On 8/8/2019 9:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:23:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/8/2019 4:54 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 06:43:41 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 08:45:13 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:
Actually I have few complaints of much more stringent
gun laws that any
that you have stipulated so far. I am merely trying to
point out to a
very opinionated and generally ignorant of the subject
individual that
over simplistic laws are not very effective.
GovCo says that the Australian Laws have prevent any
further mass
shootings since the Port Arthur event. The result has
been to require
people wishing to use firearms to have a valid reason
undertake some firm
are education courses.
Now, we tend to have mtor vehciles as the weapon for
mass events.
But from your posts, I wonder if there are _any_ gun
laws you would not
consider "ludicrase" [sic].
I asked about the gun laws where you now live. You
seemed give data
indicating they work. Is it hell on earth living
under those laws?
Should we adopt them in the U.S.? Or are there others
that you would
propose?
Well, to apply Thai Gun laws to the U.S. would require
the removal of
the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, probably a
largely impossible
action.
Not So. The emphais would just need to shift towards
"well regulated" and
requirements for identity checks and and basic firearm
safety performance
could be enforced.
But doesn't the U.S. have a well regulated militia. I
had assumed that
was what the National Guard was/is. I think that they
even send them
overseas these days.
And if someone wants to play soldier, they should join
the National
Guard, an _actual_ well regulated militia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...National_Guard
According to that site, they have about 450,000 members.
But in the U.S.
there are close to 400 million privately owned guns.
I have no problem with guns used for hunting, but it's a
sure bet that
those are the minority of that 400 million. That means
hundreds of
firepower fetishers for every actual militia member.
Try reading the 2nd amendment in a calm and impartial
manner. It
doesn't state that a gun owner must be a member of a
militia in order
to own a firearm.
That's rather simplistic, since it was well over 200 years
before a conservative majority supreme court narrowly came
to the Heller decision.
Oh fer chrissake.
Read any contemporary materials of the Founders. The
militia are able bodied male citizens as a whole and yes
they damned well ought to be armed, practiced and organized.
In the case of the Colonies, officers were elected and
despite most of their time being spent scratching a living
from the earth, in an emergency they proved well up to
myriad challenges.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971