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.

--
- Frank Krygowski