[TNLAKEPANDA]

Here are some more facts....

Subject: Fwd: Guns

Australian Gun Law Update;
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts....
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria.....alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steadydecrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....'

You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!

[tomjbud]

snopes.com: Australian Guns Stats

[jblum315]

The so-called second amendment right to bear arms applied to the militia, not to individuals.

[tuccillo]

The Supreme Court already ruled on this in 2010.

The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."

Originally Posted by jblum315

The so-called second amendment right to bear arms applied to the militia, not to individuals.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by jblum315

The so-called second amendment right to bear arms applied to the militia, not to individuals.

Apparently, you haven't read the second amendment.

"....., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,..."

commas before and after.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jblum315

The so-called second amendment right to bear arms applied to the militia, not to individuals.

I'm not a gun owner, but.....

It is not a "so-called" second amendment---it IS the second amendment, and as part of our constitution is the highest law of the land

"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."

Back then, the people WERE the militia, we had no standing army
But if you read Jefferson, he also felt that an armed civilian population was the best defense against the tyranny of government. We had just fought the revolution against just such tyranny.

The far left just loves revisionist history, but fortunately this one is pretty much written in stone. Funny how they do not launch an assault on the 4th, 19th or 24th amendments

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by jblum315

the so-called second amendment right to bear arms applied to the militia, not to individuals.

wrong.

[Cedwards38]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Apparently, you haven't read the second amendment.

"....., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,..."

commas before and after.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

The purpose of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to maintain a "well regulated" Militia.

[Sandtrap328]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

The purpose of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to maintain a "well regulated" Militia.

...and the well-regulated militia IS the National Guard.

[tuccillo]

I have always found the punctuation to be a bit tortured. The nuns in my elementary school would not have approved. Regardless, the Supreme Court, who is the final interpreter, has reaffirmed that individuals can possess guns.

I think we are being trolled.

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Apparently, you haven't read the second amendment.

"....., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,..."

commas before and after.

[golfing eagles]

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."---Thomas Jefferson

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

The purpose of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to maintain a "well regulated" Militia.

That's one purpose. The other purpose is for self defense. You need to read more than just the 2nd to understand the wording and the intention of the authors. In those days, regulated meant equipped, not controlled. Militia meant the individual people acting as a group to defend their state from, among other things, an oppressive government. Commas were commonly used to separate groups so: A well equipped (armed) militia shall not be infringed and the right of the people to keep and bear(carry on their person) arms shall not be infringed.

[tomwed]

Originally Posted by outlaw

That's one purpose. The other purpose is for self defense. You need to read more than just the 2nd to understand the wording and the intention of the authors. In those days, regulated meant equipped, not controlled. Militia meant the individual people acting as a group to defend their state from, among other things, an oppressive government. Commas were commonly used to separate groups so: A well equipped (armed) militia shall not be infringed and the right of the people to keep and bear(carry on their person) arms shall not be infringed.

Is it fair to say the environment of the US today bears very little resemblance to the time the amendment was written? After all the militia was also available to control Indians and slaves.

[tuccillo]

From a legal point of view, I don't believe that is relevant. We essentially have the right to own guns until such time as a new constitutional amendment is enacted or the Supreme Court chooses to interpret the existing amendment in a different way. The courts have generally reaffirmed the 2nd amendment when local gun laws have been challenged.

Originally Posted by tomwed

Is it fair to say the environment of the US today bears very little resemblance to the time the amendment was written? After all the militia was also available to control Indians and slaves.

[AJ32162]

Originally Posted by tomwed

Is it fair to say the environment of the US today bears very little resemblance to the time the amendment was written? After all the militia was also available to control Indians and slaves.

Yes, there was probably less violent crime as well.