[Stephen Springer]

In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the
DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example,
there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of
(if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a
gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6
month long certification class and test, with an annual re-test and
registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up,
keeping the number of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.

[Mark Zacharias]

"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the DOJ).
There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example, there's a
max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of (if I
recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a gun, you
are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6 month long
certification class and test, with an annual re-test and registration. No
surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number
of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is screened
for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

Mark Z.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:19:07 -0500, "Mark Zacharias"
wrote:

"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the DOJ).
There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example, there's a
max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of (if I
recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a gun, you
are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6 month long
certification class and test, with an annual re-test and registration. No
surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number
of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is screened
for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

Mark Z.
We are already beyond 'shall not be infringed'. There are a variety
of fully automatic firearms which can only be purchased with a special
permit. There are other 'arms' which are totally outlawed.

The real question is "Do you want to go on record as suggesting ypur
desire to own the latest tarted up plastic firearm is more importamt
than the lives of 20 children?"

PlainBill

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:34:01 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:19:07 -0500, "Mark Zacharias"
wrote:

"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the DOJ).
There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example, there's a
max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of (if I
recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a gun, you
are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6 month long
certification class and test, with an annual re-test and registration. No
surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number
of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is screened
for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

Mark Z.
We are already beyond 'shall not be infringed'. There are a variety
of fully automatic firearms which can only be purchased with a special
permit. There are other 'arms' which are totally outlawed.

The real question is "Do you want to go on record as suggesting ypur
desire to own the latest tarted up plastic firearm is more importamt
than the lives of 20 children?"

Wow! Just *WOW*. The ignorance is simply amazing.

[tuinkabouter]

On 16.04.2013 18:19, Stephen Springer wrote:
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared to
the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides per
year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per the
DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for example,
there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an upper limit of
(if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are allowed to own a
gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness AND have to take a 6
month long certification class and test, with an annual re-test and
registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun enthusiasts sign-up,
keeping the number of guns in the public low, and gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.

I heard the news about the bombs in Boston.

Is the pro arms lobby now say every good man should own a bomb?

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared
to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides
per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per
the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for
example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an
upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are
allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness
AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an
annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.


BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Don Kelly]

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared
to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides
per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per
the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for
example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an
upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are
allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness
AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an
annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.


BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Don

[Michael A. Terrell]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.

People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/19/2013 5:36 PM, Don Kelly wrote:
On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
"Stephen Springer" wrote in message
...
In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared
to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides
per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per
the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for
example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an
upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are
allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness
AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an
annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun
enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and
gun violence low.

That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is
screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?

BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a
school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all
alive.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.


What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.


BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the
history, I just don't really get it.

The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Don


**The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.
A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and
formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest
in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA
will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
constraints that political organisations must operate within.

That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake
up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Charles[_7_]]

Thought I was on a repair forum.

Sorry.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:05:21 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

The question is "what's it to you?" Are you really that lonesome that
you have to troll? You really need a life.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 8:50 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:05:21 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

The question is "what's it to you?"


**It's a public forum, idiot. Everyone else in the Western, developed
world looks at the US situation WRT gun control and considers the
situation tragic and sad. It seems that many Americans cannot see this fact.

Are you really that lonesome that
you have to troll?


**Pointing out the evil that lies within the political framework of the
US, is not trolling. It is pointing out the truth.

You really need a life.


**If you have something of value to add, then do so. If you can defend
the NRA, then do so (good luck with that). Otherwise, **** off.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Who the **** posted this **** to all these groups? The OP didn't even
cite who the "kike" is.

Newsgroups:
sci.electronics.repair,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt. sports.football.pro.sd-chargers,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written in the United States. If some
Aussie has a problem with it, just don't come here and you'll be just
fine.

I really don't understand why people that are outside of the US think
they are allowed to opine on the 2nd. I don't tell you what kind of
boomerang you can carry.

**We call it: 'Freedom of speech'. An interesting concept you should
learn about.

Stupid septic.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.
A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and
formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest
in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA
will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
constraints that political organisations must operate within.

That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake
up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.

If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the ****
you're talking about.

**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about. Feel free to pose a
logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.


How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
chair and insult our educational system.

**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
that does that all on it's own:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio... United_States

Kinda says it all, really.


The PC you are using was
invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver your
(ill informed) message.

**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.


"Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
sales accross [sic] the US" --- What a crock of ****, mate.

**Again, the facts are just that:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerog...r-gun-control/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-6-charts/





You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?

**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.


And before you ask,
no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.

**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.


There
is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
have been brainwashing you apparently.

**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
What do you read on the issue?


If you don't know something, it's
best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...

**Feel free to place a cogent argument.

We'll wait.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/20/2013 2:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.

**Which is why good, strong, sane, homogeneous gun control laws make a
great deal of good sense. Something that does not exist in the US.


People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.


**Sure I have. I get to say whatever I wish (within limits). I have
freedom of speech, despite what you would wish.

"Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
comprehensively brainwashed.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[soup]

Stephen Springer wrote:

So the jew-******* is basically saying it's better to shank school
children and not light them up.

I don't really know what you mean by "light them up"
But better stabbed and alive than shot and dead. Of course it would be
better if they were left alone.

Oh and BTW what has religion got to do with it?

[soup]

G. Morgan wrote:

Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US,

Bwahawahawahawahawa wheeze wahawahawahawaha !

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:04:51 +0100, soup
wrote:

G. Morgan wrote:

Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US,

Bwahawahawahawahawa wheeze wahawahawahawaha !

They're coming to take you away...

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:58:23 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:29 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Don Kelly wrote:

On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power
excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).
In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was
expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their
country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a
frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training
in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for
providing fresh meat was also rather important).
What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense
dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home
invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if
their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or
for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.
These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a
lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent
gets in the way it is "collateral damage".
A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of weapons that
can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe
on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners
but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.
I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at
what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived
with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,
supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish
based on ??


Guns aren't the problem, and it only takes a second or two to change a
magazine, so the size doesn't make any difference if no one is shooting
back. The problem is that sleazy lawyers got 'rights' for the mentally
ill to be on the streets. A gun is a tool, and doesn't kill by itself.
It takes an unstable person or criminal who places no value on human
life to use one to maim or kill in cold blood.

**Which is why good, strong, sane, homogeneous gun control laws make a
great deal of good sense. Something that does not exist in the US.

Right. Strong gun law: Every action has an equal and opposite
reaction.

Gun control: Killing what you aim at.

People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.


**Sure I have. I get to say whatever I wish (within limits). I have
freedom of speech, despite what you would wish.

Yes, even the idiots have "freedom of speech". Unfortunately, they're
all too free with their mouths.

"Gun free zones". Gotta love that old NRA gobbledegook. You have been
comprehensively brainwashed.

You're completely clueless but we all knew that. If the facts
disagree with your puny world view, the facts are evil. Typical
leftist moron.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.
A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and
formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest
in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA
will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
constraints that political organisations must operate within.

That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake
up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.

If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the ****
you're talking about.

**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about.

You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face. Obviously.

Feel free to pose a
logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.

You're certainly free to, sure. However you haven't yet.

BTW, we're also free to laugh at your inane arguments and lack of
logic.

How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
chair and insult our educational system.

**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
that does that all on it's own:


But you did anyway. Without the first clue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio... United_States

Kinda says it all, really.

More absurd logic. Wiki taken as evidence. ...to be expected.

The PC you are using was
invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver your
(ill informed) message.

**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.

Of 300 million, I'd love it if that were true.

"Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
sales accross [sic] the US" --- What a crock of ****, mate.

**Again, the facts are just that:

Bull****.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerog...r-gun-control/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-6-charts/


You really are a dummy.


You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?

**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.

No, you obviously don't.

And before you ask,
no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.

**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.


There
is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
have been brainwashing you apparently.

**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
What do you read on the issue?

Have you read John Lott's book? No, I didn't think so.

If you don't know something, it's
best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...

**Feel free to place a cogent argument.

We'll wait.

After you...

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:59:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 8:50 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 08:05:21 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 2:22 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their
gutless politicians they have in their pocket.


Of course, you are a well known loon.


**If pointing out the abject stupidity of US gun control laws (such as
they are), by using logic, reason and common-sense, makes me a "loon",
then I guess you have some serious problems in dealing with plain English.

The question is "what's it to you?"


**It's a public forum, idiot. Everyone else in the Western, developed
world looks at the US situation WRT gun control and considers the
situation tragic and sad. It seems that many Americans cannot see this fact.

Troll, look at the groups you included. Only trolls and Uncle Joe are
so indiscriminate with shotguns.

Are you really that lonesome that
you have to troll?


**Pointing out the evil that lies within the political framework of the
US, is not trolling. It is pointing out the truth.

You aren't. You're a lefty, liar, and troll; the lowest forms of life
on the planet.

You really need a life.


**If you have something of value to add, then do so. If you can defend
the NRA, then do so (good luck with that). Otherwise, **** off.

I'm responding to your bull****. You started the lies, idiot.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:43:26 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 3:53 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Who the **** posted this **** to all these groups? The OP didn't even
cite who the "kike" is.

Newsgroups:
sci.electronics.repair,24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt. sports.football.pro.sd-chargers,alt.engineering.electrical,rec.audio.car

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:

Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written in the United States. If some
Aussie has a problem with it, just don't come here and you'll be just
fine.

I really don't understand why people that are outside of the US think
they are allowed to opine on the 2nd. I don't tell you what kind of
boomerang you can carry.

**We call it: 'Freedom of speech'. An interesting concept you should
learn about.

You really are that stupid, aren't you?

Stupid septic.

Why do you keep changing your nym, troll?

[Ramsman]

On 20/04/2013 07:06, G. Morgan wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

People like 'Trevor' are responsible for creating 'Gun free zones'
which are the perfect targets for shooting sprees where no one will
shoot back. He is down under, and has no business spouting off about
gun control in the US.

I just told him the same thing.

I also get tired of Eurotrash bad-mouthing our Constitution. For
Chrissakes, they still have queens, prince's, princesses, and kings
ruling over the moral majority (or would that be the majorities'
morals?).


Please provide a list of European countries where royalty rules.
[i]
Very few Americans get involved with politics outside of the US, yet the
whole world has a ****ing opinion on *our* politics and law. If they
can't vote here, they need to STFU about it. [g][r][n]














--
Peter

[Mark Zacharias]

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political
system.
A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first
and
formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no
interest
in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the
NRA
will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
constraints that political organisations must operate within.

That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will
'wake
up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.

If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the
****
you're talking about.

**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about.

You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face. Obviously.

Feel free to pose a
logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.

You're certainly free to, sure. However you haven't yet.

BTW, we're also free to laugh at your inane arguments and lack of
logic.

How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
chair and insult our educational system.

**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
that does that all on it's own:


But you did anyway. Without the first clue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio... United_States

Kinda says it all, really.

More absurd logic. Wiki taken as evidence. ...to be expected.

The PC you are using was
invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver
your
(ill informed) message.

**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.

Of 300 million, I'd love it if that were true.

"Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
sales accross [sic] the US" --- What a crock of ****, mate.

**Again, the facts are just that:

Bull****.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerog...r-gun-control/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-6-charts/


You really are a dummy.


You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?

**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.

No, you obviously don't.

And before you ask,
no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.

**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.


There
is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
have been brainwashing you apparently.

**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
What do you read on the issue?

Have you read John Lott's book? No, I didn't think so.

If you don't know something, it's
best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...

**Feel free to place a cogent argument.

We'll wait.

After you...


I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject. The arguments have
been made and re-made for decades.
The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process of
amendment.
If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the second
amendment, I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.
What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately, the
only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
Amendment.

By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an AR-15
to dispatch Bambi.

But the "slippery slope" is real.

Mark Z.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:18:19 -0500, "Mark Zacharias"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political
system.
A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first
and
formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no
interest
in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the
NRA
will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it
operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
constraints that political organisations must operate within.

That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will
'wake
up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.

If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the
****
you're talking about.

**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about.

You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face. Obviously.

Feel free to pose a
logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.

You're certainly free to, sure. However you haven't yet.

BTW, we're also free to laugh at your inane arguments and lack of
logic.

How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
chair and insult our educational system.

**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
that does that all on it's own:


But you did anyway. Without the first clue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio... United_States

Kinda says it all, really.

More absurd logic. Wiki taken as evidence. ...to be expected.

The PC you are using was
invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver
your
(ill informed) message.

**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.

Of 300 million, I'd love it if that were true.

"Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
sales accross [sic] the US" --- What a crock of ****, mate.

**Again, the facts are just that:

Bull****.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerog...r-gun-control/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-6-charts/


You really are a dummy.


You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?

**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.

No, you obviously don't.

And before you ask,
no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.

**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.


There
is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
have been brainwashing you apparently.

**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
What do you read on the issue?

Have you read John Lott's book? No, I didn't think so.

If you don't know something, it's
best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...

**Feel free to place a cogent argument.

We'll wait.

After you...


I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject. The arguments have
been made and re-made for decades.

You're free to kilefile the thread, dummy.

The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process of
amendment.

Correct. That's hardly the MO of the left, however.

If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the second
amendment, I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.

+1

However, their plan, as always, is to get their way by fiat. "Never
let a crisis go to waste."

What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately, the
only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
Amendment.

You'll never get a lefty to accept that truism.

By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an AR-15
to dispatch Bambi.

What YOU think and "need" are irrelevant, as is any reference to
"Bambi" (real or imagined).

But the "slippery slope" is real.

It is, indeed.

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/21/2013 6:18 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political
system.
A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts
first and
formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no
interest
in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to
the NRA
will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation
(although it
operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
constraints that political organisations must operate within.

That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will
'wake
up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.

If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the
****
you're talking about.

**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about.

You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face. Obviously.

Feel free to pose a
logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.

You're certainly free to, sure. However you haven't yet.

BTW, we're also free to laugh at your inane arguments and lack of
logic.

How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
chair and insult our educational system.

**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
that does that all on it's own:


But you did anyway. Without the first clue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio... United_States


Kinda says it all, really.

More absurd logic. Wiki taken as evidence. ...to be expected.

The PC you are using was
invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver
your
(ill informed) message.

**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.

Of 300 million, I'd love it if that were true.

"Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
sales accross [sic] the US" --- What a crock of ****, mate.

**Again, the facts are just that:

Bull****.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerog...r-gun-control/


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-6-charts/



You really are a dummy.


You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?

**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.

No, you obviously don't.

And before you ask,
no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.

**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.


There
is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
have been brainwashing you apparently.

**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
What do you read on the issue?

Have you read John Lott's book? No, I didn't think so.

If you don't know something, it's
best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...

**Feel free to place a cogent argument.

We'll wait.

After you...


I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject. The arguments
have been made and re-made for decades.

**I will ask the question you failed to answer previously:

What part of:

"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?



The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process
of amendment.

**And I will repeat:

The 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

The 2nd Amendment is now several hundred years out of date. It was
written by slave owners and those fearful of wild animals, dangerous
indigenous people, angry slaves and a vicious colonial power. NONE of
which exists in the US today (in any significance).

You need to ask yourself what the US founding fathers would have made of
the weapons easily available on the streets and sporting goods stores of
the US today. Might they have added some additional conditions to the
2nd Amendment?

If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the
second amendment,

**What are "gun-grabbers"? Please be precise in your definition. I can
find no reference in the usual places.


I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.
What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately,
the only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
Amendment.

**Bull****. Here in Australia, we have no such thing as the 2nd
Amendment. Ownership of firearms is strictly and rigorously controlled
by the Federal and state governments. Indeed, when the last major
alterations were made of firearms laws, the Federal government that
pushed the states to adopt those laws, was returned to office THREE more
times (same Prime Minister). Such was the popularity of those laws, that
approximately 95% of the population supported those laws.

BTW: We also have freedom of speech. We are also free to travel anywhere
on the planet. Something US citizens are not free to do (legally).



By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an
AR-15 to dispatch Bambi.

But the "slippery slope" is real.

**Sure. Look at how the NRA has subverted US politics. A mere 4 million
Americans get to dictate how the other 300 million have to live.

Time for a change.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:13:05 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 6:18 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:54:49 +1000, Trevor Wilson
wrote:

On 4/20/2013 4:23 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

**The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political
system.
A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun
control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts
first and
formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no
interest
in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and
ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to
the NRA
will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.
Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation
(although it
operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the
constraints that political organisations must operate within.

That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their
midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been
comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I
don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will
'wake
up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.

If you don't live here, and never been here; you don't know what the
****
you're talking about.

**Then I DO know exactly what I am talking about.

You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the face. Obviously.

Feel free to pose a
logical argument, rather than engaging in pointless rhetoric.

You're certainly free to, sure. However you haven't yet.

BTW, we're also free to laugh at your inane arguments and lack of
logic.

How dare you sit there from the comfort of your
chair and insult our educational system.

**_I_ don't need to insult your education system. Here is an example
that does that all on it's own:


But you did anyway. Without the first clue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio... United_States


Kinda says it all, really.

More absurd logic. Wiki taken as evidence. ...to be expected.

The PC you are using was
invented by Americans, as well as the means you are using to deliver
your
(ill informed) message.

**I never suggested that ALL Americans were stupid. Just a VERY large
number of them. At least 4 million, anyway.

Of 300 million, I'd love it if that were true.

"Their {NRA's} sole interests lie in pushing firearms and ammunition
sales accross [sic] the US" --- What a crock of ****, mate.

**Again, the facts are just that:

Bull****.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerog...r-gun-control/


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-in-6-charts/



You really are a dummy.


You really don't know *what* the NRA does, do you?

**I know what the NRA _CLAIMS_ to do. I also know what the NRA's main
aim is. That aim has nothing to do with shooting safety, gun owner's
education and other crap. It's main aim to ensure that more guns are
sold. It is (now) an industry lobby organisation, first and foremost.

No, you obviously don't.

And before you ask,
no - I'm not a member. If you'd like the truth, ask an American.

**I have. There are a surprisingly large number who are heartily sick of
the political meddling perpetrated by the NRA.


There
is no telling what garbage you read/watch in the media down there, they
have been brainwashing you apparently.

**I read local AND US media. I also read scholarly documents (both for
and against) on the issue. I even have a copy of John Lott Jnr's (or is
that Mary Rosh's - I get confused) book on one of my shelves. Do you?
What do you read on the issue?

Have you read John Lott's book? No, I didn't think so.

If you don't know something, it's
best not to comment and look like the fool you do right now. Geeze...

**Feel free to place a cogent argument.

We'll wait.

After you...


I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject. The arguments
have been made and re-made for decades.

**I will ask the question you failed to answer previously:

What part of:

"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

Obviously:

1) You don't know.
2) English is not your first language.
3) You've never held a logical thought in your tiny mind.

The U.S. Constitution is purposely designed so that short-term political
frenzy or emotion will be tempered by a slow-moving, methodical process
of amendment.

**And I will repeat:

The 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.
* At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.
* At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.
* At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.
* At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.

All irrelevant. There are still bad guys. There are still bad
governments. There are still bad guys in charge of bad governments.
There is still the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment is now several hundred years out of date. It was
written by slave owners and those fearful of wild animals, dangerous
indigenous people, angry slaves and a vicious colonial power. NONE of
which exists in the US today (in any significance).

Irrelevant and illogical.

You need to ask yourself what the US founding fathers would have made of
the weapons easily available on the streets and sporting goods stores of
the US today. Might they have added some additional conditions to the
2nd Amendment?

Also irrelevant but like many Americans, they would have owned
several. Obviously.

If the gun-grabbers think they have the political mojo to repeal the
second amendment,

**What are "gun-grabbers"? Please be precise in your definition. I can
find no reference in the usual places.

You really don't have to prove how dumb you are. We got it already.

I say "knock yourself out". Go for it.
What a lot of people do not realize (or care about) is that ultimately,
the only thing that guarantees our First Amendment is in fact the Second
Amendment.

**Bull****. Here in Australia, we have no such thing as the 2nd
Amendment. Ownership of firearms is strictly and rigorously controlled
by the Federal and state governments. Indeed, when the last major
alterations were made of firearms laws, the Federal government that
pushed the states to adopt those laws, was returned to office THREE more
times (same Prime Minister). Such was the popularity of those laws, that
approximately 95% of the population supported those laws.

You really don't get it. We don't give a **** what you do in
Australia, Ron Reaugh.

BTW: We also have freedom of speech. We are also free to travel anywhere
on the planet. Something US citizens are not free to do (legally).

You're not free to defend yourselves. Without that freedom you none.

By the way, I'm not really a gun nut. I don't think someone needs an
AR-15 to dispatch Bambi.

But the "slippery slope" is real.

**Sure. Look at how the NRA has subverted US politics. A mere 4 million
Americans get to dictate how the other 300 million have to live.

Laughable logic, as usual, Ron Reaugh.

Time for a change.

So change *YOUR* **** hole, Ron Reaugh.

[Michael Moroney]

Trevor Wilson writes:

**And I will repeat:

The 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.

So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
(no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
late 1700s?

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

"Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
practiced" or "well trained." Perhaps in Australia it is different,
but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
or phrase changes over time.

Time for a change.

Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

Additionally, in the U.S. the "militia" did (and still does) include
every able-bodied man.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/21/2013 11:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
Trevor Wilson writes:

**And I will repeat:

The 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.

So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
(no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
late 1700s?


**And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.

If you want to see the limits of free speech, watch a free to air US TV
broadcast sometime.

The facts are simple enough: Freedom of speech is not as free as you
might think. Censorship applies in almost every nation. Including the US.

Same deal with the 2nd Amendment. It does not apply to all US citizens
and to all firearms. There are limits. Every other Western, developed
nation employs limits that do not go as far as they do in most US
jurisdictions.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

On 4/21/2013 12:35 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

"Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
practiced" or "well trained."

**No. That is what YOU think it means. Either way, at the time the 2nd
Amendment was written, their was no official US armed forces. There is
now. And, it is the most formidable armed force on the planet. A
citizen's militia is now unnecessary.


Perhaps in Australia it is different,
but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
or phrase changes over time.

**Indeed. Which is why the 2nd Amendment is more tha 100 years overdue
for change.


Time for a change.

Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

**That old chestnut. I'll bite.

List the SPECIFIC changes made to firearms laws by your cited people.
I'll start by explaining that it was the Weimar Republic that brought in
strict gun control laws. Hitler eased those laws considerably. To the
point where 10 year old children were armed to the teeth, with no adult
supervision. Just ask any US service people who entered Germany close to
the end of WWII. Many US army people were shot at by young children.

Anyway, let's see the rest of the list.



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**No. That is what YOU think it means. Either way, at the time the 2nd

Wrong. For example, see:

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Amendment was written, their was no official US armed forces. There is
now. And, it is the most formidable armed force on the planet. A
citizen's militia is now unnecessary.

Irrelevant.

**Indeed. Which is why the 2nd Amendment is more tha 100 years overdue
for change.

I disagree.

**That old chestnut. I'll bite.

History shows us clearly that governmens are not to be trusted.

List the SPECIFIC changes made to firearms laws by your cited people.

Look them up yourself.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Roger Blake]

Also see:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

You will be hard pressed to find anything from the U.S. founders that
supports your position.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[soup]

Mark Zacharias wrote:

I don't care to even read all the posts on this subject.

Or snip, apparently.

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:35:09 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

"Well regulated" at the time the Constitution was written meant "well
practiced" or "well trained." Perhaps in Australia it is different,
but here in the U.S. one of the most fundamental axioms of law is that
the intent of the lawmaker is the force and effect of the law. You do
not get to change that effect simply because the popular use of a word
or phrase changes over time.

Correct, but the larger point here is that only one who is completely
ignorant of both logic and the English language can believe that a
subordinate clause in any way modifies the independent clause.

Time for a change.

Hard to argue with that. Experts and world leaders throughout history
agree with you. Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler,
Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Kim Jung-Il, Musmammar Qaddafi, and others have
found central regulation and strict control over firearm ownership to
be quite effective in implementing their respective societies.

If the moron Aussie believes that it's time to change the US
Constitution, the instructions are self-contained. (Hint: he has no
clue and clearly impotent in the matter)

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 02:59:40 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
wrote:

On 2013-04-21, Trevor Wilson wrote:
"...well regulated militia..." do you not understand?

Additionally, in the U.S. the "militia" did (and still does) include
every able-bodied man.

There are exceptions (e.g. those holding federal elected positions,
though it could be argued that they're under the "able-bodied"
exemption above .

[Michael Moroney]

Trevor Wilson writes:

On 4/21/2013 11:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
Trevor Wilson writes:

**And I will repeat:

The 2nd Amendment was written:

* At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.
* At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a
bow and arrow.

So, I take it that you believe the Freedom of Speech clause in the First
Amendment only applies to speaking from atop a soapbox at the local park
(no voice amplification), handwritten letters and documents/newspapers/
books printed using a screw press. It does not apply to radio, television,
modern high speed printing presses, the Internet or anything involving
amplification, electronics or any other technology developed since the
late 1700s?


**And there's the rub: Freedom of speech also applies to instructions on
bomb-building, preparation of toxins and other substances, paedophile
materials, along with fear-mongering and hate-inciting materials.

That's not the point. If the 2nd only applies to the technology of the
time of its passage (inaccurate muskets) then, to be consistent, the 1st
can only apply to the technology of the time of its passage. Meaning only
handwritten text, newspapers printed with a screw press and yelling from
atop a box at a street corner.