Finally!

A just decision by the Supreme Court.

The right to keep and bear arms, is an individual right, without regard to any type of membership in any militia.

What say you gun grabbers now?

Fr_Chuck

I am sorry, someone comming up to my car, I have no idea if they are armed or not armed, and after finding out you were wrong they are armed is not the time to say, oh, wish I had my gun with me.

Gerogia has just passed,and it goes into effect July 1st, that we can now carry our weapons on the mass transit, bus, subway and into state parks. Not that I had not carried mine all the time anyway, but at least now they are allowing them into some of the places where they know there is often no fast escape and where crime is more likely to happen.

Skell

Arrghhh. That phony argument Elliot used to use against me all the time in gun debates. Oh i wish he was here to see his number one off-sider disagreeing with him!!

http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politic...tml#post675348

There are lots of statistics in the above thread that will diasgree with the notion that an armed society is a polite one.

purplewings

I think there are even more threads above that will agree with that notion.

tomder55

Skell perhaps in Aussie there are no individual rights to own guns but our founders thought it important enough to make it the 2nd amendment in our Bill of Rights next to free speech. I suspect it is the historical difference between the two countries where the USA had to fight for it's independence ;compared to the debate I've read about there where you still have significant numbers of people who embrace the crown.

However it looks like the debate has been renewed as more and more Aussies join in the call to create a republic free of the shackles of the Queen .

“The time has come for Australia to become a republic. The old way of governing has long been creaking and groaning.’’
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd , from speech at 2020 Summit, April 2008

ScottGem

So you would be willing to kill someone on the suspicion that they were armed?

Thanks again for proving my point. This shoot first and ask questions later attitude is precisely the reason why arming the general population is a dangerous thing to do.

Wildsporty

We have a large influx of gang members and an extremely bad drug problem with Meth and Cocaine in our area along with other things.

The citizens here are totally fed up with it and we are starting to stand up for ourselves. We have had axe murders, home invasions, people being attacked and murdered just going for a walk on our greenbelt, rapes, kidnapping, people being killed in our national forest campgrounds and the list goes on. The crimes are very violent, very horrible in nature and we can't just stand by like lambs and hope it goes away! It is not going away.

I have lived in this area most of my life, I was here first, these people coming into our area and bringing violence with them can just go back where they came from or somewhere where the people that don't believe in guns for protection live.

Our policemen are doing their best, but it is a huge area and much of it is rural and they just can't be everywhere. It is different here than in some larger cities where everyone is all in the same area. We have even had policemen shot and killed.

It is hard for us that have lived here a long time, grew up and went to school here. We used to have 30,000 people, now we are closer to 90,000 people and it is getting very scary. The axe murder was 3 houses down and a block over in my subdivision. A cop was shot 3 blocks down the other direction.

Sorry, but I really feel like my gun needs to be loaded and accessible at all times. If someone breaks into my home I am not going down without a fight! There is a very large percentage of the population in the Pacific Northwest that feel the same way and we just refuse to allow the criminals to walk on us and to take over everything we have worked to own. You can't have our neighborhood and you can't have our guns.

I hope the Supreme Court keeps on protecting the freedom's of the average citizen because someone has to.

Shirley

Skell

I agree with you Tom. Your gun culture is definitely ingrained in your psyche seemingly for historical reasons first and foremost.

For the record I'm one of those people who cant wait for the day Australia becomes a republic. Most people do. Not that the Queen really plays any part whatsoever in our governance.

WVHiflyer

"Gun culture"? What a loaded term used almost only by those who don't understand the idea of maintaining the ability to protect oneself, not to mention the challenge of sport shooting (that's targets). The police not only can't be everywhere, they don't even have a duty to protect you (no matter what many display as 'mottos') - the Supreme Court acknowledged that. So self defense is againing ground as the natural right it is. More states are passing Castle Defense laws all the time which overrule those nonsense laws that said your first duty is to run away cuz if you injure your attacker you might be charged or he might sue you.

Our so-called gun culture is based on individual liberty and self reliance that historically came with settling this nation. (Tho we do owe an apology to the 'original founding fathers', the Native Americans)

progunr

[quote=ScottGem]And you really think that woman was justified in shooting?? /QUOTE]

Yep! I do.

She was under attack, by an outraged idiot, two to three times her size, obviously intending to do her bodily harm. Totally justified in defending herself.

[quote=ScottGem]All she had to do is roll up her windows and lock the doors./QUOTE]

If you had seen the size of this guy, how angry he was, and how aggressive his behavior was, I can guarantee you that YOU would have had no false belief that your window was going to protect you from him, in even the slightest way.

I guess by your reply, you would have sat there and gotten knocked out again, or worse, again, those are your rights, to make those decisions regarding your own safety.

I, along with many others, choose not to be a willing victim of any criminal attack.

[quote=ScottGem]What if she had mortally wounded him? Would that have been justified?/QUOTE]

Another YEP!!

He would have gotten exactly what he was asking for, and no one else would ever have to worry about being attacked again by this uncontrolled maniac.

[quote=ScottGem]You really think, even a highly trained shooter would have been able to draw his weapon and kill the two and maybe all 4 before one of them was able to get off a shot killing him?/QUOTE]

Actually, yes, I know that I easily could have disposed of the two armed assailants. Fact is, one clean shot, in most cases, would be enough to send the others running for their lives, since they already have the mind set that what they are doing is WRONG!! Sadly, if they didn't run, the body count could be higher, and yes, there is always the possibility that I could be one of them.

The night manager, had no way of knowing, if he would live or die, for the entire 20 minutes he lay on the floor, totally helpless. You know some criminals don't leave witnesses to identify them, in the event that they are captured later.

I would rather die, fighting for my life, or the lives of those I love and care about, than to die as a coward, allowing the criminal element to have their way with no resistance.

I refuse to be a willing victim, period.

It all comes down to choice.

NeedKarma

I guess the scary part to us outsiders is the shear number of people you have to protect yourself from in the US.