He's correct. My choice for punishing gun control freaks is by shunning them. Their ideas should be ignored by anyone in the legislatures of this land. The executives should submit nothing promoting gun control and drag their feet in enforcing existing laws. Courts should rule gun control unconstitutional. The people should come out in mass protests against gun control.
It's a piece by John Howard about how they did the gun ban in Oz, and how that model could be followed here as an attempt at respecting gun ownership while controlling "assault weapons."
I bring it up here because it is an example of one reason we get nervous when Australia, Great Britain. The money quote that makes me nervous is this:
"Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control."
When gun control proponents go on about the Second Amendment being a historical anachronism and therefore void, I remonstrate as forcefully as I do because I know that we have people in this country who either hold a view like Mr. Howard's, or hold views that other rights are anachronistic in the modern era--e.g. privacy in the "War on Terror."
Our Bill of Rights is one of the best things about our system of government, and it needs to be respected and protected. It sets us apart from all of the other countries around the world. I'm not saying we're better in everything than the rest of the world, but we ARE the only place that protects as many rights as we do with as much vigor as we do. E.g. No state interference in the church like in England (I admit it's minimal in England now, but the Queen is still head of the church); best protection from illegal search and siezure (though that's eroding); most protection of speech; and so long as they have the intestinal fortitude to do it, our courts can rein in the government when it overreaches--something Mr. Howard specifically dislikes.
Just imagine the Civil Rights movement without the courts being able to overturn racist laws? We'd probably have wound up in racial civil war and a situation that looked more like South Africa with its astronomical murder rate and severe, ongoing racial strife.
It's telling how the former prime minister of Australia informs us how different his country is from ours, but then suggests that we do the same thing that he did. Foreign nations always want to lecture us, until they need us to help them. Leaders like this praise how easy it was for them to infringe on the rights of their people and feel threatened by how our leaders are restrained from doing that.
In accordance with the proposals of the Prime Minister (and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient) John Howard, all Australian States adopted measures requiring the licencing and registration of all firearms and the (almost total) prohibition of semiautomatic and pump action rifles and shotguns, and the requirement for the demonstration of a legitimate reason (for shotguns and rimfire rifles) or a genuine need (for centerfire rifles and all handguns) for the issuance of a licence. Due to weapons amnesties, there have been few instances of armed insubordination.
A better alternative to the prohibition (or regulations which would effectively achieve such) on certain forms of arms (such as another silly "Assault Weapons" Ban would be the mandatory licencing of all gun owners (a single licence which would also authorize carry) which would be issued to anyone who would meet basic qualifications (and therefore be consistent with the current interpretation of the Second Amendment). In addition, high risk groups (such as certain misdemeanants, persons on government watchlists and anyone under the age of 21 or possibly 25) should be completely barred from the possession of arms. Penalties for the illicit possession of arms ought to be more stringent (up to Life without the possibility of parole) and the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (not simply unlicensed) should be prosecuted with strict liability.
With reference to Tennessean's opinion on the social ramifications of individual legal rights,
I believe that it is inevitable that Constitutional rights will either be superseded by, or limited by the establishment of Constitutionally mandated positive liberties or obligations which the State must ensure of it's citizens. The Bill of Rights will be limited and defined by a "Bill of Obligations".
It looks like someone (E.N.) is quoting me without asking....
I posted previously:
"The Constitutional Framers established a Republican system of government, rather than entrusting public policy to the idiocy of the masses. Instead of wasting valuable time debating the merits of a wholly useless "Assault Weapon Ban", effort should be spent to draft legislation (for the sole purpose of introduction to a future Congress) requiring the Licencing of the owners of all functional weapons (based on the FOID system of Illinois) which would be issued to anyone who would qualify and would be inclusive of carry. In addition, high risk groups (such as certain misdemeanants, persons on government watchlists and anyone under the age of 21 or possibly 25) should be completely barred from the possession of arms. Penalties for the illicit possession of arms ought to be more stringent (up to Life without the possibility of parole) and the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (not simply unlicensed) should be prosecuted with strict liability."
Ian, so far as I can tell, you are E.N. You make the same points that he makes, and you make the same errors (putting an apostrophe in the possessive pronoun "its," for example) that he makes.
Preposterous. I recognize the existence of individual rights. Although I do believe that rights may be regulated to some extent. Of what significance is my spelling errors?
It's clear from the way I write who I am. It's also clear that I'm not BIGBUBBA. You, on the other hand, express ideas in line with E.N. This is a favorite trick of his, to proliferate sockpuppets who diverge in minor details but adhere to his main theme. His goal is to make his inane ideas appear to have support.
I agree. We need to improve the mental health system. Let's start by placing this crazy (and his ilk) in a padded wall cell.
ReplyDeleteHe's correct. My choice for punishing gun control freaks is by shunning them. Their ideas should be ignored by anyone in the legislatures of this land. The executives should submit nothing promoting gun control and drag their feet in enforcing existing laws. Courts should rule gun control unconstitutional. The people should come out in mass protests against gun control.
ReplyDeleteI'm so relieved that's what you took from this nut. I thought he meant we should be hurt physically, maybe shot if our offense is serious enough.
DeletePutting politicians who favor gun control on trial for treason would also be acceptable.
Delete"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Not related to this video, but someone just sent me this article:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?smid=tw-share&_r=4&
It's a piece by John Howard about how they did the gun ban in Oz, and how that model could be followed here as an attempt at respecting gun ownership while controlling "assault weapons."
I bring it up here because it is an example of one reason we get nervous when Australia, Great Britain. The money quote that makes me nervous is this:
"Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control."
When gun control proponents go on about the Second Amendment being a historical anachronism and therefore void, I remonstrate as forcefully as I do because I know that we have people in this country who either hold a view like Mr. Howard's, or hold views that other rights are anachronistic in the modern era--e.g. privacy in the "War on Terror."
Our Bill of Rights is one of the best things about our system of government, and it needs to be respected and protected. It sets us apart from all of the other countries around the world. I'm not saying we're better in everything than the rest of the world, but we ARE the only place that protects as many rights as we do with as much vigor as we do. E.g. No state interference in the church like in England (I admit it's minimal in England now, but the Queen is still head of the church); best protection from illegal search and siezure (though that's eroding); most protection of speech; and so long as they have the intestinal fortitude to do it, our courts can rein in the government when it overreaches--something Mr. Howard specifically dislikes.
Just imagine the Civil Rights movement without the courts being able to overturn racist laws? We'd probably have wound up in racial civil war and a situation that looked more like South Africa with its astronomical murder rate and severe, ongoing racial strife.
It's telling how the former prime minister of Australia informs us how different his country is from ours, but then suggests that we do the same thing that he did. Foreign nations always want to lecture us, until they need us to help them. Leaders like this praise how easy it was for them to infringe on the rights of their people and feel threatened by how our leaders are restrained from doing that.
DeleteIn accordance with the proposals of the Prime Minister (and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient) John Howard, all Australian States adopted measures requiring the licencing and registration of all firearms and the (almost total) prohibition of semiautomatic and pump action rifles and shotguns, and the requirement for the demonstration of a legitimate reason (for shotguns and rimfire rifles) or a genuine need (for centerfire rifles and all handguns) for the issuance of a licence. Due to weapons amnesties, there have been few instances of armed insubordination.
DeleteA better alternative to the prohibition (or regulations which would effectively achieve such) on certain forms of arms (such as another silly "Assault Weapons" Ban would be the mandatory licencing of all gun owners (a single licence which would also authorize carry) which would be issued to anyone who would meet basic qualifications (and therefore be consistent with the current interpretation of the Second Amendment). In addition, high risk groups (such as certain misdemeanants, persons on government watchlists and anyone under the age of 21 or possibly 25) should be completely barred from the possession of arms. Penalties for the illicit possession of arms ought to be more stringent (up to Life without the possibility of parole) and the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (not simply unlicensed) should be prosecuted with strict liability.
With reference to Tennessean's opinion on the social ramifications of individual legal rights,
DeleteI believe that it is inevitable that Constitutional rights will either be superseded by, or limited by the establishment of Constitutionally mandated positive liberties or obligations which the State must ensure of it's citizens. The Bill of Rights will be limited and defined by a "Bill of Obligations".
It looks like someone (E.N.) is quoting me without asking....
DeleteI posted previously:
"The Constitutional Framers established a Republican system of government, rather than entrusting public policy to the idiocy of the masses. Instead of wasting valuable time debating the merits of a wholly useless "Assault Weapon Ban", effort should be spent to draft legislation (for the sole purpose of introduction to a future Congress) requiring the Licencing of the owners of all functional weapons (based on the FOID system of Illinois) which would be issued to anyone who would qualify and would be inclusive of carry. In addition, high risk groups (such as certain misdemeanants, persons on government watchlists and anyone under the age of 21 or possibly 25) should be completely barred from the possession of arms. Penalties for the illicit possession of arms ought to be more stringent (up to Life without the possibility of parole) and the possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (not simply unlicensed) should be prosecuted with strict liability."
Ian, so far as I can tell, you are E.N. You make the same points that he makes, and you make the same errors (putting an apostrophe in the possessive pronoun "its," for example) that he makes.
DeletePreposterous. I recognize the existence of individual rights. Although I do believe that rights may be regulated to some extent. Of what significance is my spelling errors?
DeleteIf I am E.N. the you are "BIGBUBBA"
It's clear from the way I write who I am. It's also clear that I'm not BIGBUBBA. You, on the other hand, express ideas in line with E.N. This is a favorite trick of his, to proliferate sockpuppets who diverge in minor details but adhere to his main theme. His goal is to make his inane ideas appear to have support.
DeleteLet's get back to the punishing of gun controllers, shall we?
DeleteWorks for me.
DeleteYou want to get back to being punished?
DeleteI'm sorry Mike, but I'm not into all the whips and chains...you'll have to find someone else who's into that kind of kink.
Wow. This guy is stark raving nuts.
ReplyDeleteWhat a fucking lunatic.
ReplyDelete