Senate Gun Control

The thing is that Australians love their guns and we are as a nation very accomplished in target shooting at both national and Olympic levels relative to our population but the big difference is the gun culture. We simply don't have this paranoia entrenched in our constitution that we must be armed in order to prevent a tyrannical dictator from seizing power and taking away all of our freedoms. Guns therefore are seen as a form of sport and recreation, whether that is shooting at targets or animals for hunting. So when a ban on semi-automatic and full automatic weapons took effect, it wasn't a big deal because those types of guns are not really used in those pursuits in any meaningful way and nobody, and I mean, nobody, has those types of guns sitting around the house for self defence anyway. There are plenty of guns in Australia and we still have gun deaths but we don't have the types of guns which are favoured by nutjobs in mass shootings in wide circulation any more. That is why we don't have mass shootings.

 

Yeah, I've said this before. I don't own a gun anymore but I've owned two - a Walther KK Match GX-1, and a PPK/S in 9mmS. I had them both when I lived with my parents and they were in a Class A safe bolted to the wall. The ammunition was stored in a separate safe in the garage. The Match GX-1 was my competition rifle, and I had the whole kit - left handed glove, canvas jacket, and leather shoulder strap that locked the rifle straight. I used to compete at school and then later, though I never beat my school score of 100.2.

My father still has a .22 bolt action, locked in that same bolted safe. The ammunition I think is in the garage..?

Point is, there's no thought about using it to defend against Communists, Daesh, or when scary black men (what, I'm totally not racist, it's just that blacks will do that) who want to steal a TV and the constitution.

 

The reason it's part of our culture is because of a relatively recent massive advertising and marketing campaign on the part of gun manufacturers to insist that this paranoia should be entrenched in our understanding of the constitution. 2nd amendment reeducation was a kind of capitalist realist cultural revolution of the late 20th century, much the same way eating at McDonald's at least once a week and becoming morbidly obese was enculturated.

 

Thing is, the Second Amendment doesn't say anything of the sort. That whole thing came from outside the Constitution and is more-or-less a lot more recent.

 

It does to the extent that the entire concept of a civilian militia is based upon the threat of a federal standing army and the fear that a federal standing army could be used by a tyrant to install tyranny. The rationale was debated at some lenght at the various conventions where the drafting was done. My understanding of the history of the wording of the second amendment comes mainly from reading the judgments in DC v Heller.

 

Eh, fear of standing armies was inherited from the English and before the 1700's they hadn't really been a thing in the West since Rome (and we know what Roman generals did with their armies). Militias were to defend against external threats-- namely the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, and Native Americans. The U.S. was the first European colony to achieve independence and the future was uncertain. The country was weak and unstable when the Constitution was drafted and is in fact the whole reason it was drafted. I know some Framers (Anti-Federalists) spouted rhetoric about protection from "tyranny," but I don't buy it as the primary reason for the Amendment.

 

Ok well I'll defer to your better understanding of it. Like I said my understanding is based primarily from reading DC v Heller and if you read that then you will see lots of quotes from the constitutional convention citing fears that a federal government with a federal standing army behind it might try and disarm the civilan militias and so the second amendment was drafted to appease those anti-federalists.

 

I haven't read Heller because I hate legalese, but I know the majority opinion in that case has got to be, uh, heavily biased in its citations.

 

All of the good stuff is in the dissenting opinion. The majority opinion was written by Scalia and it is nonsense.

 

Meanwhile, the 4th Circuit rules that Maryland's semi-auto ban should be subjected to strict scrutiny.

Here is the ruling.

 

Scalia's arguments are often anti-intellectual, indeed. Sometimes, history will value the dissenting opinion.

 

Did you actually read the decision?

 

I'm pretty sure he has, front to back. It's awful.

 

I enjoyed his temper tantrums vis - a - vis his Same - Sex dissent opinion.

 

Can we please not invite that discussion in here...

 

Scalia comes off like he needs to be put in a mental hospital. But I'd feel sorry for the other patients. He would be screaming and annoying them. He is, after all, to the left of Hitler.

 

Most people are to the left of Hitler, Nazism being an extreme right wing ideology. Ghandi would be to the left of Hitler.

 

Yeah I was a little unsure what the point of that analogy was. Is anyone to Hitler's right, save for Dick Cheney?

 

Sigh.

Texas Man Shoots Puppy that Pooped on His Lawn, is Met with Gunfire from Owner's Friend

 

Wow! That's insane. The poor dog!

 

The only time shooting somebody in revenge is acceptable.

 

I wasn't sure where to put this but I think this place is the most appropriate.

US Army reservist sues 'Muslim-free' gun range for asking him to leave.

So...this has been happening all too often. Is it the the ultimate proof that conceal carry is a white privilege?

 

Thanks for bringing that topic up. There is an element of racism in all this.

Meanwhile, Jeb Bush put out a picture of a gun to represent America. Sadly, the country has come to represent, for many, violence and murder. What a fool he is...

 

Such profound insight.