SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Hood

Government's make laws and governments can change the constitution. All it needs is the appropriate public or political will to make it happen. That's one of the the things about living in a democracy - sometimes you have to accept what other people want.

Some of what you say is correct, at least down here in OZ (though I don't know how it works in say, the US or UK) but the motion to change the constitution (in Oz) has to go to a referrendum, (public vote). Government gets to word the changes, and at least, its probably why not many changes to the constitution down here has gone through. Citizen Initiated Referrendum was done away with through legislation.

Originally Posted by tk471138

The issue is of explosive power because when President Nixon initiated the War on Drugs in A.D. 1971, ~

It goes back a bit earlier than that to when hemp was outlawed in the US and countries growing selling it faced aid denial if they didn't fall in line... and even earlier before that, to "the prohibition" (of alcohol - US)

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Driving is a right too, but if you're not fit for it, then you can't drive.

Just a note, here in the US driving is not a right, it's a privilege.

Does the UK define driving as a right?

--Outlaw.

[Wolf_Rider]

its decried as "a privilige" here in Oz as well... its just government trying to reinforce its "control"

[F19_Klunk]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I see what you're saying, and don't get me wrong, I'm against the ban, but I'm the first to admit that after yet another deranged individual that goes gung-ho, maybe it's time to accept that for the sake of everyone's safety some more effective regulations on guns might be necessary..

I am glad you see it that way. This is pretty much what most of "us" are promoting... regulations, not bans.

BTW. good site to view laws and regulations, including interesting stats, in different countries, e.g Sweden
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden

[arthursmedley]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Just a note, here in the US driving is not a right, it's a privilege.

Does the UK define driving as a right?

--Outlaw.

Nope. We're the same as you. A license to drive a motor vehicle is obtained after passing a test of competency.

[Sternjaeger II]

Yeah, but many perceive it as a right, so much that now the government is evaluating the donation of cars under the welfare scheme, if people demonstrate that in order to get a job they need to commute by car..

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk

I am glad you see it that way. This is pretty much what most of "us" are promoting... regulations, not bans.

BTW. good site to view laws and regulations, including interesting stats, in different countries, e.g Sweden
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden

I wish you were right mate, some here really want to remove all guns, period. They see no purpose or don't want the responsibility of owning them, then what they do is just applying the idiotic principle of "if I don't want/like/need it, then you can take it off me".

Once again, the government of an alleged democracy decided to remove semiautos and pistols without even bothering to have a referendum for it, that's what regimes do, yet the sheep people here take it and actually vouch for it, in the illusion it will make their streets safer.

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Hood

It seems a bit odd to me that you're relying on provisions granted by what was then in effect the government of the day, yet complain when the government of these days wants to restrict it. Times and people change, well some of them.

Government's make laws and governments can change the constitution. All it needs is the appropriate public or political will to make it happen. That's one of the the things about living in a democracy - sometimes you have to accept what other people want.

Hood

first of all govt DO NOT grant rights....(well unless you are a slave they dont)

nor are they or should they be in the business of taking away creator endowed rights...

DUDE i have already stated this ONCE we DO NOT live in a democracy...the whims of the majority have NO bearing on my innate rights and freedom....the majority can not decide all of a sudden to take the rights of the minority away...and even if such a law were to pass, it would be null and void...

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Just a note, here in the US driving is not a right, it's a privilege.

Does the UK define driving as a right?

--Outlaw.

ok lets look at the language used in the law....a motor vehicle is specifically referring to a vehicle engaged in commerce....



most of us here are simply travelers, NOT drivers....drivers in the language used in the law means someone engaged in commerce...a truck DRIVER, a taxi DRIVER....


if im driving to work or driving my children to some athletic event i am not a driver i am a traveler....and the right to freely travel is a common law right...

this driving/traveler issue only made more complicated with DMV and people voluntarily entering in a contract with the dmv by getting licensed....thus you are agreeing to put yourself under the jurisdiction of their laws..


CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

This definition of "motor vehicle" does not include "private motor Vehicles" as distinguished from the 18 USC 31 "motor vehicle" definition and as was clearly distinguished in Bowman vs City of Kansas City. As a consequence to this fact, this court has not addressed the issue we promote on property rights.

[tk471138]

Frankly im disgusted by all the people who are so quick to throw away their creator endowed, innate rights away....

im surprised that you people would want to give MORE power to the govt and you are fine with asking permission and jumping through hoops to exercise your rights
Where a state issues a permission, it is reasonable that such permission can be revoked by issuer for any reason it chooses.


i find it kinda humerous that the ONE person talking about unrestricted constitutional freedom and liberty is the ONLY one citing law (that would be me)

while all the slaves and subjects are the ones going on about how we need to regulate peoples innate freedom (when i already posted laws on why doing such a thing is ILLEGAL)

why cant you people handle freedom??

do you lack personal responsibility??

do you lack dignity??

do you really want a world where you have to ASK govt for permission to exercise your rights ?? permission that can be revoked at anytime or simply not grated for any reason ??? because i have news for you that is NO WHERE NEAR what freedom is...