Shooting in Australia
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-10-2015, 08:56 AM
RE: Shooting in Australia
(03-10-2015 08:51 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(03-10-2015 08:49 AM)yakherder Wrote:  If it comes down to it, I can live with that.

... Anarchy in the USA huh?

Not my first choice. And it's not anarchy, it's the most armed group being in defacto control, as it's always been. Hence the reason the people should ideally be better armed than the government if they value their sovereignty.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like yakherder's post
03-10-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: Shooting in Australia
(03-10-2015 05:36 AM)yakherder Wrote:  [...]and many have already pledged to refuse to enforce federal regulations.[...]

Throw 'em in the brig when they violate their oath, then. A lawful order must be followed -- period.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: Shooting in Australia
(02-10-2015 11:42 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 11:30 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Are you trying to tell me that people who would break the law by killing people might also break laws against possessing firearms?

Not sure if sarcasm or not at this point.

Of course I'm being sarcastic, but there's a kernel of truth in there, given that by definition criminals disregard laws.

Morondog's point is fair -- gun laws give the police a hook on which to hang someone, sometimes before they've committed any murder -- but given the numbers of guns and the numbers of criminals here in America, passing laws will do precious little for the foreseeable future.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
03-10-2015, 11:21 AM
RE: Shooting in Australia
(03-10-2015 10:25 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(03-10-2015 05:36 AM)yakherder Wrote:  [...]and many have already pledged to refuse to enforce federal regulations.[...]

Throw 'em in the brig when they violate their oath, then. A lawful order must be followed -- period.

If I perceive an order to be in violation of the law, in this case the second amendment, I wouldn't consider it a lawful order. If I'm in Canada performing similar law enforcement or military duties, that's a different story. The same applies to Australia.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2015, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2015 11:28 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Shooting in Australia
(03-10-2015 11:21 AM)yakherder Wrote:  If I perceive an order to be in violation of the law, in this case the second amendment, I wouldn't consider it a lawful order.

And you are obligated to report it up the Chain of Command.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2015, 12:23 PM
RE: Shooting in Australia
(03-10-2015 11:21 AM)yakherder Wrote:  If I perceive an order to be in violation of the law, in this case the second amendment, I wouldn't consider it a lawful order.

That depends on the order, sure. I don't know what doomsday order you're envisioning, but I will assume for the purposes of this conversation that the Constitutionality of any such order has been reviewed and found solid.

Now, if you're envisioning an order sending troops door-to-door collecting weapons, then I understand why you would refuse that order ... but that's not going to happen, so those vowing to disobey such an order have it easy; those are words they won't have to back up anyways.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: Shooting in Australia
(03-10-2015 07:57 AM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 09:29 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  They are hardly copying when shooting deaths happen everywhere.

Just not nearly the numbers as america. At least westernized countries.

Of course but I doubt they will get that bad. Wildlife is probably more dangerous in Australia, those giant ass spiders for instance.

(03-10-2015 10:28 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 11:42 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  Not sure if sarcasm or not at this point.

Of course I'm being sarcastic, but there's a kernel of truth in there, given that by definition criminals disregard laws.

Morondog's point is fair -- gun laws give the police a hook on which to hang someone, sometimes before they've committed any murder -- but given the numbers of guns and the numbers of criminals here in America, passing laws will do precious little for the foreseeable future.

Yes, gives police more reasons to stop and arrest armed people which would lower the rate of murders but criminals who plan on breaking the law won't just give up their firearms willy nilly which is why disarming the public is a bad idea.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
03-10-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: Shooting in Australia
(03-10-2015 12:23 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(03-10-2015 11:21 AM)yakherder Wrote:  If I perceive an order to be in violation of the law, in this case the second amendment, I wouldn't consider it a lawful order.

That depends on the order, sure. I don't know what doomsday order you're envisioning, but I will assume for the purposes of this conversation that the Constitutionality of any such order has been reviewed and found solid.

Now, if you're envisioning an order sending troops door-to-door collecting weapons, then I understand why you would refuse that order ... but that's not going to happen, so those vowing to disobey such an order have it easy; those are words they won't have to back up anyways.

I would also extend it to things like magazine restrictions. There have already been instances where states have proposed not only limiting sales, but requiring turn ins of those not in compliance with new regulations, and the police publicly stated they had no intention of enforcing such rules. Then you've got places like Colorado with their ridiculous version o the 15 round limit that is all but completely ignored. The stores just sell kits that can be assembled in less than a minute and leave it at the discretion of the consumer as to whether or not they want to assemble it within the boundaries of the law, which they usually don't.

Now that I'm on the subject, I actually did come across an obvious concealed handgun carrier while taking my son to an ice cream store in Québec a couple weeks ago. It's highly illegal here, but I didn't give a shit and I doubt anyone else noticed because they A: aren't familiar with carry techniques and B: are buried in their cell phones. In Vermont, where I could theoretically be called upon to enforce rules, that wouldn't be an issue since we go by the rule of consitutional carry. Almost half of us carry our own personal weapons to drill, and at least 1/3 of us have our scary assault rifles in our vehicles. Vermont doesn't even issue gun licenses. If I were in a different state, such as when we got called in to New York to help during the storm, I would not enforce carry violations unless I actually perceived someone to be a threat.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2015, 02:22 PM
RE: Shooting in Australia
(03-10-2015 08:56 AM)yakherder Wrote:  
(03-10-2015 08:51 AM)morondog Wrote:  ... Anarchy in the USA huh?

Not my first choice. And it's not anarchy, it's the most armed group being in defacto control, as it's always been. Hence the reason the people should ideally be better armed than the government if they value their sovereignty.

Do you live on a commune in Oregon? Big Grin

Anyway, one cannot have rational conversations with Americans regarding guns. Laughat

Sits quietly awaiting the next American mass shooting. Drinking Beverage

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: Shooting in Australia
(03-10-2015 02:22 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(03-10-2015 08:56 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Not my first choice. And it's not anarchy, it's the most armed group being in defacto control, as it's always been. Hence the reason the people should ideally be better armed than the government if they value their sovereignty.

Do you live on a commune in Oregon? Big Grin

Anyway, one cannot have rational conversations with Americans regarding guns. Laughat

Sits quietly awaiting the next American mass shooting. Drinking Beverage

I really do not appreciate and take offence you generalizing Americans as these gun toting southern rednecks who keep Shotguns in their pickup trucks and have nothing good to attribute to the world. Not all Americans are like that.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: