I don't like civilians having weapons in built up areas or as part of their home defense. In a conflict situation, the gun wielders are the main targets, as witnessed by the above incident.

Well, seeing as you are not a US citizen, you do not HAVE to be concerned with our 2nd amendment.
I just love it when posters outside of the US seem to have quick and ready answers for all of our problems.

I find it's strange that the US has a gun law in the constitution.
Are there any more country that have this?
Now the Donald support the idea of that every american should carry a gun for "self protection"!
Not only in the US but Paris as well!!!

The 2nd amendment has it's basis, I believe, in the fight with the British for our country's right to exist as a nation and toss the shackles of Britain behind us. And we wanted to be assured that no matter what threat, foreign or domestic, we should all have the right to defend ourselves and our homeland.

Thats true Mark.
But must ALL americans carry weapons to protect themself?

Arf arf:)

Janneseti,

I repeat an earlier question from this thread...

What does it matter to someone that is not a US Citizen, or is not thinking of becoming one, what WE here in the USA do re: being armed?

Ok, you ask '... must ALL Americans carry weapons ... ?

Now then, of course some (or even many/most) can CHOOSE to not do so...

But the RIGHT to do so must be maintained.

Mark mentions '... threat, foreign or domestic, ...'.

Foreign or domestic...

Let me quote something from one of our founding documents (No, it is not the Constitution, but it is an important one nonetheless).

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=2&page=transcript

And another document, Federalist #46, by James Madison (primary author of the US Constitution, and author of the US Bill of rights).

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-46

So, you can see that the idea was present that the US Citizens would have to, at some point in the future, oppose the Federal Government with force of arms.

Oh, by the way, James Madison wrote Federalist #46 in Jan. 1788. He did not write the Bill of Rights until Sept. 1789, a year and a half LATER.

So, yes, there is a very VALID reason why in Sept. 1789, James Madison wrote the following:

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.

MajorKong.....

Might I thank you for being up on all of the documentation that I lack.
I lack it in documents, but not in spirit.
I know wherein my convictions lie, but I simply am not a man who any longer has the resources of mind to lay their foundations bare, such as you are able to.

I thank you for standing up for what is true and right, regardless of outside comments.

Meow, Mr. Kong.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

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.

At the time more than 200 years ago it could be appropiate.
Now the US and their police and army already have the power to protect the US.
I hope the US doesn't have the same paranoic idea like Russia have today!

21st Century (2008) US Supreme Court Decision upheld that the 2nd Amendment means Individual Ownership of Firearms . Not an 18th, nor 19th Century Decision.
A People must have the means to defend themselves. Either against a criminal, terrorist, or government (internal and/or external).

OK. You mean this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Still it make no sense to us outsiders that you still keep a legislation that is now outdated in every country but the US!

So much for getting rid of gun free zones . But ok to have a gun free zone when Trump is going to be on stage

And once again you fail to understand the distinction between 'gun free zone' and 'secured venue' protected by police, secret service and various other ARMED security forces.
but then it's easy to con idiots right mate !
You ought to know 'mate' being one of the conned for probably your entire life.

I'm the one being conned mmmm

What's the body count in your country compared to mine again mmmmm

You do understand maths right ! higher the body count means YOUR the one's being conned not us down here .

---

And once again you fail to understand the distinction between 'gun free zone' and 'secured venue' protected by police, secret service and various other ARMED security forces.

Why was there a need for armed security IF owning a gun and everyone owning a gun is safer shorly 10,000 people all armed would be much safer than a few dozen armed security guards .

So maybe you don't understand your own rhetoric

Or are you possibly WRONG on all counts ...........

---

What we learned in the 18th century, and today, is this:
European's Don't Trust The People. Peoples Individual Rights must, for Society's Good, be Controlled.

LOL
What history books are you reading?
Russian or former East Germany?
Most European countries today believe in transparency in governments.
Main reason to avoid corruption and mismanagement.
But it also stops all kind of conspiracy theories that the US are so very fond with.
http://www.transparency.org/

btw. David Cameron has said Donald Trump's comments on banning Muslims are "dangerous" but he is prepared to meet him if he comes to the UK.
http://news.sky.com/story/1700279/trumps-muslim-comments-dangerous-cameron

You do realise that it is actually quite easy to bring down governments peacefully. Look into: Callaghan, Heath, Gough, 1989.

You may believe that their are Significant Cultural Differences within Western Europe.
Not really. Especially is one acknowledges other Vastly Different Culture's around the world.
To any 'outsider'. The differences within Western Europe, are similar to the differences between Lutherans and Roman Catholics.
To any 'outsider' of their Religions. The differences are really minor.

Really:)
So why do you think that the collapse of the Europian "Union" is near?
For instance Sweden has a LOT more in common with the US than Greece.
Or Azerbajdzjan for that matter:)

Thank you Major Kong, may I echo Mark's thoughts regarding the acuity you bring to every conversation. Your citing of the last paragraph of Federalist #46(a document I've read, but couldn't recall)along with the paragraph from the Declaration of Independence brings the 'Who's the Militia?' question to a moot state.

As to the Constitution being a 200 year old idea, the fact there have been nearly 30 Amendments since it's conception would indicate a living document not dogma. It bears consideration that the only Amendment ever repealed was one of the Prohibition of a citizen's freedom of choice.

Thanks again Major for providing the history and legal precedent.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Still it make no sense to us outsiders that you still keep a legislation that is now outdated in every country but the US!

Would Assad be in power?
Would Kim be in power?
Would Tibet be free?

<ob>Drumpf finally has a position that does not read "We'll fix that!" Has he made a mistake?

---

21st Century (2008) US Supreme Court Decision upheld that the 2nd Amendment means Individual Ownership of Firearms . Not an 18th, nor 19th Century Decision.
A People must have the means to defend themselves. Either against a criminal, terrorist, or government (internal and/or external).

OK. You mean this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Still it make no sense to us outsiders that you still keep a legislation that is now outdated in every country but the US!

Janne...

Called the Rule of Law.

Doesn't matter to Japan, China, India, Ethiopia, etc. What doesn't make sense to others.

This 18th Century Document. Also means that 90% of People cannot abridge the Rights of the 10%.

Freedom is chaotic.

Europe made their choices. The USA made their choices.

What we learned in the 18th century, and today, is this:

European's Don't Trust The People. Peoples Individual Rights must, for Society's Good, be Controlled.

American's Don't Trust The Government. The Government's Power must, for Society's Good, be Controlled.

We believe, we are correct. You believe, you are correct.

Clyde,

Many of the non-US citizens (and even SOME of the US citizens) here are not going to understand this distinction. It is a cultural difference that colors one's entire outlook on life.

Janneseti claims that our laws of various sorts on firearm ownership are outdated. By his lights, he believes he is correct. But...

Technology has changed over the years... Human nature has NOT.

The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution is even more necessary now than it was a couple of centuries ago.

@ Janneseti,

At the time more than 200 years ago it could be appropiate.
Now the US and their police and army already have the power to protect the US.
I hope the US doesn't have the same paranoic idea like Russia have today!

Bullshiat.

There are places in rural areas where it can take over an hour for the police to arrive when they are called (if indeed they even CAN be called). For instance, Texas is quite large, and parts of West Texas are VERY sparsely populated. In places in West Texas, one can be over 240 km from the nearest hospital. It is similar, though likely not as bad, when it comes to police stations.

In large cities, there are places where the police can take quite some time (15 to 30 minutes or so) to arrive when called. These places have such a long response time for a number of reasons:

1. They are densely populated, therefore have lots of crime. The police tend to be quite busy.

2. Not enough police. It can take quite some time for the police to muster sufficient numbers to feel safe going into some areas.

Even in the best of places, a 3 to 5 minute response time is considered quite good.

In crimes like home invasions, seconds count. The residents NEED to have adequate means of protection. And in an era where the criminals are so heavily armed with frequently illegally imported weapons where the police have to adopt military weapons and tactics, where does this leave the 'decent people' if they are disarmed?

And what of the cases where the Police ARE the criminals?

No... We have the right to keep and bear arms BECAUSE we are human beings. The '2nd Amendment' does NOT give us this right. What the 2nd Amendment does is (hopefully) stop the Government from trying to take this right away.

The People have the right, even the duty, to protect themselves, and must NOT be denied adequate means for doing so.

@ Glenn:

And once again you fail to understand the distinction between 'gun free zone' and 'secured venue' protected by police, secret service and various other ARMED security forces.

Why was there a need for armed security IF owning a gun and everyone owning a gun is safer shorly 10,000 people all armed would be much safer than a few dozen armed security guards .

So maybe you don't understand your own rhetoric

Or are you possibly WRONG on all counts ...........

Perhaps you don't understand the SS....

The Secret Service has, as part of its 'mission', the following:

Who does the Secret Service Protect?

Permanent protectees, such as the President and Vice President, have special agents permanently assigned to them. Temporary protectees, such as presidential and vice presidential candidates/nominees and foreign heads of state, are staffed with special agents on temporary assignment from U.S. Secret Service field offices. Protection for the President and Vice President of the United States is mandatory. All other individuals entitled to Secret Service protection may decline security if they choose.

Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3056, describes the agency’s authority as provided by law. Since the U.S. Secret Service’s protective mission began in 1901, the agency’s jurisdiction has expanded to meet the needs of an evolving security environment.

Protectees:

The President of the United States
The Vice President of the United States
The President’s and Vice President’s immediate families
Former Presidents, their spouses and their minor children under the age of 16

Foreign heads of state and their spouses visiting the United States
Major presidential and vice presidential candidates and their spouses
Events designated as National Special Security Events by the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

http://www.secretservice.gov/protection/

People have been shooting (or at least attempting to shoot at) US Presidents since President Jackson in Jan. of 1835. Since 1901, the Secret Service has had, as one of its missions, protection of the U.S. President and various other important persons.

Trump, as a major candidate for U.S. President, rates this protection. There is a big difference between 'secured venue' and 'gun free zone', whether or not you wish to admit it.

Some 'gun free zones' in the USA make a LOT of sense. Others, not so much. For instance, one type of gun free zone in the USA that DOES make a lot of sense is the restriction on having guns in a place that sells alcoholic beverages. Consumption of alcoholic beverages leads, in at least the short term, to poor judgement (its called being 'drunk'). Other types of 'gun free zone' do not make an equivalent amount of sense.

<humor>
But then, perhaps 'good sense' might be in a bit of a short supply in Australia, what with your nation's plans to use WMD's against its own wildlife... (Herpes virus against Carp)... Better hope nobody farks up, or you guys could have problems from drinking the water... Carpageddon... ROFL...
</humor>

All kidding aside... why does it matter to you so much what we do within our own borders? It is OUR decision, not yours... Or are you thinking about immigrating to the USA and becoming a US Citizen?

Remember, different nations... different cultures have different needs, values, morals, and customs. You want us to be tolerant of you guys? You all need to be tolerant of US.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

In large cities, there are places where the police can take quite some time (15 to 30 minutes or so) to arrive when called. These places have such a long response time for a number of reasons:

1. They are densely populated, therefore have lots of crime. The police tend to be quite busy.

2. Not enough police. It can take quite some time for the police to muster sufficient numbers to feel safe going into some areas.

Los Angeles, Florence & Normandie, April 29, 1992, took several days to respond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMP6bXnXdZM

---

@ Janneseti,

Bullshiat.

There are places in rural areas where it can take over an hour for the police to arrive when they are called (if indeed they even CAN be called). For instance, Texas is quite large, and parts of West Texas are VERY sparsely populated. In places in West Texas, one can be over 240 km from the nearest hospital. It is similar, though likely not as bad, when it comes to police stations.

In large cities, there are places where the police can take quite some time (15 to 30 minutes or so) to arrive when called. These places have such a long response time for a number of reasons:

1. They are densely populated, therefore have lots of crime. The police tend to be quite busy.

2. Not enough police. It can take quite some time for the police to muster sufficient numbers to feel safe going into some areas.

Even in the best of places, a 3 to 5 minute response time is considered quite good.

In crimes like home invasions, seconds count. The residents NEED to have adequate means of protection. And in an era where the criminals are so heavily armed with frequently illegally imported weapons where the police have to adopt military weapons and tactics, where does this leave the 'decent people' if they are disarmed?

And what of the cases where the Police ARE the criminals?

No... We have the right to keep and bear arms BECAUSE we are human beings. The '2nd Amendment' does NOT give us this right. What the 2nd Amendment does is (hopefully) stop the Government from trying to take this right away.

The People have the right, even the duty, to protect themselves, and must NOT be denied adequate means for doing so.

BS?

The People have the right, even the duty, to protect themselves, and must NOT be denied adequate means for doing so.

Pardon me for commenting the US almost medieval attitude how to protect yourself.
As you say it's a problem to get help from the police when you really need them.
Here as well.
At best it take about 15 minutes after you have called when they appear.
In rural areas it could take 15 hours!

I live near a police station not in a rural area.
It's only open between 9am and 3pm on Wednesdays!

Hey US of A Gun Haters Get A Grip
We Da People don't Give A Flip
We Gots Guns Gunna Keep 'em too
Not One Nor Two Quite a Mighty Few

Bang Bang Bang Bang We Love ta Shoot
What US of A Gun Haters Think We Don't Give a Hoot
So Go Go Go Go and Play
With Your Gun Hatin' Buds Every Day

We Da People Will Pull Da Trig
Kill Da Baddie No Matta Wat da Frig
No Lip Flappin' Jackin' Cars Dead Ones Do
We The People Will Use OUR RIGHTS

So BooHooHoo if ya Chose

Yap

BIG HANDED BIG DON carries a BIGGUN. fO Prez

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

The Dem's MUST replace Hillary!

I don't think that is going to happen.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

why does it matter to you so much what we do within our own borders? It is OUR decision, not yours

The reason it matters is because your NRA are here trying to change our gun laws .

It fact that has already been done in my own state and as I have stated a women walked into a gun club filled out all the forms but because the law has been changed so you don't need a police check to use a gun within a gun club range she was able when left alone walk out with ammo and kill her father .

The argument is you don't need a police check to shoot a gun at a range only if you wish to own one . Well I say tell that to the family whom lost a father and a daughter .

As for your SS well if guns are so safe then you won't need it as every one can be a agent . The argument that gun make the population safe is total crap .

So is saying sensible guns laws is going against the 2nd it's not so long as the government is not trying to ban them completely

As for the carp well they are a introduced species and killing our native fish so the sooner we kill them all the better plus there's plenty in Europe where they came from so it's not Genocide of carp as there species will live long and prosper in Europe :-)

---

Kong the law has only been changed in the last 2 years thanks to the gun party finally winning a few seats in the state government .

The real reason it was changed is because the NRA say they would like to give more people the chance to fire or own a gun .

That's total crap as what they are trying to do is what they already have done in your own country Social Engineer a attitude that we need guns and there safe and common place witch is what they have been doing in your own country .

Don't blame our country because your leader have looked to us as the example of what you can achieve if you really want to do something about the 35,000 innocent deaths from guns each year

Total Hippocrates as it's ok to Social Engineer when it suits them but not for anybody else .

Wake up and stop interfering in my country's gun laws and turning our country into the basket case country you have .I like knowing I can walk the streets and not get shot in the back buy some kid out for a thrill

Edit: the woman that killed her father was known to the police for her mental problems and had been called to domestics at her home where she had been taken to a phyc ward for her problems .

---

why does it matter to you so much what we do within our own borders? It is OUR decision, not yours

The reason it matters is because your NRA are here trying to change our gun laws .

Stop inviting them!

---

why does it matter to you so much what we do within our own borders? It is OUR decision, not yours


The reason it matters is because your NRA are here trying to change our gun laws .Stop inviting them!

HA HA HA

We don't that's part of the problem

---