Must see SCOTUS cases.

[onlinebiker]

If you need to argue for gun needs, there's a one-hundred percent chance you don't need a gun.

I don' t need to argure my need of a gun.

I choose to argue it.


I don' t need to argue it because it is my right to own them..

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly so. It's a piece of property. A thing. Unless we indicate that we have some specific intention to harm another person with it.......

See..nuts, a self inflicted wound over self defense security theater.

[The Architect Of Fate]

No one needs a gun. No one needs car insurance. No one needs bottled water....

They do need car insurance if they want to drive if your thirsty you need water. I'm hard-pressed to think of any scenario were a gun is a need. 

Except when there are emergencies, accidents, and breakdowns in civil order.

If civil order breaks down your fucked even with a gun

 Maybe you live in a protected world where those things never happen or perhaps you rely entirely on outside authorities to protect you but what gives you the right to decide what other people need to manage risk

The right I have to live in a society full of paranoid gun nuts. Who are armed to the teeth for no valid reason

---

I don't need to argue my need for a gun.

I choose to argue it.


I don' t need to argue it because it is my right to own them..

Yup because you can't argue for it. Because it's an irrational outdated right. You might as well be trying to defend Prima Nocta.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

No one needs a gun. No one needs car insurance. No one needs bottled water....

They do need car insurance if they want to drive if your thirsty you need water. I'm hard-pressed to think of any scenario were a gun is a need. 

Except when there are emergencies, accidents, and breakdowns in civil order.

If civil order breaks down your fucked even with a gun

 Maybe you live in a protected world where those things never happen or perhaps you rely entirely on outside authorities to protect you but what gives you the right to decide what other people need to manage risk

The right I have to live in a society full of paranoid gun nuts. Who are armed to the teeth for no valid reason

---

I don't need to argue my need for a gun.

I choose to argue it.


I don' t need to argue it because it is my right to own them..

Yup because you can't argue for it. Because it's an irrational outdated right. You might as well be trying to defend Prima Nocta.

 Just so.

The last mass shooting in Australia was in 1996. Our government introduced strict guns laws within weeks. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but there have been no mass shootings in Australia since then. Very few armed robbers today have a gun, usually it's a screw driver or a hammer or something similar . (the type of person who robs liquor stores and such can't afford a gun on the black market) 

Unless one is a farmer it's almost impossible to legally have gun at home. A person may belong to a gun club, but their firearm,(s) must stay locked up at the club.

In my opinion if you live in a city with rule of law, you have no need for a fire arm.

I've always had trouble trying to get my head around what seems to me to be a wilful misinterpretation of the US second Amendment***

***much of the First Amendment has been removed by the Patriot Act and establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (imo)  


Please don't misunderstand. I love the US, it's a beautiful country. I was always treated with respect and friendliness. (even in New York)
Of course most of the people I met were relatives, of which there were heaps .Sadly, there's only two left now, the rest have died.(my Canadian born mother was the baby of her family. Mum died in 2019 at age 92)

[The Grand Nudger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are more guns in australia today than there were before the massacre? The low point being directly after the buyback, 650k removed? You're starting to get your superusers, like we have.

Personally, I think that any attempt to restrict the 2nd amendment or get rid of it entirely will be wasted effort. Then there'd have to be a 4th amendment challenge...then a 9th amendment challenge......and when it's all over, guess what. Cletus still wont give up his guns. Neither would I. Ultimately, I think we use the idea that we have a "mass shooting problem" to avoid calling it what it is. We have a domestic terrorism problem.

to wit

Scholars and policymakers often make noticeable distinctions between acts of terrorism and mass shooting incidents. In order to assess if these distinctions are generally accurate, we identity four key criteria from standard international and domestic definitions of terrorism. The criteria include: a political, religious, ideological, or social motivation; intent to reach a larger audience; the motivation not involving personal monetary gain; and the manifestation of an ‘enemy/other’. We analyze 105 mass shooting events in the United States from 1982 through October 2018 to assess whether they meet these criteria and find that 41 (39%) incidents meet all four criteria and another 45 (43%) incidents meet three of the criteria to be classified as acts of terrorism. Thus, we contend that mass shooting incidents fit the standard definitions of terrorism to a greater degree than is often reported by government officials, academics, and media outlets.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1...ode=rirt20

Even if we went door to door forcibly removing guns via the armed forces, and had some success at it, it wouldn't stop the killings. They just use (more) bombs. Or, at least, that was my experience with the set.