Obama statement on gun violence

[The Rabbi]

Don't be too sure. That's pretty close to what they did in Australia.

This aint Australia, mate.

[creeky]

This aint Australia, mate.

I wonder if the "Ozzies" who were gun owners said the same thing only a little different. "This isn't England!"

[Mike.357]

Are there ways for Australians to own guns?

[Guest SUNTZU]

You can get a permit for a rifle or shotgun I believe, depending on where you live. Not sure though.

[Marswolf]

Are there ways for Australians to own guns?

I'm going by what a moderator on another board has said, He's an Australian and works for the Federal Police and military there.

As I understand it, you can have bolt action rifles that are on an approved list. But you generally can't have a semi-automatic.

[The Rabbi]

I wonder if the "Ozzies" who were gun owners said the same thing only a little different. "This isn't England!"

No, probably not. The government set up is about the same in both places. In neither is there a RKBA in a written constitution.

[Marswolf]

No, probably not. The government set up is about the same in both places. In neither is there a RKBA in a written constitution.

Oh, you mean that living document?

[Mike.357]

that living document stuff pisses me off. Why can't people just read the words and abide by what they clearly say.

where did this living document stuff come from?

[DaveTN]

that living document stuff pisses me off. Why can't people just read the words and abide by what they clearly say.

where did this living document stuff come from?

It comes from change. Problems arise that our forefathers never even thought about. The courts interpret how the Constitution will be applied to those things. On some of the stuff they do a good job and on others; not so good.

<O:p</O:p

The second amendment is controversial because many would (and do) argue that is has nothing to do with you as an individual; if you read what it clearly states. Some day the SCOTUS will have to answer that very question. When they do it will be the final decision and the question will be answered once and for all. We aren’t going to like it.

Our forefathers put the Supreme Court of the Unites States in place and gave them the powers they have for a reason. They fear no one, they answer to no one…. Including the people.

<O:p</O:p

As gun owners I think we will do about as well as “the people†did on this ruling. If they are willing to let local government steal your land for the “good†of the community, do you think they will limit them in deciding if they want people carrying guns?

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.

[The Rabbi]

that living document stuff pisses me off. Why can't people just read the words and abide by what they clearly say.

where did this living document stuff come from?

It has always been this way. Anyone who thinks the Constitution has been consistently interpreted didnt pay attention to american history.

Where does it say a court can strike down laws as unconstitutional in the constitution? It doesn't. That came from Marbury v Madison soon after it was adopted.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

It comes from change. Problems arise that our forefathers never even thought about. The courts interpret how the Constitution will be applied to those things. On some of the stuff they do a good job and on others; not so good.

<o></o>

The second amendment is controversial because many would (and do) argue that is has nothing to do with you as an individual; if you read what it clearly states. Some day the SCOTUS will have to answer that very question. When they do it will be the final decision and the question will be answered once and for all. We aren’t going to like it.

Our forefathers put the Supreme Court of the Unites States in place and gave them the powers they have for a reason. They fear no one, they answer to no one…. Including the people.

<o></o>

As gun owners I think we will do about as well as “the people†did on this ruling. If they are willing to let local government steal your land for the “good†of the community, do you think they will limit them in deciding if they want people carrying guns?

One major difference though. There is no constitutional right to particular property. The only reference to that is the "unreasonable" search and seizure of property. If forced land sales "benefit the public", and the owner is compensated for the loss, you would have a hard argument of the seizure being "unreasonable". And there is due process in imminent domain.

As where the 2nd Amendment has no conditional words such as "reasonable" right to bear arms.

No guarantees from the SCOTUS, but you can't really predict rulings from unrelated matters

[towerclimber37]

I just read something about this on of arms and the law

He made a good point...the constitution doesn't give us a right to keep an bear arms, it RECOGNIZES our inalienable,

right to self preservation and defense. In other words, the 2nd amendment doesn't GIVE us anything...it recognizes our rights to carry arms in order to maintain a government that is subservient to the will of the people. You guys should give it a gander..it really changed the way I think about the 2nd amendment!

and before I get jumped on for the above statement, let me add that as long as I've lived, I've never needed a piece of parchment to tell me that I should seek my own safety or that its best to negotiate from a position of strength (vis a vis the government)

[Marswolf]

Tower, I've been trying to make that point for some time. If you don't have the right to defend yourself from being killed, the other rights don't mean much. And that right has nothing to do with words on a piece of paper.

It comes from change. Problems arise that our forefathers never even thought about.

This is exactly the situation. 2A was intended to provide a way to prevent a standing Army and allow the citizens to physically fight a repressive government. Neither is practical these days with the changed nature of the available weapons. Black powder cannons were the super-weapons of the 1780s.

I doubt it ever occurred to the Founding Fathers that you needed a clause in the Constitution to say that the people individually have a right to a means to protect themselves at least equal to what the thugs will use against them.

The proper solution is to amend the Constitution, not ignore it. In the case of 2A, I'm not sure that is possible.

[Guest HexHead]

The proper solution is to amend the Constitution, not ignore it. In the case of 2A, I'm not sure that is possible.

Wow, careful what you wish for. With the current secular-progressive climate in the country today, it's highly likely we wouldn't like an amended 2nd.

As for the 2nd being an individual right or not, it's inconceivable to me that the rest of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights would all be individual rights with just this one not.

[molonlabetn]

I just read something about this on of arms and the law

He made a good point...the constitution doesn't give us a right to keep an bear arms, it RECOGNIZES our inalienable,

right to self preservation and defense. In other words, the 2nd amendment doesn't GIVE us anything...it recognizes our rights to carry arms in order to maintain a government that is subservient to the will of the people. You guys should give it a gander..it really changed the way I think about the 2nd amendment!

and before I get jumped on for the above statement, let me add that as long as I've lived, I've never needed a piece of parchment to tell me that I should seek my own safety or that its best to negotiate from a position of strength (vis a vis the government)

Yes, thank you!

[Marswolf]

Wow, careful what you wish for. With the current secular-progressive climate in the country today, it's highly likely we wouldn't like an amended 2nd.

I totally agree. Maybe that living document isn't so bad????