[TheForge] The most effort for the least results

[Andrew Vida]

On 12/24/2012 9:28 AM, wmullett at bright.net wrote:
> I think some people are missing the point here.  Where do you draw
> the line with the right to own guns according to the constitution?  -
> No limits?

	Precisely right.  No limits.
>
> What is the difference between handguns, rifles and shotguns vs
> RPG's, shoulder fired missiles, machine guns and other automatic
> weapons?  Obviously there is a big difference and we already
> recognize that. The latter are all weapons of war and all of them
> need to be restricted.

The SCOTUS disagrees.  In US v. Miller, the court ruled the precise 
opposite to what you have stated here, that ONLY military weapons were 
protected under the 2A.  Read the decision - it is all there in black 
and white.

In any event, the SCOTUS based that decision on a flawed argument.  In 
Heller and MacDonald, two decisions of more recent vintage, SCOTUS 
correctly ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was INDIVIDUAL and 
FUNDAMENTAL.  They them weasel-worded by incorrectly ruling that the 
right could be "regulated", which is almost certainly a load of 
bullshit, but cannot be determined for certain because they did not 
address the meaning of "regulate" in this context.  If they meant that 
regulation may be instituted pursuant to murder laws and the like, they 
may be on a track that is at least minimally invasive of fundamental 
human rights.  This should mean that one may be held accountable for 
murdering his neighbor, for example.

But if it means placing restrictions on the acquisition and bearing of 
arms, then they are completely wrong, but that is an argument for 
another day and another forum.

A FUNDAMENTAL right cannot be regulated in any manner whatsoever, save 
in response to the individual's violation of the rights of another. 
Prior-restraint is a great evil, as is presumptive evidence.
>
> Australia didn't put armed guards in every school.  Instead they
> severely limited the ability to own weapons.

And their rates of violent crime, including GUN crime, has gone through 
the roof.  In the first year, the rate of violent crime including murder 
rose 300% and has been climbing since.


> Their results are: “In
> the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun
> massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102
> deaths,”  “There have been none in that category since the Port
> Arthur laws.”

But all the rest of the violent crime has risen steadily.
>
> We need to put and end to this foolishness.

Correct.  We need to put an end to all "gun control".  Now.

I am glad we agree. :)