Thread: Primary Response

Originally Posted by artme

Paul and FF - My thoughts exactly!

As I said in my last post, this is fertile ground for another thread.

Apologies Arthur

When I read your post I thought you were alluding to that. "Settlement" being one of my hobby horses, I got carried away on a tide of emotion and forgot to acknowledge your comment.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by artme

Paul and FF - My thoughts exactly!

As I said in my last post, this is fertile ground for another thread.

Off you go then Art, set up a suitable theme.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Sure am glad they didn't have automatic weapons to use while it was still open season.

Brett

The effective difference between modern conventional guns and automatic weapons is probably similar to the disparity between the guns of the early 19th century and the weapons of the aborigines.

Enough on that. Material for another thread and another time .

Regards
Paul

Adam (ozhunter) and Gordon (devnull), your points seem to be aimed Australian gun owners and Australian gun laws, where we seem to have things pretty much under control. The same cannot be said for America, where the Government appears to be powerless against the NRA to enact any type of gun reform.

I'm sorry guys I can't see why you're defending the rights of these idiots, surely you can see that they have a huge problem in America. Please don't tell me that you think that their gun laws don't need amending. Sure, you can't completely eradicate a black market in illegal weapons, but that doesn't mean you can't at least try and make it extremely difficult for people to obtain them.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

We, as a country, had never had to fight a war to gain our independence, we have never had to fight a civil war between the states and we have never had to fight a war against the native populations as the US had to when expending the west.

My comments were not meant to start going of on a tangent about the settlement of our country but rather to point out the fundamental cultural differences between us that has guided their thinking.

The settling of the west was mainly by small groups of settlers setting out to obtain " Lebensraum" for themselves and armed with their rifles to protect themselves and becoming the series of Indian wars.

The other reason why we can't understand their gun culture is their different political structure of states and federal government compared to ours.

Whilst their states may make laws regulating sale and carrying of guns they cannot stop the citizens bearing arms as it's guaranteed by their federal constitution. Hence the only way is by way of constitutional reform.

After the constitutional reforms bringing about prohibition, when voters thought they were abolishing hard liquor, not wine and beer, but they were lied to by the government who instead banned all alcoholic drinks, this seems very unlikely.

The only thing we can be thankful for is that the gun lobby is not yet advocating that the right to bear arms could include having hand held bazookas and missiles to complete their arsenals.

Peter.

BTW Artme it's a bit rich becoming a spelling nazi when you keep on failing to use the letter "f" instead of the "ph" in your posts. A bit like the pot calling the kettle black or people that live in glass houses etc.

Thinking about it, change can happen. I know it's not the same but I never imagined that I would see smoke-free pubs and restaurants.
Let's hope for a year without children taking the brunt of senseless violence.

Originally Posted by jimbur

Thinking about it, change can happen. I know it's not the same but I never imagined that I would see smoke-free pubs and restaurants.
Let's hope for a year without children taking the brunt of senseless violence.

Yes all those stropy types who used to get up me for being a non smoker in the 1960s, being told "#### off outside with those things", and them doing it. Unbelievable.
Regards and all of the best for the new year

Sturdee,

I must apologise publicly for offending you.

It was not something I intended at all.

Kind regards, artme.

Am sending a PM.

Originally Posted by artme

Sturdee,

I must apologise publicly for offending you.

It was not something I intended at all.

Kind regards, artme.

Am sending a PM.

Thanks Artme, it did seem so much out of character. Everything is okay, I was more concerned about the thread going of in a tangent.

Been reading up on the history of the right to bear arms. It arose from the ancient right and duty of the knights and freeman in the 1100's in England as the king couldn't afford to pay for a standing army.

Charles II tried to take this away and then was restored by parliament and subsequently incorporated in the US Bill of Rights by the founding fathers who had recent memories of this act.

Because it's in their constitution there is this stumbling block for moving to a better society free of the terror of loonies shooting everyone.

In Australia this right came to us by common law and was subsequently removed/regulated by statute law.

Peter.

At the risk of going tangential this idea of of a republic and its constitutionally derived laws vs a democracy such as ours where the laws are derived from the parliament, is a most interesting one.

To our friends in the USA the constitution appears sacrosanct and one dare not try to interfere with it.

Originally Posted by artme

At the risk of going tangential this idea of of a republic and its constitutionally derived laws vs a democracy such as ours where the laws are derived from the parliament, is a most interesting one.

To our friends in the USA the constitution appears sacrosanct and one dare not try to interfere with it.

Not really true of course. Enough amendments to it have been made to show that it is a work in progress not set in stone. For most of us the most famous example was the eighteenth which was later repealed by the twenty-first. (prohibition).
ps. to be fair to Artme, the major proponents do act as if it is sacrosanct.