, there is an
Allowance Type (AT) coding system used for logistic purposes. The Allowance
Type Code is a single digit numeric code which identifies the reason
material is being carried in stock. Throughout the life-cycle of a warship,
many pieces of equipment will be upgraded or replaced, requiring the
allowance of onboard spare parts associated to the obsolete equipment to be
disposed of. The AT code assigned to parts designated for disposition is
AT-6.[8] Following WWII, there were a great number of warships being
decommissioned, sold, scrapped, or deactivated and placed in reserve
(commonly referred to as "mothballed"). During this process, labor workers
would bring spare parts up from the storerooms and the Lead Supply Clerk
would inform them what the disposition of their parts were by part number.
Anything referred to as AT-6 (or by similar phonetic, eighty-six), was to be
disposed of in the dumpster. This is where the term became synonomous with
throwing something away.[5]

[RD Sandman]

"JamesHutchinson" <Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote in news:4fc52400$0$14805

I don't disagree with your comment. I should have said "Air Force"
rather than military.

BTW, my newsreader puts two dashes below the comments but above the
signature line (you can see them just above where your comment starts).
Anyway, it considers them to be the end of text so in order to reply to
you I need to use copy/paste to get your response in my answer back. If
you would simply place your comments above those two dashes but at the
end like you are doing, that problem will go away. ;)

[dechucka]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ote9s7hq8hjno5ns4...@4ax.com...
> >"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>
>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:73b8s7hgeol8lsfea...@4ax.com...
>>> >"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:ro18s7h9b2hnfcl0g...@4ax.com...

>>>>> >!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>

>>>>>>Australian Constitution? What about the constitutions of France or
>>>>>>Germany? Fer cryin' out loud, the Bolivian Constitution guarantees
>>>>>>the same rights... and a Bolivian citizen with a clean record may also
>>>>>>have a gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not really trying to gore your sacred cow, buddy, and I support
>>>>>>responsible gun ownership; however, such is not and never has been
>>>>>>regarded as a fundamental human right anyplace in the world including
>>>>>>in the United States. You have the *ability* to own a gun, not the
>>>>>>right to.
>>>>>

>>>>> Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It's a fundamental
>>>>> human right.
>>>>

>>>>So any American can have a firearm? Interesting
>>>
>>> Try reading for comprehension. There is no right that is unlimited.
>>> But you need due process before it's taken away.
>>>
>>> You're Australian, aren't you? So you probably don't get it.
>>

>>so basically you have restriction just like us, just less restrictive
>
> There are always restrictions. Felons can't have guns. Children can't
> buy guns. I don't think we let Australians buy guns either.
>
> Other than that, I can buy and own whatever I want when I want it.

You can own any type of firearm? Really?. You can carry a weapon into a
school or Federal building? Really?
>
> You think that's "just like you?"

We both have restrictions just npw discussing degree
>

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0626036F...@216.196.121.131...

not just the loss of a basic human right?

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA0625FE54...@216.196.121.131...

your right to bear arms certainly hurts your society

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: "Trust me: You believe in gun control"

Group: talk.politics.guns Date: Mon, May 28, 2012, 8:48pm (EDT-3) From:
sof...@aapt.net.au (bringyagrogalong)

Unfortunately pro-gun exponents are on the other end of the IQ scale.
Mass shootings happen with guns because they are available
So we're in agreement.

but are not the cause of the sociopathy that motivates mass killers.
It seems

=================

This is not evdence.

a lot of mass killers are motivated by the power of guns.

In lieu of guns someone can build a bomb with simple instructions and
materials available on the Internet,
I think you'll find that a person who is pissed off over being sacked
and rushes home to get an automatic weapon

=====================

Since automatic weapons have been restricted, only one legally owned one
has been used in a crime. you must mean semi-automatic, like many common
hunting rifles and shotguns.

to kill a few dozen co- workers would have calmed down before he built
himself a bomb.

or simply plow a car at high speed into a crowd of people. Far more
lethal than a typical shooting.
I'd rather face a nutcase in a car than a nutcase with an AK-47.

So nobody in Australia in this time period ever drove a car into a crowd
of people.
If you say so.

Is that because you banned automobiles?
That last moronic statement bears out my earlier comment "Unfortunately
pro-gun exponents are on the other end of the IQ scale".

=================

Most hopolophobes have single-digit IQs and a paranoid outloook on life.

--
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed-
and hence clamorous to be led to safety- by menacing it with an endless
series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. "--

H.L. Mencken

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:p-
CdnbIShdf7tljSn...@westnet.com.au:

Ahhhh, a comment from Johnny One-note.

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:gZmdnU17rt-Xt1jS...@westnet.com.au:

Here is what standing is. It is the right to file a lawsuit or make a
particular legal claim. Only a person or entity that has suffered actual
injury has standing to seek redress in court. For example, an advocacy
group may not file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a
statute on its own......there must be a plaintiff who has actually been
ahrmed by that statute.

You have to be able to show injury to have standing in court. The term
doesn't mean you need to be physically wounded, for example. In
legaleze, the term "injury" means any wrong or damage done to another,
either in his person, rights, reputation or property. In this example,
he would need to show that his inability to have a firearm in his home
for defense of family caused some harm to occur. Something of that
nature would give him standing to contest the inability for him to keep
and bear arms as a non-citizen.

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:heCdnQnD-5IytFjS...@westnet.com.au:

If his state allows it. Even the federal government has allowed fully
automatic weapons to be owned upon a background check, payment of a tax
stamp and the weapon has to have been manufactured prior to 1986. The
laws in his state may contravene that many do not.

You can carry a weapon into
> a school or Federal building? Really?

I don't see where he made any statement about that. Are you fishing?

>> You think that's "just like you?"
>
> We both have restrictions just npw discussing degree

Pretty much. No right is absolute.....in either country.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 5/30/2012 12:08 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> "Chris Diesel"<die...@no.real.address.com.au> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson"<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:a2irp6...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 5/29/2012 12:26 PM, Tom wrote:

>>>> On May 29, 12:07 pm, bringyagrogalong<sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>>>>> What, mass shootings?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're right, we haven't had any ever since we brought in gun control
>>>>> legislation.
>>>>
>>>> Neither has New Zealand over the same period, and they didn't change
>>>> their laws?
>>>

>>> **Ask you bum-buddy, John McNamara how many Kiwi accents he hears in
>>> prison. There's a HUGE number of Kiwis cluttering up Australian prisons
>>> (compared to the number of Kiwis in the rest of Australian society. Why,
>>> you may ask? My theory: New Zealand sends it's violent crims to Australia.
>>
>> A typically hollow response from Trevor.
>
> So the reason New Zealand doesn't have "gun crimes" is because its
> criminals all go to Australia to commit crimes?
>
> You mean, they go where the people are basically disarmed?
>
> Hmmmmmmmm.

**Not quite. New Zealand is, basically, a third world nation, compared
to Australia. People are poor. Australians are wealthy. Since the border
between Australia and NZ is very porous, Kiwis arrive in huge numbers to
take advantage of our booming economy. They've been doing so for
decades. As a consequence, crime, in areas where Kiwis settle is far
higher than in areas where they don't. Kiwis represent a
disproportionate number of prisoners in our system.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[!Jones]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 10:54:07 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>You know how many gunshops there are in Mexico? From what I
>understand...one. It is in Mexico City and is controlled by the Mexican
>army.

Oh, literally thousands, sir. Walk into *your* local shop and tell
them that you're buying the weapon "as an investment" (that's the code
here, anyway) and they'll recommend what the Mexican shops are buying
at the moment. The 5.7×28mm ammo has been hot lately; however, I hear
that the TAC-50 is the current insider buy for an investment grade
weapon. There are probably 20 shops in Nogales.

Oops... they just found a couple of torsos out on 150 just north of
Los Janos... better make that 19... for now.

Jones

[JamesHutchinson]

"!Jones" wrote in message
news:llcas713jvj4oii5h...@4ax.com...

On Tue, 29 May 2012 10:54:07 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>You know how many gunshops there are in Mexico? From what I
>understand...one. It is in Mexico City and is controlled by the Mexican
>army.

Oh, literally thousands, sir.

<^^^

RD said how many in MEXICO, you retard.

Name ONE OTHER gun shop, IN Mexico, that LEGALLY sells guns to its people!

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
news:llcas713jvj4oii5h...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 29 May 2012 10:54:07 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>You know how many gunshops there are in Mexico? From what I
>>understand...one. It is in Mexico City and is controlled by the Mexican
>>army.
>
> Oh, literally thousands, sir.

Washington Post neutral enough?

http://tinyurl.com/3yr98gf

How about the Austin, TX Statesman?

http://tinyurl.com/32u4mzx

Or Stars and Stripes for the Military?

http://tinyurl.com/8ytn27g

Walk into *your* local shop and tell
> them that you're buying the weapon "as an investment" (that's the code
> here, anyway) and they'll recommend what the Mexican shops are buying
> at the moment. The 5.7×28mm ammo has been hot lately; however, I hear
> that the TAC-50 is the current insider buy for an investment grade
> weapon. There are probably 20 shops in Nogales.

On which side? I find nothing in Nogales, Sonora and only two gunshops and
several pawn shops on the US side. Where are you getting your information
from? ;)

> Oops... they just found a couple of torsos out on 150 just north of
> Los Janos... better make that 19... for now.

You mean on the Magdelena Hwy?

You mentioned that you lived near the border. May I ask you which border?

[dechucka]

"!Jones" <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in message

news:bch9s7h1lvt0gq4o8...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:03:45 +1000, in talk.politics.guns "dechucka"
> <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Main difference is that Australia does not have a bill of rights so some
>>of
>>our freedoms i.e. freedom of the press are granted by the High Court as
>>"implied" in the Constitution
>>
>>As a matter of interest some of our constitution like freedom of
>>religion/no
>>state religion were lifted from the American constitution and the American
>>constitution was used as a basis to write ours in some areas
>
> Laws will tend to do that.
>
> Do you have the colloquial term: to "eighty-six" someone in a bar?

Not heard it over here but thanks to Sandman I understand it

>
> Drunk: "Gimme another whisky [hic], bartender!"
>
> Bartender: "Sorry, pal; you're eighty-six."
>

> Jones
>

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA06288C4B...@216.196.121.131...

OK I was being facetious re The right to bear arm is a basic human right
comment

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA062861AC...@216.196.121.131...

I've got a valid point imho and I'll keep making it.

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA062861AC...@216.196.121.131...

btw I'm glad you didn't "plonk" me as you are very interesting to debate

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA0628974...@216.196.121.131...

so you can't own post 1986 automatic weapons, interesting

>
> You can carry a weapon into
>> a school or Federal building? Really?
>
> I don't see where he made any statement about that. Are you fishing?

no commenting that even with a legal weapon you can't carry it every where.
Another restriction

>
>>> You think that's "just like you?"
>>
>> We both have restrictions just npw discussing degree
>
> Pretty much. No right is absolute.....in either country.

yep

[!Jones]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 14:13:57 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Only if the notation of his commitment ends up in NICS. In the case of

>Cho.....it did not. Again, see updates to NICS and question h on the 4473.

>It is part and parcel of having a felony conviction.

>Yes....no question. There may be disagreement on how that should be
>shown but....

It doesn't take a commitment; it only takes a referral to the health
care system and, by the 2008 amendment to the NCIS, any referral has
to be reported. Cho was referred by a local county justice of the
peace (without any form of trial or due process) based on statements
from his English teacher...

... well, OK, if your *English teacher* doesn't like you, then I
suppose we should take your guns, agreed? What about the librarian?
What if the librarian thought you needed counseling?

***

A felony conviction is simply that... the jury adjudicates a
punishment and that's what happens. If takin' yer guns is such a
punishment, then, fine... it's no worse than the slammer, IMO. Here's
the point, RD: that's gotta be something considered and assessed *by
the jury* as an appropriate punishment... if that's so, then fine.
But what we have is that our legislative body (in their infinite
wisdom) decided to tack it onto all sentences arbitrarily.

Do you see the difference? If so, then, within that difference lies
my point.

Jones

[!Jones]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:38:37 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Depending on the country of your birth. Try practicing as a Methodist in
>Afghanistan.

Well, it's perfectly legal. Of course, the Taliban would shoot you
simply for being a Westerner; they wouldn't ever bother asking your
religion. Iran is a better example of a codified religion. Quite a
few of our allies are pretty repressive.

I have a buddy who went to Turkey as a missionary; however,
missonaries aren't welcome in Turkey. When he was outed, he got a tad
bit uppidy with the local law enforcement... he gets out of jail at
the end of June.

Jones

[!Jones]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:48:03 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Bartender: "Sorry, pal; you're eighty-six."
>

>That term also has a lot of other meanings.

It's from the New York liquor code; section 86 dealt with shit-faced
drunks. So... once we had a working statute, other states simply
copied it; thus, if you're "eighty-six", you're slobbering drunk and
cannot be served almost everyplace.

I was just wondering if "eighty-six" had the same meaning upside down.

Jones

[!Jones]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:05:09 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
"JamesHutchinson" <Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote:

>I read that it was a MILITARY term ..Originally in the 50's... "AT-6" so
>as to dispose of items that were no longer needed.
>Phonetically , it became " 86" Kinda like Maxwell Smart!

No, it's "eighty-six" and it means that the law (section 86) covering
people who are toilet-hugging drunk has been triggered and they cannot
be served any more alcohol.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
news:ledas7hj2r1docf5f...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 29 May 2012 14:13:57 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Only if the notation of his commitment ends up in NICS. In the case
>>of Cho.....it did not. Again, see updates to NICS and question h on
>>the 4473. It is part and parcel of having a felony conviction.
>>Yes....no question. There may be disagreement on how that should be
>>shown but....
>
> It doesn't take a commitment; it only takes a referral to the health
> care system and, by the 2008 amendment to the NCIS, any referral has
> to be reported.

But isn't. Even Arizona is lacking several hundred of those referrals to
be passed to NICS.

Cho was referred by a local county justice of the
> peace (without any form of trial or due process) based on statements
> from his English teacher...

Yes, Cho was adjudicated, but that information never reached NICS.
Sorry. The medical authorities did not pass that information on.

The Governor of Virginia had to change the reporting procedures to ensure
that did not happen again. Since then the procdeure has been updated by
the Virginia legislature. That failure is how Cho was able to purchase
those guns from a local dealer.

> ... well, OK, if your *English teacher* doesn't like you, then I
> suppose we should take your guns, agreed? What about the librarian?
> What if the librarian thought you needed counseling?

Which is why it takes a referral from a certified health professional and
not your barber.

> ***
>
> A felony conviction is simply that... the jury adjudicates a
> punishment and that's what happens. If takin' yer guns is such a
> punishment, then, fine... it's no worse than the slammer, IMO.

That wasn't my point. My point was that a restraining order (which was
the part being addressed until you snipped context.....shame on you) is
to be covered both under NICS and as a question on the 4473.

Here's
> the point, RD: that's gotta be something considered and assessed *by
> the jury* as an appropriate punishment... if that's so, then fine.
> But what we have is that our legislative body (in their infinite
> wisdom) decided to tack it onto all sentences arbitrarily.

Damn....why do you think I wrote the phrase "....part and parcel of
having a felony conviction." You think I was just looking for something
to do?

> Do you see the difference? If so, then, within that difference lies
> my point.

The problem is when you delete context and then do your arguing it is
like you are using a 300 baud modem and are worried about your bandwidth.

[!Jones]

I always thought they were "zapper squads" because they "zapped" you.

The "Dead" referred to the "Dead Zeppelin". "... and she's buying a
stairway to heaven."

And it was called "skubble diving" because Mike Nelson always went:
"skubble skubble skubble" when he'd breathe underwater.

Jones

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:c6KdnbBEfIA33VjS...@westnet.com.au:

You are spending a lot of effort on something you claim is settled and
you really don't care about. ;)

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:usednZsCmrVr3VjS...@westnet.com.au:

As are you which is why I didn't.

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Da2dnfz_3v323VjS...@westnet.com.au:

Don't be......to some of us it is. ;)

It just isn't recognized by all governments. ;(

[RD Sandman]

"dechucka" <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:4PydnQJNWv403FjS...@westnet.com.au:

Yes, but depending on your state it is surprising just where you can
carry them. I live in one of the freest in that regard.

>>>> You think that's "just like you?"
>>>
>>> We both have restrictions just npw discussing degree
>>
>> Pretty much. No right is absolute.....in either country.
>
> yep
>
>

[!Jones]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:43:32 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Hmmmm, I suppose that you don't think that Heller or McDonald would
>count? Both of them overturned local laws in each case but the
>overriding decision was that between the two cases, the individual RKBA
>was affirmed and applies to the federal government both on its property
>and the state's.

Oh, I suppose. It says that whatever applies to Fed also applies to
the states, as I understand it.

I think that there certainly exists an individual right. I'll give
you that.

My question is: where do the other guys' rights begin... I mean the
ones who really don't want you to bring your gun into the workplace.

Jones

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA06281195...@216.196.121.131...
> "JamesHutchinson" <Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote in news:4fc52400$0$14805
> $607e...@cv.net:
>
>>
>>
>> "RD Sandman" wrote in message
>> news:XnsA0627DAED...@216.196.121.131...
>>
>> "JamesHutchinson" <Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote in news:4fc501c4$0$23237
>> $607e...@cv.net:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "RD Sandman" wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA06263B4D...@216.196.121.131...
>>>
>>> !Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in
>>> news:bch9s7h1lvt0gq4o8...@4ax.com:

>>>
>>>> On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:03:45 +1000, in talk.politics.guns "dechucka"
>>>> <dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Main difference is that Australia does not have a bill of rights so
>>>>>some of our freedoms i.e. freedom of the press are granted by the
> High
>>>>>Court as "implied" in the Constitution
>>>>>
>>>>>As a matter of interest some of our constitution like freedom of
>>>>>religion/no state religion were lifted from the American constitution
>>>>>and the American constitution was used as a basis to write ours in
>>>>>some areas
>>>>
>>>> Laws will tend to do that.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have the colloquial term: to "eighty-six" someone in a bar?
>>>>

>>>> Drunk: "Gimme another whisky [hic], bartender!"
>>>>

>>>> Bartender: "Sorry, pal; you're eighty-six."
>>>
>>> That term also has a lot of other meanings.
>>>

>>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=eighty%20sixed
>>>
>>> http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/86
>>>
>>> You are correct on its origin.
>>
>> <^^^

>>
>> I read that it was a MILITARY term ..Originally in the 50's... "AT-6"
>> so
>> as to dispose of items that were no longer needed.
>> Phonetically , it became " 86" Kinda like Maxwell Smart!
>>

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86_(term)
>>
>> In the military, an AT-6 was an advanced single prop trainer with
>> retractable landing gear that looked somewhat like a Douglas Danutless.
>> It was a follow on to fixed landing gear, basic trainer, the BT-13.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-6_Texan
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT-13
>
> --
> <^^^^
>
> Like _I_ said :
>
> "Another probable source of origin is; In the U.S. Navy, there is an
> Allowance Type (AT) coding system used for logistic purposes. The
> Allowance
> Type Code is a single digit numeric code which identifies the reason
> material is being carried in stock. Throughout the life-cycle of a
> warship,
> many pieces of equipment will be upgraded or replaced, requiring the
> allowance of onboard spare parts associated to the obsolete equipment to
> be
> disposed of. The AT code assigned to parts designated for disposition is
> AT-6.[8] Following WWII, there were a great number of warships being
> decommissioned, sold, scrapped, or deactivated and placed in reserve
> (commonly referred to as "mothballed"). During this process, labor
> workers
> would bring spare parts up from the storerooms and the Lead Supply Clerk
> would inform them what the disposition of their parts were by part
> number.
> Anything referred to as AT-6 (or by similar phonetic, eighty-six), was to
> be
> disposed of in the dumpster. This is where the term became synonomous
> with
> throwing something away.[5]
>
>
> I don't disagree with your comment. I should have said "Air Force"
> rather than military.

thinking about it I have heard the term "86" something in terms of things
going over board and sinking i.e. a weight belt dropped with the comment
"well that's 86ed". Always thought it had to do with depth, 86 fathoms down
so couldn't be recovered. The wild west idea is more fun

[!Jones]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:23:00 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>Most of them, it seems, were in the employ of F Troop.
>The big problem I have with Mexico is that since consumers in the US want
>drugs, all that resultant drug trafficking is the fault of the US for
>buying them. Now, since the cartels in Mexico want guns, all that
>resultant gun trafficking is the fault of the US for supplying them.
>
>Something appears to wrong with the logic behind those statements.

The slave ships brought slaves to the US; then they carried raw cotton
to Europe; then they carried manufactured textiles to Africa... start
over.

Whose fault was it? It took all three participants.

Jones

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA0629CA29...@216.196.121.131...

Fair enough. I was surprised to see people carrying in a bar. Michigan iirc.

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA0629C455...@216.196.121.131...

but than it should be available to all. Even criminals, the insane and
mentally incompetent have basic human rights

[bringyagrogalong]

"Chris Diesel" <die...@no.real.address.com.au> wrote:
> "bringyagrogalong" <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message

> > Tom <recalcitrant_redn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> bringyagrogalong <sof...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
> >> > What, mass shootings?
>
> >> > You're right, we haven't had any ever since we brought in gun control
> >> > legislation.
>
> >> Neither has New Zealand over the same period, and they didn't change
> >> their laws?
>

> > You're wrong! There was a mass shooting in New Zealand over the same
> > period.
>
> The last mass shooting in NZ occured in 1997. The last in Australia was
> 1996.

Yep that's what I said, no mass shootings in Australia since 1996 when
gun laws where introduced but there was a mass shooting in New Zealand
during that time.

If New Zealand had followed Australia's lead then those people
murdered by a crazed gunman would still be alive.

Just imagine the tens of thousands of Americans who would still be
alive if they also curbed gun ownership.

> NZ still have allow semi automatc rifles and have no firearm registration.

NZ may not have firearm registration at present but "except under
supervision of a licence holder, owning or using firearms requires a
firearms licence from the police. The licence is normally issued,
under the conditions that the applicant has secure storage for
firearms, attends a safety lecture and passes a written safety test.
The police will also interview the applicant and two referees (one
must be a close relative and the other not related) to determine
whether the applicant is "fit and proper" to have a firearm. The
applicant's residence is also visited to check that they have
appropriate storage for firearms and ammunition. Having criminal
associations or a history of domestic violence almost always leads to
a licence being declined".

> While Australia banned semi automatic rifles in 1996, members of the NRA
> still were permitted to have them until 1997 when the Defence Act which
> allowed it was repealed.
>
> http://www.ic-wish.org/WiSH%20Fact%20Sheet%20Mass%20shootings%20in%20...

Why would members of the American Rifle Association be allowed to own
banned weapons in Australia?

[dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA0629BD6...@216.196.121.131...

With the stock market as it I need something to do between crying :-(

[dechucka]

"!Jones" <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in message

news:0vhas7lk8j7kus85g...@4ax.com...

doesn't "xi........................." makes no sense

[!Jones]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 16:55:28 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
"JamesHutchinson" <Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote:

>Oh, literally thousands, sir.
>
><^^^
>
>RD said how many in MEXICO, you retard.
>
>Name ONE OTHER gun shop, IN Mexico, that LEGALLY sells guns to its people!

< shrug >

There aren't any "gun shops" anyplace besides the US that I know of.
Further, I have never met a "gun nut" (no derogatory connotation
intended) who was not a United States citizen. Think about it. Have
you ever met a Canadian who owned more than one gun? I cannot think
of any and my wife is a Canuck. They could, but they don't... thus,
gun shops only flourish in a climate of high demand.

Jones

[!Jones]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:18:13 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>But isn't. Even Arizona is lacking several hundred of those referrals to

>be passed to NICS. Yes, Cho was adjudicated, but that information

>never reached NICS. Sorry. The medical authorities did not pass
>that information on.
>
>The Governor of Virginia had to change the reporting procedures to ensure
>that did not happen again. Since then the procdeure has been updated by
>the Virginia legislature. That failure is how Cho was able to purchase

>those guns from a local dealer. Which is why it takes a referral from a
>certified health professional and not your barber. That wasn't my point.

>My point was that a restraining order (which was the part being addressed
>until you snipped context.....shame on you) is to be covered both under NICS

>and as a question on the 4473. Damn....why do you think I wrote the phrase

>"....part and parcel of having a felony conviction." You think I was just

>looking for something to do? The problem is when you delete context and

>then do your arguing it is like you are using a 300 baud modem
>and are worried about your bandwidth.

Yes, my reader drops quoted material from the text I'm quoting. Thus,
if you use the interleaved mode of reply where your writing depends
upon mine for its context... yeah, it tends to render it difficult to
follow. But, I certainly did *not* snip your writing and never do. I
always leave your writing intact and write to your points in an essay
format. You will never see me interject my writing into the other
person's posting. I will never snip the other person's writing. My
reader is set to drop anything beyond a first generation quote,
though.

Basically, it just looks for the '>' at the beginning of a line and
kills the line with any white space. If you write:

Fee.

Fie.

Then it quotes just like that with the blank line. OTOH, if you
write:

Foo.

>Some of my text...

Bar.

Then it quotes as:

Foo. Bar.

in my reply because my writing was snipped and it also removed white
space around the quote. It's not a bandwidth thing; although, I'm
slow. It's about my preferred writing style.

I'm not telling you to change how you write; just make sure that it
makes sense without my writing there to hold it up.

Jones

[John-Melb]

Mr Jones,

I think you're right in your heading, all reasonable people believe in
gun control, the question is what kind of gun control.

I find the "shall issue" provisions for CCW in some US jurisdictions
quite odd, I find the Australian laws stating self defence is not a
genuine reason for gun ownership equally absurd.

Where I live (in Australia) despite having a rather extensive
collection of World War 2 memorabilia, and being a licensed collector,
I cannot own a non-firing replica Thompson gun, I cannot hang a non-
firing replica musket above my mantlepiece, but can, and do own
multiple .303 calibre rifles. Antique handguns, for which ammunition
hasn't been commercially available in a century, are subject to the
same level of control as a modern working handgun.

Gun control should be about community safety, not social engineering.
It has been stated that gun control isn't about guns, it's about
control.

Gun control needs to be about guns.

[Scout]

"!Jones" <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in message

news:rgjas7hhi4eh93uki...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 29 May 2012 16:55:28 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
> "JamesHutchinson" <Bonni...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>>Oh, literally thousands, sir.
>>
>><^^^
>>
>>RD said how many in MEXICO, you retard.
>>
>>Name ONE OTHER gun shop, IN Mexico, that LEGALLY sells guns to its people!
>
> < shrug >
>
> There aren't any "gun shops" anyplace besides the US that I know of.

We accept your ignorance on the subject.

> Further, I have never met a "gun nut" (no derogatory connotation
> intended) who was not a United States citizen.

A further area of your ignorance.

> Think about it.

Why you wish to discuss that which you don't know about?

> Have
> you ever met a Canadian who owned more than one gun?

Yes.

> I cannot think
> of any and my wife is a Canuck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7VFEaZTjYo

Besides, if no one collects firearms, then why does the RMCP have a section
concerning that on their website?

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/collector-collecteur-eng.htm

I'm sure you feel your ignorance is somehow relevant...but really it's not
other than to show that your opinion on this subject is worthless.

> They could, but they don't... thus,
> gun shops only flourish in a climate of high demand.

That must explain the gun shops in Canada.

http://www.baikalcanada.com/clients.pdf

That's just a partial list.

[max headroom]

!Jones <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in news:u8f9s7trprlia9v9b...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:56:50 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Klaus
> Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> No, you made the point that it's not a "fundamental" human right. I'm
>> saying it is.

>> Just because the UN or some shit hole country doesn't recognize it as
>> being "fundamental" doesn't necessarily exclude it.

> I'm saying that the right to practice freedom of religion is a
> "fundamental human right". By using that term, I'm claiming that it's
> generally recognized and protected across international boundaries.
> That right simply cannot be taken away from you; you gain that right
> on the instant of your birth.

Unless you're a native American practicing your tribal religion that the feds dislike.

Or try sacrificing a human, even a willing one, and see how much freedom of religion you have.

Try being a Christian in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran.

> I'm further suggesting that gun ownership has never been treated thus
> in the United States and I submit the following into evidence in
> support of that suggestion:

> 1) Gun rights only apply to US citizens.

Canadians regularly visit for trap and skeet matches, and to hunt.

> 2) Gun rights may be arbitrarily removed for a variety of reasons; an
> unrelated restraining order, for example.

Not removed, but suspended (too easily); not arbitrarily, but for cause (in theory).

> 3) When, where, and which weapon you may have vary widely from place to place.

Yeah, that sucks.

> Finally, I'm saying that the practice in the US is basically
> consistent with the rest of the world; you may have a gun virtually
> everyplace given that you meet certain qualifications.

In the U.S., you may have a gun virtually everyplace given that we don't meet certain disqualifiers.
The difference is that we don't have to prove that we are worthy of gun ownership; the state must
prove that we aren't in order to restrict our right.

> What is different is that, in the US, obtaining illegal weapons on the
> street is trivially easy; the gun interests have made tracing these
> weapons back to their source extremely difficult for law enforcement,
> thus, I can buy a handgun today and turn it over to the druggies
> tomorrow for a tidy profit. Yes, it is technically illegal; however,
> because of the veil of secrecy shrouding the entire transaction, my
> chances of detection are very slim indeed.

That's the price we pay to restrict the government's ability to persecute lawful gunowners and
ultimately seize our guns. We must remember that many of the Framers of the Constitution believed a
bill of rights unnecessary because the federal government's powers were limited and clearly spelled
out. Time has warped that out of all semblance of what they envisioned.

[dechucka]

"!Jones" <sdaf...@lsdhf.com> wrote in message

news:0vhas7lk8j7kus85g...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 29 May 2012 11:48:03 -0500, in talk.politics.guns RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Bartender: "Sorry, pal; you're eighty-six."
>>
>>That term also has a lot of other meanings.
>
> It's from the New York liquor code; section 86

You'll have to try again there is no section 86 New York liquor code;