Guns, Guns Guns

isaac_newton wrote:what puzzles me is that somehow the first bit of 2A seems to be passed over, as if of no significance...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...

Well, you know, "The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I found a winning argument in favor of gun control from someone who identifies with Segregationist Joe:

From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native
American tribes from acquiring firearms, passing laws forbidding the sale and trading of arms to
Indigenous people. See Order of Mass. General Court of 1648, reprinted in The Laws and
Liberties of Massachusetts 28 (Harvard Univ. Press 1929), TD Ex. 3; An Act to Prohibit the Selling
of Guns, Gunpowder or Other Warlike Stores to the Indians (1763), in 6 The Statutes at Large of
Pennsylvania From 1682 to 1801, at 319-20 (WM Stanley Ray 1899), TD Ex. 4; Act XXIII (1642),
1 William Waller Hening, The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia
From the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619, at 255 (1823), TD Ex. 5; An Act for Regulating the Indian Trade and Making It Safe to the Publick, No. 269, § 4 (1707), in 2 The
Statutes at Large of South Carolina 309, 310 (Thomas Cooper ed. 1837), TD Ex. 6. C

And if some old fashioned racism isn't enough, we've got some old fashioned religious bigotry to go with it:

And even after the English Bill of Rights established a right of the people to arm
themselves, the right was only given to Protestants, based on a continued belief that Catholics were
likely to engage in conduct that would harm themselves or others and upset the peace. See An Act for the Better Securing the Government by Disarming Papists and Reputed Papists, 1 William
& Mary, c. 15 (1688), TD Ex. 9. Virginia followed this example, passing an act in 1756 that
ordered the disarmament of all Catholics or “reputed Papists” who refused to take an oath of loyalty
to the colonial government.

Panzer wrote:I found a winning argument in favor of gun control from someone who identifies with Segregationist Joe:

What's the winning argument here, can you spell it out

This argument goes back to an argument made by Justice Scalia a few years ago in which he disconnected the bit about militias from the right to bear arms. A bit of a stretch, I think.

But he scarcely needed the argument. Americans have borne arms from the beginning, plus some court rulings. So Scalia could have ued all of this as precedent.

At the same time, Scalia did go on to reaffirm the right of government to ground rules in the interest public safety. So the argument goes on about what the ground rules are to be.

Don

-

As an Australian I have to announce that we have had a mass shooting. The two young police officers (male and female) who died were in a group of four visiting a remote rural property to do a welfare check, as relatives interstate hadn't heard from the residents for months.
The residents (two men and a woman who had been married to each at times) ambushed them (reported with a deer rifle and shotguns). After the first barrage the two surviving police escaped, a male in a car who was wounded, and a female who ran into the bush. They then lit a fire to try and smoke her out, where upon an elderly neighbour came over to check and was also shot dead.
It was dark by the time the SWOT team arrived, but as they approached the house they were shot at. Within minutes the three perpetrators were no more. NVGs, kevlar vests and assault rifles do matter.
Turns out none of the guns at the house were registered, and the people were preppies, claiming sovereign citizen rights, along with lots of conspiracy theories.
All four police were in their 20s, looked younger, fresh faced, slim and good people.
So even with our stringent laws nutters can still do bad things.

Daryl wrote:As an Australian I have to announce that we have had a mass shooting. The two young police officers (male and female) who died were in a group of four visiting a remote rural property to do a welfare check, as relatives interstate hadn't heard from the residents for months.
The residents (two men and a woman who had been married to each at times) ambushed them (reported with a deer rifle and shotguns). After the first barrage the two surviving police escaped, a male in a car who was wounded, and a female who ran into the bush. They then lit a fire to try and smoke her out, where upon an elderly neighbour came over to check and was also shot dead.
It was dark by the time the SWOT team arrived, but as they approached the house they were shot at. Within minutes the three perpetrators were no more. NVGs, kevlar vests and assault rifles do matter.
Turns out none of the guns at the house were registered, and the people were preppies, claiming sovereign citizen rights, along with lots of conspiracy theories.
All four police were in their 20s, looked younger, fresh faced, slim and good people.
So even with our stringent laws nutters can still do bad things.

Who are the stringent law nutters? Thanks for responding...

Don

-

Sorry, I missed a comma.
So, even with our stringent laws, nutters can still do bad things.

n7axw wrote:

Daryl wrote:As an Australian I have to announce that we have had a mass shooting. The two young police officers (male and female) who died were in a group of four visiting a remote rural property to do a welfare check, as relatives interstate hadn't heard from the residents for months.
The residents (two men and a woman who had been married to each at times) ambushed them (reported with a deer rifle and shotguns). After the first barrage the two surviving police escaped, a male in a car who was wounded, and a female who ran into the bush. They then lit a fire to try and smoke her out, where upon an elderly neighbour came over to check and was also shot dead.
It was dark by the time the SWOT team arrived, but as they approached the house they were shot at. Within minutes the three perpetrators were no more. NVGs, kevlar vests and assault rifles do matter.
Turns out none of the guns at the house were registered, and the people were preppies, claiming sovereign citizen rights, along with lots of conspiracy theories.
All four police were in their 20s, looked younger, fresh faced, slim and good people.
So even with our stringent laws nutters can still do bad things.

Who are the stringent law nutters? Thanks for responding...

Don

-

Sorry, I missed a comma.
So, even with our stringent laws, nutters can still do bad things.

n7axw wrote:

Daryl wrote:As an Australian I have to announce that we have had a mass shooting. The two young police officers (male and female) who died were in a group of four visiting a remote rural property to do a welfare check, as relatives interstate hadn't heard from the residents for months.
The residents (two men and a woman who had been married to each at times) ambushed them (reported with a deer rifle and shotguns). After the first barrage the two surviving police escaped, a male in a car who was wounded, and a female who ran into the bush. They then lit a fire to try and smoke her out, where upon an elderly neighbour came over to check and was also shot dead.
It was dark by the time the SWOT team arrived, but as they approached the house they were shot at. Within minutes the three perpetrators were no more. NVGs, kevlar vests and assault rifles do matter.
Turns out none of the guns at the house were registered, and the people were preppies, claiming sovereign citizen rights, along with lots of conspiracy theories.
All four police were in their 20s, looked younger, fresh faced, slim and good people.
So even with our stringent laws nutters can still do bad things.

Who are the stringent law nutters? Thanks for responding...

Don

-

Was there a political vector to it?

Don

_

Sorry Don. Just saw this. Not a political slant as per mainstream political parties. Our more stringent gun laws were brought in a couple of decades ago by the most conservative government we have had for a long time.
If you mean, were they "sovereign citizens" allied with other nutters (including in the US), then yes that is true.
They had six guns, three legal and three illegal. None semi auto though.
As an aside, I wonder as to how many claiming to be sovereign citizens have thought it through? In its purest form, it means an outlaw. With no assistance or protection from the organised government in the territory in which they live.

n7axw wrote:Was there a political vector to it?

Don

_