rleete

iTrader: (21)

Thank you.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Granted, we only beat you to becoming our own country by 125 years (again, a blip in history), but I think it's the larger point I'm trying to make of how we became a county is still a very fresh idea. I know that sounds at odd with my claims that kids nowadays aren't getting the historical education they should be in public schools, but people who believe in the reason for our Second Amendment certainly do understand.

This country was founded on revolution rather than independence being "given" to us. I've never sugar-coated that to my kids. They've been to our battlefields and cemeteries... living in Virginia meant that most of them were pretty close. My daughter asks me often to tell her the story of the Alamo (granted, not related to independence) and she's never even been to Texas.

I just looked up the oldest living Australians. A woman who died in 2002 was 114... which means she was 11 at the time of your independence in 1901. A conversation with her about this would have been awesome.

I also found this with regards to the former Australian Oath of Citizenship:
In 1994, the Keating Government replaced the oath with a Pledge of Commitment to Australia and removed the reference to the CrownFrom this time forward, [under God,]I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,whose democratic beliefs I share,whose rights and liberties I respect, andwhose laws I will uphold and obeyMaybe it's time for some more activism in Australia... your Constitution is the document that still requires members of Parliament to take and oath to the Queen.. it's not just your military. I can read what you're saying about "empty words" and "Australia comes first" (which I totally get from the average bloke), your whole Gov't still swears to the Crown. I don't see how you can dismiss that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_o...nce_(Australia)

This one is for Parliament:
I, (name) do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

Solid conversation here.

leboeuf

iTrader: (1)

This is a comically naive and untrue statement...

It cracks me up to see all of the "libertarian" bumper stickers in line to whatever military establishment I happen to be at for the week.
The most anti-government people I know work for (are) the government... idiots.

The NRA needs to pull its head out and actually get involved in regulation if they don't want fumbling democrats who've never touched a gun to write the laws.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

I've got a great idea for new legislation. How about none.

rleete

iTrader: (21)

All the parts were in place, and yet not a single one was acted upon. Taken together, they show gross incompetence in the Sheriff’s department, the school administration and staff.
The top guys should be fired at the minimum. I believe jail time would be more suitable, personally.

At any rate, the media and Dems will keep piling on, blaming everything except those who failed.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

I actually suspect that 2A, by second and third order effects, maintains equality in the country between military/police/citizens.

I think if we were to lose 2A, or the ability to equip ourselves with military-quality small arms, then as citizens, we necessarily shift our ideology away from "we can protect ourselves" to "the police and military must protect us". The ideological shift is not one that is immediate, but rather a shift that takes place over a generation or two. If that becomes the case, then we create a critical additional "need" for government - as in we literally need the government to keep us safe at night. The need for one group by another group creates an economic imbalance where the needy group places a significantly increasing value on the service provided by the needed group. The needed group, in exchange, can quickly gain a feeling of entitlement or superiority. After some generations, the military gains significant power and oversight in the government, first by small changes to laws which then become big changes in laws, and eventually the military becomes something that is no longer recognizable in it's current form, but rather becomes the 4th branch of an overarching government with power to pretty much do as they please.

The "take away their assault rifles and they'll stop shooting up schools" argument is a fallacy. The assault rifle is merely the weapon of choice - If we make a law to ban "assault" rifles, the weapon of choice merely becomes the 9mm pistol or the semi-automatic shotgun - what then? The killings don't stop - the kids are simply touring the schools with 9mm pistols, which by the way are far easier to conceal, far cheaper to practice on, far cheaper to acquire, and are far more deadly at distances generally encountered in a mass casualty event - you see, the argument to take away the "assault" rifles necessarily leads to the argument to ban "assault" pistols - and at what point does the government stop treating the symptom of the problem by taking away our rights and instead start focusing on treating the underlying disease?

If you took ibuprofen to treat appendicitis, pretty quickly that stops working, then you take percocet to do the same thing and that stops working, eventually you're taking fentanyl for end-of-life care instead of having the damn appendix removed - that's the situation we face with potential bans on whole classes of weaponry.

Lokiel

I'm a history nut and prefer my facts "Warts and All" so like to read/hear accounts from both sides where possible, you gain a far better understanding of events when you don't have a biased/sanitised viewpoint.

My take on the 2A was that it was intended to take into account that the US was a new/small nation and needed to be able to defend itself against foreign powers which they wouldn't be able to do then because they did not have a professional army. It also needed to allow small arms for the purpose of hunting and for defence against Native Americans, both needed at the time to survive.
This is not the case today (hunting for sport vs survival is the exception but why should you be allowed to own an assault rifle for that?).
The NRA interpretation of the 2A is nowhere near the original intent.

I know several US ex-pats now living in Australia and, like most Australians, they aren't paranoid about not being allowed to carry arms so that they can rise up against potential dictators and prefer that few civilians are actually armed.
Democracies are supposed to be "For the people, by the people." - if a government becomes unpopular enough it's ousted for a more preferable one.
Do US citizens really have so little faith in their democracy or armed forces?

Australia is not yet a republic, we're still part of the British Commonwealth so all all Government/Military oaths MUST give deference to the crown.

We are essentially independently governed but the Governor-General, a British appointee, does have the power to dismiss government ministers.
This actually happened in 1975 when Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was dismissed from office and caused such an uproar in Australia that it hasn't happened since despite the power still being available.

As I stated earlier, these oaths are largely "empty words", they exist because we're part of the British Commonwealth.

Don't get me started on the Republic debate though, I can't believe that we weren't a republic 20 years ago!
At one time being part of the British Commonwealth meant something.
Today it means very little given that the US is Australia's #1 military ally and Asia is our biggest trading partner, completely dwarfing the UK .
(We're really screwed when it comes to the US vs China power struggle, militarily we've always supported the US but economically China is our #1 trading partner by a long way).

I'm not a fan of arming teachers in the US but agree that guards should be available in schools to prevent shootings.
One solution that MIGHT work well is to have several soldiers or National Guardsmen actively patrol schools.
They will already have weapons training, are already being paid by the government, will probably enjoy short stints in schools as "something different", will be good for PR and improve respect for authority (ie. you don't mess with an armed soldier).

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

I am all for the idea of an armed guard at the school, but that isn't alone a "fix-all" solution. ONE guard or police officer on property will still have to go on lunch breaks, bathroom breaks, be on the other side of the campus when the shooting starts, etc. Two or more guards will be any number of places. I know from experience in the security industry that if a guard sits in a visible location that either A: they will be the first target, B: They will become complacent, or C: they will be given other stuff to do so they aren't just sitting around reading the paper or watching video. No officer can be on point 100% of the time.

So, you give them the job of roaming the campus. Eventually it will seem routine. They will congregate with other guards. They will flirt with a cute teacher. They will find a private place to hang out so they can be out of public view and not be the focus of attention. Then when the shooting starts, how do you guarantee they will run towards the trouble, especially if they are alone?

So you allow the teachers to be armed. Sure, they won't be as highly trained as a police officer or a (properly trained) armed guard. Sure, not every teacher will want that responsibility. Sure, they won't have body armor. But they will be with every 20 or thirty kids. They will be with kids they LOVE, and who they would do anything to protect. I obviously don't think it's a perfect solution. Kids and adults will always die. But maybe we can reduce the numbers.

Gee Emm

Thanks Sam for that considered and informative reply. The Australian constitutional position vis-a-vis the queen is complicated. She is legally and nominally head of state, but her powers are exercised by the Governor General (GG) who is appointed (by her) on the recommendation of the Prime Minister - the head of the government (the British government has no role to play, and any attempt to intervene would be massively counterproductive - Go the Australian Republic!!). The constitutional convention is that the GG MUST take the advice of the PM - he/she has no freedom to act. That also applies to the queen, both in respect to Australia and also GB. Kerr (GG) did sack Whitlam, that was a rogue act but without going into detail there were some grounds, and the opposition had assured Kerr that they had the numbers to govern until an election was called. Long story short - the queen is a titular figurehead, bit like swearing an oath on the bible. The consequences of both oaths are, to all intents and purposes, identical. Wording is different, result same. Go find an RAN exchange officer, and ask him/her if there is a difference. If they don't say they are serving the Australian people, through their chain of command and the Australian government, I will be amazed.

I take your point about the difference in the foundation of US and Australia - the revolution that shaped so much of the US has no counterpart here, and the psyche and laws that result likewise.

We (at least I) are aware of the nature of gun crime there. Given the general absence, or at least low levels by comparison, of gun crime here the spectacular numbers over there are of obvious newsworthy value, but the discussion generally only arises after a mass shooting event. My perception is that while the headline events grab attention, people are aware and appalled at the level of gun crime in the US. We are blessed here to have a number of Rupert's finest, so the 'right' story line will always get a run.

As to my gun experience, I am currently gunless since I handed in a semi-auto in the buy-back, but in my time I have shot various auto and semi-auto firearms, most recently an MP4 and a Glock. Fun, but nothing I feel a need for in any sense of that word. Nevertheless, I can empathise with you and the others who obviously enjoy the experience. I just can't empathise with your fear of your government though.

I would have thought, given the composition of the court, that your Supreme Court would nobble any serious trimming of 2A? And that it would require a succession of Dem presidents to change that?

As to people here who would die bearing arms against our own government rather than see it become something it wasn't meant to be. I can pretty much guarantee you that current and former members of the military will lead the charge, I find that statement a totally depressing commentary on the state of democracy in the US. It proposes mutiny in the services, from a serving member. It also seeks to legitimise the taking up of arms against the authorities for any grievance that the holder(s) carries, effectively a promulgation of a state of anarchy where anything goes and the rule of law is dispensed with. Not sure that this fits any model of democratic governance that I know about.

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

It wouldn't take much. (To simplify) Justice Ginsburg replaced by a lefty and one conservative judge retiring/replaced by a lefty would be all it would take.


Current oath of enlistment: Notice that you enlist with a responsibility to defend the Constitution. Not the government. Not the nation itself, but the values enshrined in the constitution. Any order given in violation of the constitution is not a lawful order, and thus can be disregarded.

The oath also recognizes that the threats can come from a domestic source as well.

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

I can sympathize with those that feel that "fighting the government" is not within the realm of rationality. I can understand how those from other nations can be completely awestruck and confused by our values. However, you have to understand where our mind was during the foundational period in our country. Wrong or not, these were the thoughts and fears of the people who set this whole system up. I would be surprised if there was such things written by Australian founders. Right or wrong, it's in our national DNA.

Some actual quotes by "important thinkers" during (or recent to) the founding of our country:

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

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

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

(and no, I didn't fact check them all, but the ones I did check came back as true)

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Leboeuf, you are absolutely correct. This issue is one that has the potential to swing our entire government makeup. I'm sure there are some very smart people being payed a lot of money to contemplate every scenario over the next few years and how the collective gun-rights groups will respond. Traditional tactics aren't going to work, but like in all politics, there has to be give/take on both sides.

Monks discussion points are ones that I hear floated from people who truly understand the issue from a legal perspective and are attempting to find a balance that voters will buy. At this point, laws that won't actually result in a change in statistics aren't going to pass muster. A federal firearms purchase card is a pretty damned good idea if you're not a "What part of shall-not-be-infringed" guy. A card that was somewhat hard to get initially, but was valid for a long-ish period of time and could be revoked electronically any time something new was added to the prohibited database. I could register within the system and anytime I wanted to buy or sell a gun, I could have a one-time-use code generated where my potential buyer or seller could verify that not only do I have my purchase card, but can real-time check the validity of the card at the time of the sale. You're not even giving people access to NICS in that case, you're just giving them the ability (with the persons permission) to verify that their card is still valid. Granted, this doesn't give the anti's the mass-registration of each serial number that they want, but for the pro-gun groups, it also doesn't really give the government any more information than they already have. Just make it a law that a buyer/seller must verify a sale through the system. Law abiding people will do it, criminals still won't. But it's political give and take that if implemented properly, will result in fewer prohibited people from accessing guns.

States coming together on CCW reciprocity is pretty ******* hopeless due to the quick turnovers in state government. I don't necessarily support federally mandated reciprocity because I'm a "states rights guy" at heart... but also because I fear that the compromise for many states to come onboard with will mean that there will become a crazy federal training requirement. Imagine if in order to get federal reciprocity passed, we all had to comply with New York or DC issue requirements... $400 worth of initial training, only able to carry what you qualify on, recurring training, caliber and capacity restrictions, etc... but it's what will be discussed behind closed doors.

I'm curious what you think the NRA's current interpretation of the 2A is?

Would you be willing to say that if James Madison and George Mason were here today in this thread, that they would say "Because the USA has a kick-*** army and plenty of grocery stores, it is no longer acceptable to take up arms against the government no matter how badly it's needed, and therefore civilians should only be allowed to own or have access to firearms under very specific circumstances as a hobby, and then only under the watchful eye of the government they fully trust. PS, nice job with the indians!"

You'll read all the stuff that Chiburbian posted (all the quotes) that very few Americans ever read, let alone foreigners. The actual verbiage of the 2A was a hotly contested topic within the state delegates when drafting the Bill of Rights. Some states wanted far more restrictive language, others wanted it to sound virtually unlimited. The 2A debate is an ongoing one, but there are only a very small number of constitutional scholars who have ever wavered from the traditional interpretation, and their arguments are always easily countered. This is because of the mass amounts of amplifying personal and professional documents the Founding Fathers published that gives the full back-story to the 2A that you would have to ignore to come to the conclusion that the 2A today means something different today than it did when written.

Completely agree.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

the us govt makes great policy in response to violence.

Lokiel

^
That certainly was a bizarre policy given that they didn't also intern Germans and Italians too.

In retrospect we consider this unfair treatment, but at the time I bet that most Americans supported this - I would have given how cruel the Japanese were and their belief in being a Superior Race.

Lokiel

While you can cite multiple quotes like these, and I'm actually impressed by your knowledge on the subject since I prefer to hear both sides of a story, no other country in the world has adopted anything like the 2A (except explicitly for national defence, like Switzerland).
Good ideas are always copied yet the 2A hasn't been copied anywhere else.
The unfortunate consequences of the 2A ensure that no other country will ever adopt it.

When there are more guns available in a society, there will be more gun crime - how can you argue that?
If you want your guns, you must accept the consequences too.

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

LOL, I can google. Plus I have read the Federalist Papers at some point in my past so I have some idea of what is there.

The rest of your points, maybe I will address but too busy to do so at the moment.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27440/what-percentage-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socia l&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

the government always makes the best policies. cause and effect is a myth. just like "trickle down"

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

how to be a victim:








someone must have said something bad about Hillary at the school:





for the annoying aussies here:

Chiburbian

iTrader: (1)

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

I went to High School in New Jersey, 1956 to 1960, which is now one of the most restrictive in the US. Before I could drive, we would take our guns to school on the buss and put them in unlocked lockers to either work on them in shop or go hunting after school. After I was old enough to drive, we would compare guns with our teachers at the trunks of our cars in the parking lot. Times have changed.