Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2015 at 10:22am:


The Right of Free Men to Protect themselves, protect their lives, is not conditional.

This was understood by America's Founding Fathers, who were founding a new country, founded on the principals of Freedom & Liberty, after shedding off the rule of the tyrannical English Monarchy.

Their beliefs on the subject are firmly entrenched in their writings on the subject, & if you need further proof of their motivations I suggest you look up the Federalist Papers for starters, then traverse the numerous statements made by the Founding Fathers themselves related to the subject.

This is the statement that acknowledged the Right of Free Men to self-defense, a Right that predates the Constitution itself.

Firearms were conceived primarily for self-defense.  Any other use is secondary.

You may not agree with the Right to self-defense, but then again you don't have to for the Right to exist.




http://imgur.com/LSTvoRr.png

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2015 at 10:56am:


I'm sure Americans surely will, & gladly.

The second part of your statement isn't relevant in this thread, other than your desire to make it, for in America the Laws & Customs of Australia mean nothing except to those that wish to travel here.

Quote:


Are you familiar with the term to walk a mile in another mans shoes? You don't have to change your opinion but a little courtesy would be appreciated. 

In America Gun ownership is an individual Right, where as here in Australia it is a granted Privilege administered & controlled completely by the government.

Panther wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2015 at 9:43am:


Yep, sure is Panther.  So, we are different to the United States.  What of it?  Do you think all countries should be as badly run as the USA is?  Do you think all citizens should be shooting each other up all the time?  Whats wrong, can't see a movie without a massacre in front of you or something? 

Sheriffs across the United States are refusing to implement new gun control laws passed by state legislatures, according to a report by the New York Times.

The numbers are particularly high in Colorado, where the majority of sheriffs have come out against the state’s new gun laws, including provisions requiring background checks for private gun sales and the banning of magazines over 15 rounds. Fifty-five of the state’s 62 elected sheriffs joined a federal lawsuit filed in May arguing the new laws are unconstitutional.

Even for some of those that didn’t sign onto the lawsuit, enforcement of Colorado’s new gun restrictions isn’t high on their list of priorities.

“All law enforcement agencies consider the community standards — what is it that our community wishes us to focus on — and I can tell you our community is not worried one whit about background checks or high-capacity magazines,” said Sheriff W. Pete Palmer of Chaffee County, Colorado, to the Times.

Last month, a federal judge ruled the sheriffs did not have standing to sue as a group, but that the court would still rule on the Constitutionality of the laws in question.

Regardless of the outcome, Colorado Department of public Safety Spokesman Lance Clem told the Times that when it comes to enforcing the law, sheriffs have significant latitude to make their own decisions.

“We’re not in the position of telling sheriffs and chiefs what to do or not to do,” he said. “We have people calling us all the time, thinking they’ve got an issue with their sheriff, and we tell them we don’t have the authority to intervene.”

While Colorado seems to be at the center of this gun control struggle, sheriffs in other states are also resisting attempts to curb the effects of new legislation. In New York, two sheriffs have already declared they will not enforce new laws passed by Governor Andrew Cuomo. State and local police file most felony gun charges in New York, but nonetheless Cuomo called the sheriffs’ decisions “a dangerous and frightening precedent.”.....