Australian Gun Control into the Future

I voted status quo. I think the current legislative framework offers a good balance between what some might see as competing interests. As for criminal activity, that's another issue, I do believe that the hammer should come down really hard on criminals with firearms, both where the firearm is used in the commission of an offence and when it's black-market dealing.

 

SCOTUS' right to interpret was interpreted into existence by SCOTUS.

The bill of rights has been important only in its ability to inspire certain attitudes in the public. The public is the reason why guns aren't illegal in the US, the government couldn't care less. Government is just fine making up crap about the commerce clause authorizing them to stop guns in schools.

I do agree that it's better to have those rights explicitly listed than not, but it's much better to first of all strictly limit government powers and make different jurisdictions compete with one another, and secondly to maintain a strong love of freedom in the public.

 

There was no government conspiracy - this was a couple of paediatricians asking about safety in the home - and

 

Misquoting again????

Oh! It is OKAY then if it is "not my backyard" - gotcha!

It would also be nice if re repealed old age -after all THAT causes more death than guns and medications combined

Millions mate - remember no mass shootings since 1996

Also keep in mind that Australia thought up the whole idea of compulsory seat belts - and that has saved us millions

 

I don't want Australia's laws in your land - they would not work for you - you have to find your own path and with that comes the acknowledgment that it is not going to be easy - nor are you going to be 100% successful but you can (and in some degree already have) reduce the horrible injury and death toll

 

Who said anything about conspiracy? More power and control is what government always moves towards. In this country the only data that is Constitutionally approved is the Census but government tries other methods to gather data on citizens. Right now this government has gotten out of control collecting data. I am not talking about pediatricians but all doctors are being instructed to ask those questions that will be entered into a government database with our 'new' Obamacare.

 

Glad you feel that way.

Indeed, and statistically speaking the best way to do that is with a firearm. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?p=1063998467#post1063998467 Here. Read my OP there as I don't feel like running all the links up.
When you can refute those statistics and peer reviewed studies, I'll beat my guns into plowshares.

 

You're the one into implied powers dude. The courts interpreting the law is kind of a no brainer.

And its the bill of rights that keeps them from gaining a simple majority and passing whatever the hell they want. All these failed gun control pushes of obamas? They wouldn't have failed without the bill of rights. And that's a GOOD thing.
Again: Never said it was perfect. It requires vigilance and a willingness to act en masse that the american people have lacked for some time, hence th abuses you see.

In my opinion if you don't have both (explicit rights as well as implied, AND strictly laid out powers of government in separate spheres) it won't work at all.
I agree, love of liberty is essential. If the populace loses that we are lost.

 

Millions? Really? AUS had very few shootings to begin with and very, very few mass shootings. The reduction in total shootings is trivial compared to the increase in violent assaults, yet somehow AUS saved millions? You have some evidence for that claim?

 

What good is research and statistics when they are based on a logical fallacy?
'

 

Which fallacy would that be? Go ahead and make your case. As I said refute the stats and studies upon their merits if you think them bad. Show me your evidence.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...rds-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html

But even if it were a negative number in cost savings we would not care because it has saved lives

 

It has allegedly saved lives. Since there is no proven correlation between gun control and gun deaths except in suicide where the suicide rate does not change but gun use does how do you know it is not because of the better economic climate in Australia after 96? You don't, correlation does not imply causation.

 

Weak, very weak.

As you should know by now, suicide was unaffected by the gun laws - the suicide rate was decreasing before 1996 when the gun bans kicked in, and the trend was unaffected after the ban. Claiming a reduction in suicide as a benefit of the gun ban shows poor research (or simple dishonesty).

And claiming a reduction in gun deaths means AUS is safer also shows poor research. Violent crime in AUS went UP after the gun laws went into effect in 1996 - up >30% by 2001. What was the cost of those extra rapes, beatings, hospitalizations, disability, and loss of quality of life? For every decrease in homicide, AUS gained over 100 violent crimes.

What you mean is that YOU don't care. You did not pay the price for the gun ban. I'm sure those additional 1,000's who were raped, beaten, hospitalized, disfigured, disabled, have a very different opinion. They paid for your political bias and fear.


And I wonder, to you, how much is one life worth?

 

Love the way some people cling to debunked stories

They keep trotting out the same old same old myths that have been debunked more often than a sailor in a cyclone

 

I'm an anarchist, I'm not into any powers

That doesn't make it explicit. Judicial review is implied from the supremacy clause.

You have a system of enumerated powers. Any power not enumerated is reserved to the states and the people. The absence of an explicit rejection of the Fed's power to regulate firearms in the 2nd amendment doesn't magically give them that power. The government was never given the power to prohibit firearms in the first place, so from a purely legal perspective the majority of the bill of rights is tautological. I definitely agree that an explicit listing of rights inspires respect for those rights in the populace, and that's valuable - but it doesn't provide any additional legal protection.

Just look at Clinton's defense of the Gun-Free School Zones Act - that the Federal government has the power to regulate firearms in schools because education substantially affects interstate commerce. What utter nonsense. Not only did their completely warped and probably knowingly fallacious interpretation of the commerce clause fail to prevent such an argument - the 2nd amendment didn't even come into the discussion. The usefulness of explicit rights is highly debatable when the public doesn't entirely support those rights. The bill of rights is only a means to inspiring those liberal attitudes.

Yeah, it's a real shame the US is going the way it is. At least firearm liberty has made a comeback since the 1990s. The rest of your liberties not so much.

That's really my biggest beef with a bill of rights. It strengthens the rights you list, but weakens the remainder. Chances are, if there was no bill of rights then history would have been more concentrated on the limited powers of government listed in AIS8 rather than the extremely thin list of rights in the first 10 amendments. That was in fact one of the big disputes in the debate over the amendments among the founders.

 

Oi not into that my friend

There are indeed implied powers as well as explicit. Mostly the implied powers have an element of "well DUHHHH" to them.

Which is a longer way to say exactly what I said. Its useful, but meaningless if left unsupported. Its not a magic spell, its a law.

I gotta say without a list for the dumbasses to refer to (like a cheat sheet) it would already be much worse than it is. The problems arising now are because those same dumbasses the list was created for have stopped referring to it. Saw a study once where they quizzed random people on the streets of new york about the 1st amendments 5 provisions (free speech etc) and ad slogans (like "just do it"). Only 2% could name all 5. <<<< THAT is the problem right there.