Your comment is interesting Tom - Australians are generally, not a paranoid country, but very cynical, and certainly don't trust politicians or governments. Our politicians get hauled over the coals if they use their government car outside of work hours.
Britain has the House of Lords, if one has 'old money', and a title, they get into parliament and have a vote.
Not so, in Australia. We were founded on the backs of convicts, and do not trust anyone 'in power'. During early wars, World War !, people of nobility from England of course, and private school educated, went straight into positions of power in the Army - and they were shite. These so called educated people sent to the deaths thousands of Australian and New Zealanders, and was never forgotten. Australian soldiers mutineerd in their hundreds, and overthrew said people in charge. That is the Australian way. Nobody is better than anybody else, that is inbuilt. We certainly have people here, who think they are born to rule - doesn't work. We have terms like 'up themelves' etc. etc.
We have our royalists here, who luv the monarchy. The queen used to rule over Australia, but now is just a figurehead, and hopefully that will also go soon, and just become a tourist attraction.
Austalians are also lazy, but when push comes to shove, will rally to protect it's citizens. Our government is too stupid to turn on it's people. Your history is different. Australia has been invaded twice, first by the English, second the Japanese had a go at taking over during the second World War, but failed. No civil war, and I think that makes a huge difference.
There are perceived 'classes' of people here, but in the washup, we don't look up to, or revere, or tug our forlocks for anybody. We have respect for people of substance, of intellect.
Having guns here, would be a travesty - totally different mind frame.
For Tom Sarbeck
"Rob, you perhaps see gun ownership as a privilege.
The courts see it, and will continue to see it, as a constitutionally-protected right."
Recall I was referring to militias protecting our country... When was the last time we depended upon militias as opposed to a standing army to protect our Nation..?
And after that if you could perhaps not attempt to appeal to authority, that would be great. Also, it's not unheard of for the courts (even the SCOTUS) to overturn their past decisions..so, yea. I wouldn't hold on to that. Also, it specifically says in the first 4 words... "A well-regulated militia".. Nothing at all about private gun ownership..
I hope you accept state National Guard units as modern day well-regulated militias. Many members of same went multiple times to our recent wars. Whether these wars protected our country can be doubted.
My appeal to authority? Instead, see it as an appeal to power.
SCOTUS dealt with those first four words in the Heller ruling several years ago.
I've read it. If you read it, you'll see its take on those four words.
The court has the jailhouse keys, and so has both authority and power.
You're free to disagree. Will your disagreeing result in jail house time?
"Perhaps free speech, too, has become more a privilege than a right, along with freedom of/from religion?"
This thread isn't about those, so please stay on topic and don't confuse the issue at hand. For the record I stand by the 1st Amendment 100%.. nothing has happen since the writing of it for it to no longer be valid. Whereas with the 2nd Amendment.. when we stopped relying on militias for the nation's defense that's when it became obsolete.
@SteveinCo - I don't know nor care what guns are available, I don't know nor care if machine guns are available or not - we, on the outside of your great country, see the results of disenfranchised people shooting up the place, shooting people minding their business. If you don't find that scary, good for you. I know Americans have the perception they are the only country, or the most important country, on the planet.
We get a lot of your American news shows, even here, can you believe that?
Your news is our news, the reports on who the latest killed and where, is with us in minutes. I, on the outside have to take notice of what is going on in America, as politicians of all persuasions, suck up to the incumbant President.
So, why are you so snippy. Why does what I think matter?
The perceived threat of taking away your favourite toy, and the ensuing tantrum, the fact that someone outside of your country has the audacity to comment on how there should be some sort of gun control. Can't have that.
I am an outsider. who thinks your guns laws would be funny, and the debate of what the 2nd amendment really means, just like the bible, put your own spin on it, that is a real hoot, if people minding their own business, were not also killed.
If our gun laws change, in line with America, innocent people, would be murdered, just like in America.
I don't want your gun laws here, we had a Prime Minister with the balls to do a buy back of guns in suburbia. Farmers have their guns, hunters have their guns, as they should. Criminals get illegal weapons, and really like to shoot each other. Not a problem. But, I guess, Americans must support the gun trade, as so many are made in America.
The following is an interesting read -
But also remember, you can swap unwanted guns for an Amazon gift card.
'Records show that the Thurston County Drug Task Force sold a Norinco SKS military-style rifle and a Romarm AK-47 in a batch of 44 guns traded with a firearms dealer.
- The Kitsap County Sheriff’s office sold an Intratec 9mm, which used to be on the list of assault weapons banned in the United States. - WSP sold an “Interordinance (sic.), assault rifle w/scope and case and 2 magazines” and an “SKS, assualt (sic.) rifle.” WSP said it does not distinguish between firearms when it puts its crime guns out for bid.
It is a mind frame - just like religion. But have no fear, theists are not going to disappear, nor are your precious guns.
Suzanne, your assignment is to search on "scotus heller decision" (google and bing both work).
If you choose the link to Cornell University you can select either PDF or HTML.
You are to read the decision (as I did) and present more informed if equally passionate views on what guides policy in what is perhaps the world's most violent nation.
That is, if you haven't already.
@Heather - That could well be the reason - too bloody cold in Canada, too bloody hot in Australia. Die from freezing or heat stroke :)
Or stay in the US of A and die from gunfire?
@Gregg - As long as you don't bring a gun, you will be most welcome :)
No worries Mate, if I need one I'll pick one up when I get there, black markets exist everywhere. :)
@Gallups Mirror - Interesting link - I especially liked the last item.
#10) Every year, one out of every five people is a victim of a crime in the United States. No other nation on earth has a rate that is higher.
Of course, there are other countries that are a cot case of violence - but America puts itself on the pinnacle of what is 'Right', what a law abiding christian country it is,that is where the problem starts.
"But restricting guns tends to restrict them among the law abiding citizens far more than among the lawbreaking segment of society. One has only to look at the tight control of addictive drugs to see how well that would work."
Does demanding a licence to drive a car or tax on gas restrict driving and car ownership by law-abiding citizens? Perhaps a bit, but we can probably agree that a car is a potentially dangerous machine, and proving to the state that you can handle one safely before you can legally drive it is hardly something you would fight against. So why look to drugs, which, unlike guns, tend to be addictive and mind altering, when a car is a much more apt comparison.
"Sure, fewer guns would mean fewer accidental discharges, a few crime of passion shootings, and some suicides, though many of the crimes of passion and suicides would simply become deaths by other means."
I see you conceded the point, but did not care to understand it. Fewer weapons, as understood as stricter requirements for gun owners, is correlated with a lower rate of crime. "Many" will not find other ways of killing, obviously, though some will. The US has an intentional homocide rate of around 5 per 100k, most with guns, other Western countries have around 0.5-1.5, mostly not with guns.
"but is strictly limiting guns to save for a few accidental discharges worth banning guns entirely?"
I would say that requiring 2 lockboxes, one for the weapon and another for the bolt, hardly qualifies as "strictly limiting", or that being required to be member of a shooting range and have a gun licence qualifies either.
"And don't give me the "if it saves one life" argument."
Perish the thought. I'm an economist and I prefer placing dollar values on peoples lives and see if something is socio-economically profitable. Lets say restrictions place a cost $1bn per year, but save 10.000 dead and wounded whose lives are valued at $100k per year for society, then I would be indifferent to such restrictions. As should you.
"I'll leave it to use to disprove it, since it seems commonsensical."
Compare and contrast, both nationally and internationally. Western countries tend to have strict rules, and low murder rates, the Northeastern US tend to have stricter rules, and lower murder rates.
"I'd ask you to offer that disdainful sort of commentary at the next Veterans of Foreign Wars convention if you believe it so sincerely."
I could ask you to lecture Russians and Chinese about their Jingoism in their next veterans meeting too and see how that would turn out, but I hardly think it would matter, on the whole, for neither you, them, or their fervent nationalism. The downside of being powerful is that you end up sullying yourself, which should be met with reflection, not cries for "by Jingo!"