Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Now that I know you are Australian, or at least claim to be, I can disregard everything you say since we in America don't, or shouldn't care about what the rest of the world thinks. Throw another shrimp on the barbie (did i spell that right?), toss back a Foster's, enjoy your rising crime rate with no guns and keep you views to yourself as a foreigner! Yes you are correct you can make anything fully automatic if it isn't manufactured that way. While guns may be made for killing they are outlined in the constitution as a RIGHT. And since it is a right it should not be taken away from us since we claim to follow the constitution. The problem with that is that now the anti-gun culture is saying that guns are babd and should be banned. Get out of the country if you don't want guns because they are a birth right. If they go every other right we have will be right behind it and with no guns to revolt we will become slaves. Pure Domino Effect, baby.
By the way what does that older then me comment insinuate? You're smarter than me? What?

At 8/16/01 05:33 PM, IamJacksalias wrote: Now that I know you are Australian, or at least claim to be, I can disregard everything you say since we in America don't, or shouldn't care about what the rest of the world thinks. Throw another shrimp on the barbie (did i spell that right?), toss back a Foster's, enjoy your rising crime rate with no guns and keep you views to yourself as a foreigner! Yes you are correct you can make anything fully automatic if it isn't manufactured that way. While guns may be made for killing they are outlined in the constitution as a RIGHT. And since it is a right it should not be taken away from us since we claim to follow the constitution. The problem with that is that now the anti-gun culture is saying that guns are babd and should be banned. Get out of the country if you don't want guns because they are a birth right. If they go every other right we have will be right behind it and with no guns to revolt we will become slaves. Pure Domino Effect, baby.
By the way what does that older then me comment insinuate? You're smarter than me? What?

All though he said it in an arrgoant bastard way, I agree with him Fundamentaly. Americas are ensured the right to own guns, however the constitution does not state taht americans can own any type of gun or own guns without going through various lincense etc to apply for ownership. Present day Germany is a wonderful example of a succesful license system and acually it was an idea of an american.

The constitution says ...

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.

This means that we were given the right to own guns becuase we needed a militia. Do we still need a militia? No. But thats meaningless. It could say that we have the right to own guns because we need to defend ourself from the british. Well the british are now or allies and no longer do we need to defend ourselves from them but we were still given the right. What's important is that we we're given the right, not the intended purpose of the right, Constitutinal rights may not be reverted.

Also Jack being very rude to whoever it was. Just becuase he's Austrilaian doesn't mean his ideas are wrong. The only reason to shut your self of from other ideas are becuase of the fear that you might be wrong. He might not be appart of our governmental process but his opinions are still valid and he can still be just as right as any of us.

Now that I know you are Australian, or at least claim to be, I can disregard everything you say since we in America don't, or shouldn't care about what the rest of the world thinks. Throw another shrimp on the barbie (did i spell that right?), toss back a Foster's, enjoy your rising crime rate with no guns and keep you views to yourself as a foreigner!

Damn right, bloody forgieners, what's that you say? Xenophobic? Never!

Yes you are correct you can make anything fully automatic if it isn't manufactured that way. While guns may be made for killing they are outlined in the constitution as a RIGHT. And since it is a right it should not be taken away from us since we claim to follow the constitution. The problem with that is that now the anti-gun culture is saying that guns are babd and should be banned.

So what is the use of a gun?

Get out of the country if you don't want guns because they are a birth right. If they go every other right we have will be right behind it and with no guns to revolt we will become slaves.

They have no guns in England
**Looks around at all the slavery**

By the way what does that older then me comment insinuate? You're smarter than me? What?

He doesn't need to insinuate he's smarter than you, we can all tell.

At 8/17/01 12:34 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

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.

& also given the time this was written if you were really as literal about it as you seem to think you are all you are entitled to is a smooth bored flintlock muskette, as this was the state of the art weapon for the 1700s to early 1800s, Seriously if the writers of the 2nd ammendment had even imagined the weapons today's Americans claim right to they'd have never written those weapons into the ammendment, One of your amendments claims the right to freedom of speech many Americans ignore that unless it's them speeking.

At 8/15/01 03:18 PM, IamJacksalias wrote: One more thing
Gun control was introduced to Australia in 1996
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b03f005859.htm

Even if you were right about it being 1996 you & the makers of that site have completely nulified your own claims by leaving out all information prior to 1996 so that nobody has any reference for an informed comparison.

At 8/17/01 06:05 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 8/17/01 12:34 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

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.

& also given the time this was written if you were really as literal about it as you seem to think you are all you are entitled to is a smooth bored flintlock muskette, as this was the state of the art weapon for the 1700s to early 1800s, Seriously if the writers of the 2nd ammendment had even imagined the weapons today's Americans claim right to they'd have never written those weapons into the ammendment, One of your amendments claims the right to freedom of speech many Americans ignore that unless it's them speeking.

As I said before, that's meaning less. Yes back then they did envision that we would have those types of guns, but we were still given the right. The intended purpose is not what matters, it's the fact that we were given the right. Also on to your infringment of speach, Saying that "This Right is infringed, so we should infringe others" is a poor argument. It's not right to infringe any right, and just becuase it has been in the past, does not exonerate those who do in the present or future.

At 8/17/01 06:22 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:


Also on to your infringment of speach, Saying that "This Right is infringed, so we should infringe others" is a poor argument.

I didn't suggest that, I wasn't saying infringe rights just because you infringe others, I was questioning how could someone possibly ignore a good right & obsessively observe an entitlement that brings more trouble than good?

My point was really asking Where do you draw the line?
Freedom of speech is really more of an important right but it's not really given the consideration it desserves, Right to arms is an outdated & non-important thing yet it is given priority over a more just right.

At 8/17/01 06:39 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 8/17/01 06:22 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:


Also on to your infringment of speach, Saying that "This Right is infringed, so we should infringe others" is a poor argument.

I didn't suggest that, I wasn't saying infringe rights just because you infringe others, I was questioning how could someone possibly ignore a good right & obsessively observe an entitlement that brings more trouble than good?

My point was really asking Where do you draw the line?
Freedom of speech is really more of an important right but it's not really given the consideration it desserves, Right to arms is an outdated & non-important thing yet it is given priority over a more just right.

That's an opinion, and in my case very diffrent. I belive that the right to own guns should be upheld only becuase it's in the constitution, If I had it my way, we could only own guns if we had a job realted to such or needed it for hunting. However freedom of speach is something that I want more than almost anything.

At 8/17/01 06:45 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: If I had it my way, we could only own guns if we had a job realted to such or needed it for hunting.

The way it works in Australia allows for that, A hunter doesn't need a Semi, A hunter only needs a bolt action or preach loading rifle, here in Australia you can get a licence for such a weapon, Sports shooters can also get a licence for the competition type guns, The NRA claimed that Gun Control had ruined shooting as a sport here but it hasn't, If you can't get a licence for a gun it's because you are thought to be dangerous or irresponsible, Therefore Professional sport shooters have no trouble.

At 8/17/01 07:04 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 8/17/01 06:45 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: If I had it my way, we could only own guns if we had a job realted to such or needed it for hunting.

The way it works in Australia allows for that, A hunter doesn't need a Semi, A hunter only needs a bolt action or preach loading rifle, here in Australia you can get a licence for such a weapon, Sports shooters can also get a licence for the competition type guns, The NRA claimed that Gun Control had ruined shooting as a sport here but it hasn't, If you can't get a licence for a gun it's because you are thought to be dangerous or irresponsible, Therefore Professional sport shooters have no trouble.

If only america was perfect...

If only america was perfect...

You know America actually means "Distopia", honest, I'm not talking b.s.

At 8/17/01 07:12 AM, Slizor wrote:

If only america was perfect...

You know America actually means "Distopia", honest, I'm not talking b.s.

If that's true that's hilariously painful irony. What language would that be in?

If that's true that's hilariously painful irony. What language would that be in?

Slizish.

At 8/13/01 03:41 PM, IamJacksalias wrote:

4. Equal Force Law. You can thank the democrats for this one boys and girls. This law and many other laws are simply intellectually and morraly bankrupt. What you are saying with these laws is that a man cannot defend his home from an invader. If a man (or woman) is breaking into your home, only you, no one else can stop him. You must shoot him in the front, not back and he muist be posing an immediate threat. What is an immediate threat, knife to a family member's throat etc. Let me try to put these laws in scenario for you.

You awake one night to a sound of breaking glass then loud noises down stairs. You investigate and find a masked man rummaging through you things. You call the cops. You get your gun tell the guy to freeze. He then pulls a gun on you. Your neighbor with the police scanner hears the call and hops over to your house, sees the man and shoots him. Your neighbor is in jail and will never be able to own a gun since he shot a man on someone else's property. Might have saved your life, but it simply doesn't matter. Bad scenario but it was the best i could on such short notice. This has beceom very long, but i promise you I will wiret more based on responses.
please excuse the bad typing/spelling

What about the right to kill someone in defence of the third party? I thought that gave you every right.

At 8/17/01 03:25 PM, LaserBeamBandit wrote:

At 8/13/01 03:41 PM, IamJacksalias wrote:

4. Equal Force Law. You can thank the democrats for this one boys and girls. This law and many other laws are simply intellectually and morraly bankrupt. What you are saying with these laws is that a man cannot defend his home from an invader. If a man (or woman) is breaking into your home, only you, no one else can stop him. You must shoot him in the front, not back and he muist be posing an immediate threat. What is an immediate threat, knife to a family member's throat etc. Let me try to put these laws in scenario for you.

You awake one night to a sound of breaking glass then loud noises down stairs. You investigate and find a masked man rummaging through you things. You call the cops. You get your gun tell the guy to freeze. He then pulls a gun on you. Your neighbor with the police scanner hears the call and hops over to your house, sees the man and shoots him. Your neighbor is in jail and will never be able to own a gun since he shot a man on someone else's property. Might have saved your life, but it simply doesn't matter. Bad scenario but it was the best i could on such short notice. This has beceom very long, but i promise you I will wiret more based on responses.
please excuse the bad typing/spelling

What about the right to kill someone in defence of the third party? I thought that gave you every right.

Maybe you're not understanding the whole equal force law thing. Try reading it again their sherlock.

You shouldn't be generializing America. Gun Laws are different in different states. Here in New York, it has gotten much harder to get a gun then it was nine years ago. Despite what you might hear, New York has become a fairly safe with a plunge of the percentage of crime and is doing better then other major cities due to the step up police effort. My father gots a gun though as well as my grandfather. I don't know where my grandfather gut his gun(s), but my father simply got it at Texas where it is very easy to get a gun.

At 8/17/01 06:05 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 8/17/01 12:34 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

& also given the time this was written if you were really as literal about it as you seem to think you are all you are entitled to is a smooth bored flintlock muskette, as this was the state of the art weapon for the 1700s to early 1800s, Seriously if the writers of the 2nd ammendment had even imagined the weapons today's Americans claim right to they'd have never written those weapons into the ammendment, One of your amendments claims the right to freedom of speech many Americans ignore that unless it's them speeking.

Your not American and the first amandment of the U.S constitution only applies to the country of the constitution.The constitution states the right to bear arms. I also disagree :Seriously if the writers of the 2nd ammendment had even imagined the weapons today's Americans claim right to they'd have never written those weapons into the ammendment: they would have seen the need of arms to protect ourselves, our rights, and our freedom that we had fought so hard for, but you wouldn't know 'cause your Australian

Time to clear some stuff up.
The foreigner comment was to say that I don't a give a damn about the opinion since he's foreign, not cause I have a fear or foreign invaders.
Also you can't say that the writers of the second ammendment didn't want to have anything but muskets. Back then there was different types of guns besides muskets, they said the right to bear arms. Not just muskets or flitlock pistols, arms. You start thinking like that and you will once again loose all your freedoms. The founding fathers didn't think about pornography when they said freedom of press. the founding fathers didn't know how violent demonstartions can become when you assemble, etc etc. Stick to the constitution or leave the country.

At 8/17/01 03:52 PM, LaserBeamBandit wrote:

At 8/17/01 06:05 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 8/17/01 12:34 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

& also given the time this was written if you were really as literal about it as you seem to think you are all you are entitled to is a smooth bored flintlock muskette, as this was the state of the art weapon for the 1700s to early 1800s, Seriously if the writers of the 2nd ammendment had even imagined the weapons today's Americans claim right to they'd have never written those weapons into the ammendment, One of your amendments claims the right to freedom of speech many Americans ignore that unless it's them speeking.

Are you done with you're little debate where you just repeat what you're 6th grade teacher told you? Good. Now let's find out about something called "things that arn't bullshit made up by someone who has a poor concept of grade school knowledge"

Your not American and the first amandment of the U.S constitution only applies to the country of the constitution.

Are you sure? I thought the consitution was for ALL the countries! You mean the UNITED STATES consitution is just for the UNITED STATES? I had no idea, I thought those countries which we're labeled something other than the UNITED STATES still followed the consitution of the UNITED STATES. *sarcasim*

:The constitution states the right to bear arms.

Wah wah wah...? It does? that you for enlightening us. we had only been debating it for weeks, and from sighting examples and excerps from the constitution we had really not come to this conclusion. *sarcasim*

:I also disagree :Seriously if the writers of the 2nd ammendment had even imagined the weapons today's Americans claim right to they'd have never written those weapons into the ammendment:

Ohh would they? Glad to hear it! It sure is good that you know these things. I mean woo, where do you find this stuff? Ohh right... you make it up.

:they would have seen the need of arms to protect ourselves, our rights, and our freedom that we had fought so hard for,

We meaning? I don't think I heard about you at the battle of bunker hill... We must in this case mean they. Those right's were ensured, and you can protect yourself with a pistol, you don't need a semi automatic weapon.

:but you wouldn't know 'cause your Australian

Right... Some kid who doesn't back any of his arguments, and pretty much speaks non stop without any content every spewing from it is alot more qualified then an... "australian" *shivers*

At 8/17/01 03:52 PM, LaserBeamBandit wrote:

At 8/17/01 06:05 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 8/17/01 12:34 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

they would have seen the need of arms to protect ourselves, our rights, and our freedom that we had fought so hard for, but you wouldn't know 'cause your Australian

Um, you got your freedom centuries ago, you have nobody left to fight except yourselves which you seem to do roughly 22,000 times a year.

At 8/17/01 03:52 PM, LaserBeamBandit wrote: , but you wouldn't know 'cause your Australian

That's very hypocritical, America has spent decades trying to force their ways upon other countries.

Oh & Jacksalias, You were saying that my oppinion didn't matter because I was Australian yet you presumed yourself to be an Authority on what goes on in Australia despite the fact it was quite clear that you had no idea.

At 8/17/01 04:26 PM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

At 8/17/01 03:52 PM, LaserBeamBandit wrote:

At 8/17/01 06:05 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 8/17/01 12:34 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

& also given the time this was written if you were really as literal about it as you seem to think you are all you are entitled to is a smooth bored flintlock muskette, as this was the state of the art weapon for the 1700s to early 1800s, Seriously if the writers of the 2nd ammendment had even imagined the weapons today's Americans claim right to they'd have never written those weapons into the ammendment, One of your amendments claims the right to freedom of speech many Americans ignore that unless it's them speeking.

Are you done with you're little debate where you just repeat what you're 6th grade teacher told you? Good. Now let's find out about something called "things that arn't bullshit made up by someone who has a poor concept of grade school knowledge"

Is that to me or him? You had already addressed that particular quote from me.

I also disagree :Seriously if the writers of the 2nd ammendment had even imagined the weapons today's Americans claim right to they'd have never written those weapons into the ammendment:

Ohh would they? Glad to hear it! It sure is good that you know these things. I mean woo, where do you find this stuff? Ohh right... you make it up.

Once again I'm unsure if you are addressing me or him, if you are addressing me I say nobody who could have imagined a gun that could so easily be used for a mascre would have decided that civillians should be trusted with it.

& I say they couldn't have even imagined such a weapon because it was quite true, When John Gatling invented his gun in the 1860s everyone said it was impossible & called him a lier & a mad man until they saw it.

Are you done with you're little debate where you just repeat what you're 6th grade teacher told you? Good. Now let's find out about something called "things that arn't bullshit made up by someone who has a poor concept of grade school knowledge"

Is that to me or him? You had already addressed that particular quote from me.

This was to laserbeambandit, sorry I'm not used to erasing unrelated things becuase I'm used to 1v1 debates.

I also disagree :Seriously if the writers of the 2nd ammendment had even imagined the weapons today's Americans claim right to they'd have never written those weapons into the ammendment:

Ohh would they? Glad to hear it! It sure is good that you know these things. I mean woo, where do you find this stuff? Ohh right... you make it up.

Once again I'm unsure if you are addressing me or him, if you are addressing me I say nobody who could have imagined a gun that could so easily be used for a mascre would have decided that civillians should be trusted with it.

I was adressing laserbeambandit when he was talking about what our forefathers would have thought about modern weapondry, becuase theres no way to know that. He just made it up.

& I say they couldn't have even imagined such a weapon because it was quite true, When John Gatling invented his gun in the 1860s everyone said it was impossible & called him a lier & a mad man until they saw it.

No amount of debate today will tell what the thought process's of someone who lived hundreds of years ago were.

Did I ever say that I was an authoritative expert on Australia, no. I also said that I would have to look up facts on Australia, does that sound like an authortative expert? All I did was find some stats that were very detremental to your argument, that you seemed unaware of and you live in Australia. i think that speaks for itslef. I never claimed to be anything excpet a good patriotic American.
Kudos to Anarchypenguin, keep on keeping on!

At 8/18/01 12:08 PM, IamJacksalias wrote: All I did was find some stats that were very detremental to your argument, that you seemed unaware of and you live in Australia. i think that speaks for itslef.

No they weren't, Remember we established the fact that Crime rose by lesser amounts after gun control and that you were wrong about the year of introduction, I even pointed out that if you were right about the year you would have disqualified your own arguement by not supplying comparitive information for the years prior, but then you chose to ignore that.

At 8/17/01 06:05 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 8/17/01 12:34 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote:

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.

& also given the time this was written if you were really as literal about it as you seem to think you are all you are entitled to is a smooth bored flintlock muskette, as this was the state of the art weapon for the 1700s to early 1800s, Seriously if the writers of the 2nd ammendment had even imagined the weapons today's Americans claim right to they'd have never written those weapons into the ammendment, One of your amendments claims the right to freedom of speech many Americans ignore that unless it's them speeking.

Well I am using my freedom of speech and ya know what?? No matter what the Right To Bear arms would have been written, the ammendemt was written due to the over whelming crime that was happening to new settlers (Crimes including rape, and robbery) and those problems are still around today. If you would like the military to only use guns then you can go to Cuba where the army contolls the whole country, and you can have Fidel tell you what you can't have while your at it. If you don't like guns then go somewhere were they are banned.

Christ....one would imagine that ppl could talk about subjects like this without getting at each others throats! I for one support the Second Amendment. No, I don't think that any guy off the street should be allowed to buy a SKS or a CAR-15. But the right to self defense should not be restricted. You might be taking guns out of the hands of "potential" criminals with restrictions such as those aformentioned. But your also taking guns away from ppl who ARE responsible....ppl who respect the power and lethality of a firearm. And as for Australia....I dont think the basis for comparison is really fair at all. People im America have no idea what life is like in Australia. And people in Australia have no idea what life is like in America. There are a few exceptions...but not many. Unless youve lived there and seen all the sights you have no idea how radically different another culture can be. Maybe the crime rate is lower in Australia because there isnt as much tension stemming from political/racial/religious differences. Maybe restricting the purchase of firearms there would work just fine. But would it be the same in America? With a different culture altogether, that while it may be similar in some ways, is drastically different in others. If we in America need to find answers to gun control we should look inside OUR country. Not someone elses.

At 9/8/01 07:38 PM, Benares wrote: Christ....one would imagine that ppl could talk about subjects like this without getting at each others throats! I for one support the Second Amendment. No, I don't think that any guy off the street should be allowed to buy a SKS or a CAR-15. But the right to self defense should not be restricted. You might be taking guns out of the hands of "potential" criminals with restrictions such as those aformentioned. But your also taking guns away from ppl who ARE responsible....ppl who respect the power and lethality of a firearm. And as for Australia....I dont think the basis for comparison is really fair at all. People im America have no idea what life is like in Australia. And people in Australia have no idea what life is like in America. There are a few exceptions...but not many. Unless youve lived there and seen all the sights you have no idea how radically different another culture can be. Maybe the crime rate is lower in Australia because there isnt as much tension stemming from political/racial/religious differences. Maybe restricting the purchase of firearms there would work just fine. But would it be the same in America? With a different culture altogether, that while it may be similar in some ways, is drastically different in others. If we in America need to find answers to gun control we should look inside OUR country. Not someone elses.

AGREE AGREE AGREED. Come in my house uninvited motherfucker and I'll blow your head off!!! That is how it should and always be. Not literally, but technically so don't give me no shit.

I believe in the right to self-defense, but I don't think we need full-automatic rifles.

To sum up my beliefs (can't upload for some reason): here

At 8/12/01 02:05 AM, Mafiaboy404 wrote: I think that all the gun control laws should be re-inforced, not new laws be made to help already the very contriversialy issue (DON'T CORRECT MY SPELLING). I would like to here what other people think about this subject. I am not a gun fanatic nor a hater. I don't believe in banning guns, and I think that the laws already made for guns (aprox 3,715 laws) should be put to use.

i just want to say this, anyone that wants my guns can have them, they just have to take them away from me, any of you liberal retards want to die for my guns? no? then just how sure of your convictions are you?