MikeB4:

 

 

 

You love making unfounded sweeping statements.

 

So do you ^^^

See your comment about "Aotearoa" on the world map. I'm keen to see this world map of yours, care to point it out.

Wiggum:

 

MikeB4:

 

 

 

You love making unfounded sweeping statements.

 

 

So do you ^^^

 

See your comment about "Aotearoa" on the world map. I'm keen to see this world map of yours, care to point it out.

 

Aotearoa is those three islands plus extras situated to the east of Australia. It's easy to find.

MikeB4:

 

Wiggum:

 

MikeB4:

 

 

 

You love making unfounded sweeping statements.

 

 

So do you ^^^

 

See your comment about "Aotearoa" on the world map. I'm keen to see this world map of yours, care to point it out.

 

 

 

 

Aotearoa is those three islands plus extras situated to the east of Australia. It's easy to find.

 

I have never seen a world map with Aotearoa written on it.

Wiggum:

 

 

 

I have never seen a world map with Aotearoa written on it.

 

There you go...

Now back to the topic

MikeB4:

 

Wiggum:

 

 

 

I have never seen a world map with Aotearoa written on it.

 

 

There you go...

 

 

 

 

 

Now back to the topic

 

I don't entirely disagree with you, but in this instane, that isn't a world map, that is a map of New Zealand. If you asked 100 random world citizens where NZ was 50% could probably tell you. If you asked them where Aotearoa was, I'd be surprised if 3 could. 

That term is realtively commonplace in NZ, but it's exceptionally unheard of elsewhere. I'd be surprised if you randomly tested 100 Australians if any knew. Some might guess correctly. 

I clipped it.  I don't really want to get into a discussion on this not here, not now.

The US 2nd Amendment has been raised here. It is probably one of the most ambiguous pieces of writing that is held up in defence of murder. The US could do itself a huge service and get that amendment written again. There has been so many attempts at defining it the real intentions of the authors will never be known.   

An (old) friend of mine lives in Utah and fully supports that States very, very lenient gun laws. In fact he is so vocal and "macho" I no longer have much to do with him, or his loud mouthed wife. But most interestingly, they are also very anti-abortion and have been known to demonstrate outside abortion clinics. 

Double standards here I think.

networkn:

 

Wiggum:

 

 

 

Edit: SA is now basically a "gun free" society, yet gun crimes remain the worst in the world. All its done is disarm the innocent, who are now mostly unable to protect themselves. Good luck to any political party/president that tries to implement this in the US, it will be political suicide.

 

 

It's simple to find the fringe cases that prove the exception not the rule. 

 

I am sure that once upon a time, ending segregation or allowing gay marriage was considered equally suicidal, yet it's here now and the world is still spinning.

 

 

 

What are you going to do with all the gun owners that already have guns? take them away? 

You don't understand America if you think thats a good idea, it would probably lead to civil war 2.

MikeB4:

 

The US 2nd Amendment has been raised here. It is probably one of the most ambiguous pieces of writing that is held up in defence of murder. The US could do itself a huge service and get that amendment written again. There has been so many attempts at defining it the real intentions of the authors will never be known.   

 

Its not really, I don't think you know much about US history:

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

This quote from the late Col Jeff Cooper goes some way to explaining the fundamental importance of guns in the US.

"In the larger sense, however, the personal ownership of firearms is only secondarily a matter of defense against the criminal. Note the following from Thomas Jefferson: The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government. That is why our masters in Washington are so anxious to disarm us. They are not afraid of criminals. They are afraid of a populace which cannot be subdued by tyrants."

Another of his apposite comments

"Hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them."

Stan:

 

MikeB4:

 

The US 2nd Amendment has been raised here. It is probably one of the most ambiguous pieces of writing that is held up in defence of murder. The US could do itself a huge service and get that amendment written again. There has been so many attempts at defining it the real intentions of the authors will never be known.   

 

 

Its not really, I don't think you know much about US history:

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 

Note the commas.   Lets see what the founding fathers say:    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"- Samuel Adams 1788   "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed" -Thomas Jefferson (letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824)   "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense" - Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers, NO.28   "The Laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man"-Thomas Jefferson Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1774-1776   "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them" George Mason Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution 1788    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" -Thomas Jefferson Virginia Constitution Draft 1 1776   Just to be clear there are alot more of these quotes.   Also they didn't just have muskets in those times (pepper box revolvers?) and expressly let private companies put cannons on there boats (there are letters to prove that). To me its fairly clean cut, the "founding fathers" where gun nuts of there time.

WOW you make that assessment from two lines. I better get my learning reassessed 

The 2nd amendment has been debated for decades but you know better.

MikeB4:

 

Stan:

 

MikeB4:

 

The US 2nd Amendment has been raised here. It is probably one of the most ambiguous pieces of writing that is held up in defence of murder. The US could do itself a huge service and get that amendment written again. There has been so many attempts at defining it the real intentions of the authors will never be known.   

 

 

Its not really, I don't think you know much about US history:

 

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

 

Note the commas.   Lets see what the founding fathers say:    "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"- Samuel Adams 1788   "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed" -Thomas Jefferson (letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824)   "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense" - Alexander Hamilton Federalist Papers, NO.28   "The Laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man"-Thomas Jefferson Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1774-1776   "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them" George Mason Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution 1788    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms" -Thomas Jefferson Virginia Constitution Draft 1 1776   Just to be clear there are alot more of these quotes.   Also they didn't just have muskets in those times (pepper box revolvers?) and expressly let private companies put cannons on there boats (there are letters to prove that). To me its fairly clean cut, the "founding fathers" where gun nuts of there time.

 

WOW you make that assessment from two lines. I better get my learning reassessed 

 

The 2nd amendment has been debated for decades but you know better.

 

I was refuting the point you made I am sorry if that offended you. Do you not think thats concise enough evidence?

kingdragonfly: When the constitution was written, including the second amendment, there was still a real threat of foreign invasion.

Also long rifles of the time fired at a rate of fire of about a shot every 30 seconds.

Shortly after the constitution was written, 1787, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants.

So quoting the founding fathers is similar to quoting the Bible regarding the use of cameras: not exactly a firm foundation.

Exactly the point I've been making. 

Copyright laws had to be rewritten to take into account new technologies, Gun Laws should as well. The problem is, laws only get changed when the impact is *money*.