SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Wrong. The world is full of crazy people that just aren't spotted. Lots of crazy people (and I include clinically insane as well as those with extreme beliefs) can get past tests put before them especially when they are focussed on the end result.

and that's my point, they need to address the way licenses are assigned, and keep checks recurrent for the safety of everybody.

You can also be completely "sane" and integrated into a community and still murder e.g. Dr Harold Shipman. I once had an interesting jurisprudence argument with the hypothesis being that it is impossible to murder. The raionale was that to murder someone was so far removed form normal sciety that the killer had to be insane, therefore it could not be murder.

sure, but if memory serves he killed more than 250 people without using guns. Guns are not the problem, they're just "louder" and there are far too many interests in our society for them to be removed..

ps the P51 footage was underwhelming I thought. I thought it'd be louder though maybe the noise was turned down.

maybe, it kinda sounded muffled, but it might just be audio quality as you said. I have heard 8 .50cals shooting together whilst in the army and I can assure you they're LOUD

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

and that's my point, they need to address the way licenses are assigned, and keep checks recurrent for the safety of everybody.

hold on a license... for what ??? last time i checked you dont need a license to exercise your rights....


remember a license is govt authorization to do something that would OTHERWISE be illegal...you dont need a license to exercise a constitutional right....

but im sure one of you control freaks is going to tell me im wrong and that in order to protect the group we must infringe on the rights of the individual....


"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"...and im not talking about where the devil lives...the road to a living hell is how it should read.....

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by tk471138

hold on a license... for what ??? last time i checked you dont need a license to exercise your rights....


remember a license is govt authorization to do something that would OTHERWISE be illegal...you dont need a license to exercise a constitutional right....

but im sure one of you control freaks is going to tell me im wrong and that in order to protect the group we must infringe on the rights of the individual....


"the road to hell is paved with good intentions"...and im not talking about where the devil lives...the road to a living hell is how it should read.....

well I am not American and I believe that guns are a responsibility before being a right. Driving is a right too, but if you're not fit for it, then you can't drive. Same should apply for gun linceses, or better, it already happens, it only needs a more pro-active and effective regulation. Gun lobbies won't accept that in the US waving their constitutional rights, and that's ok with me, it's their problem, but I believe that the UK should really give up on all this politically correct bullcrap and get real.

Again, my point is that here people really think that owning a gun equates to being a timebomb, but even before the gun bans the accidents involving guns were extremely rare, people just bought into the Government fear campaign and found a scapegoat to social problem that they don't want (or simply can't) address with efficacy. The scare tactic, playing strong on the gun massacres that happened, did most of the work, so much that people didn't wanna know about guns anymore, it became a social no-no like eating veal...

And there is so much deliberate misinformation on the subject anyway: you can still get yourself a shotgun, a rimfire semiauto (they sell Car15 in .22, EXTREMELY portable and lethal) or bolt action rifle: an Enfield Jungle Carabine can hold 10 rounds of .303 and is very portable, how is that less lethal than a Garand or a pistol I still have to understand.. Don't you really see the hypocrisy of the legislation?

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

And there is so much deliberate misinformation on the subject anyway: you can still get yourself a shotgun, a rimfire semiauto (they sell Car15 in .22, EXTREMELY portable and lethal) or bolt action rifle: an Enfield Jungle Carabine can hold 10 rounds of .303 and is very portable, how is that less lethal than a Garand or a pistol I still have to understand.. Don't you really see the hypocrisy of the legislation?

If you are going to legislate at all you will get boundary conditions that are disputed and vary between jurisdictions. Classic examples include drinking ages and the age of consent for sex.

In NSW (Australia) where I live, swords, bows (including compound ones) and rifles are all perfectly legal but may require a license.

Concealable weapons such as flick blades and handguns and weapons with silencers are not OK. Assault rifles, pump action shotguns, crossbows, morning stars, nunchukas and maces are also illegal.

In adjoining Victoria, even owning a sword requires a license however in Queensland you can wander around with a mace or morning star and no-one cares.

[tk471138]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

well I am not American and I believe that guns are a responsibility before being a right. Driving is a right too, but if you're not fit for it, then you can't drive. Same should apply for gun linceses, or better, it already happens, it only needs a more pro-active and effective regulation. Gun lobbies won't accept that in the US waving their constitutional rights, and that's ok with me, it's their problem, but I believe that the UK should really give up on all this politically correct bullcrap and get real.

Again, my point is that here people really think that owning a gun equates to being a timebomb, but even before the gun bans the accidents involving guns were extremely rare, people just bought into the Government fear campaign and found a scapegoat to social problem that they don't want (or simply can't) address with efficacy. The scare tactic, playing strong on the gun massacres that happened, did most of the work, so much that people didn't wanna know about guns anymore, it became a social no-no like eating veal...

And there is so much deliberate misinformation on the subject anyway: you can still get yourself a shotgun, a rimfire semiauto (they sell Car15 in .22, EXTREMELY portable and lethal) or bolt action rifle: an Enfield Jungle Carabine can hold 10 rounds of .303 and is very portable, how is that less lethal than a Garand or a pistol I still have to understand.. Don't you really see the hypocrisy of the legislation?

its not hypocrisy....these people dont want to ban guns cuz of public safety(only the "useful idiots" believe this) , they want to disarm the public for various reasons, and they want to tear down one of the main protections the people have against criminals both those in govt or on the street and to eliminate what is known as the "teeth" to the constitution...

its not hypocrisy at all they dont care about public safety, they go incrementally until the people can no longer defend it self from determined criminals or the state...

you know first bans on automatic weapons seems reasonable, and then next its bans on assault rifles and then any kind of weapon the military uses and all these seemingly reasonable things to the common person, will eventually come full circle making all non muzzle loading fire arms illegal...

that is why ANY attempt to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is unacceptable... (not just muzzle loading muskets or hand guns or bolt action or semi auto or automatic, but all arms)

with out looking at the law i seem to recall that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. it does not read "can be infringed a little bit incrementally"

[tk471138]

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946


"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

[Hood]

Originally Posted by tk471138

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946


"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

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

[ctec1]

@ Hood:

The US is a republic not a democracy. The Republic is a costitutionally-limited form of government protecting the rights of the individual. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It can be changed only thru the amendment process. It's a little more involved than a 51%-49% majority that would suffice in a democracy.

[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)

[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...