Well done Zeke Anderson. Great article.

You can't build the New World Order if you don't tear up the US constitution.
Gun owning US citizens stand in the way of this.

I support the US constitution for Americans and their right to gun ownership for the reasons you laid out, whilst at the same time I'm kind of glad we don't have so many guns as freely available here.

If the US collapses in the coming years, the citizens will indeed need to defend themselves.
There's been a lot of blood and killing for this Second Amendment right since 1791.
I say the people deserve to keep their guns and ride it out to the end like the Constitution intended.

For many it won't matter, because they have no plans to give them up anyway.

Space-age lie detection would allow the licence issuing authorities to actually determine who should be trusted with lethal weapons and has to include all armed services, given police forces have a record that matches (of sound mind) joe public, when it comes to inappropriate use of lethal weapons!

Yes, guns are designed to kill! But not independently by themselves!

As always, there has to be a finger on a trigger or at a keyboard in the case of remote control. no gun ever made has taken individual action to go kill someone or something.

But in the hands of a human can and do kill. And given that is so must be respected as much as say a hairdryer that can also kill if dropped into the bath. I have a veritable smorgasbord of medicines that could be lethal if overused.

Other lethal weapons in the wrong hands, include kitchen knives, axes, saws, bows and arrows, fishing spears, ropes, all manner of motor vehicles and umbrellas with sharpish tips And thorium if used as nuclear fuel in an unshielded reactor. Albeit, nobody in their right mind is ever going to operate or commission an unshielded MSR thorium reactor! Given all that is needed is a water jacket and a concrete cube. And then as safe as, even in your back yard Pete.

Sorry to disagree, Pte but we do not have the right to bear arms nor an automatic right to use them to protect life and property. And that young nurse who was sacrificed may have still been alive if she ad a .22 to protect herself with.

Do no harm, does not count when on a battlefield protecting yours or your comrades' lives! And we were and are at war with those militants that killed that young nurse, then many others!

Of course, mandatory training in the safe use and storage would be maandatory!
And you have a better weekend.
Alan B.

Australians have a right to keep and bear arms because the law recognizes that we are allowed to use sufficient force in legal self defence to overcome an attacker.

Therefore if the attacker is armed with a gun the law allows us to use a gun to overcome the attacker.

However, the law also denies us the means that it recognizes as necessary.

So our right to arms is a moral one and not a legal one, but never the less it exists.

The use of force to restrain, restrict, prevent or kill an armed intruder is not a right here, but a privilege that is tested in a court by pompous people who just weren't there!

And a fence paling, a steel picket, baseball bat or a pinball hammer in the wrong hands is a lethal weapon!

let's not forget machetes or illegal unregistered guns, the country is virtually awash with! To say that these weapons were once legally owned is a false and unproven premise by the anti-gun lobby?

The anti-gun lobby includes a highly influential and vociferous fifth column that simply do not want an armed civilian population. nor do the majority of (control freak), politicians

Imagine how different it would be if the civilian population of Hong Kong were armed with semi-automatic weapons, of those in Tibet? Or the North West of China?

Would the governments of those provinces been able to annex those so easily, or break their commitment as fast if the civilian population were armed?

The Nazi war room decided not to annex a neutral Switzerland during WW11, because it was a virtual armed camp and the terrain didn't lend itself to mechanized warfare, And they were cognisant of how the mighty Red Army fared when it tried to take over an Armed Finland just prior to WW11!

The fact that criminals have illegally intruded ought to deprive them of their, so-called legal rights and seemingly have more legal rights than their terrorised victim(s) Someone acting out whilst under the influence of ice, is a danger even to armed police! Let alone unarmed civilians or emergency professionals, Doctors, Nurses!

And would only cease to be a threat if fatally wounded! Preferably with a humane headshot! I don't see why anybody else's life should be risked or forfeit at the hands of an ice addict.

The only ones that have adequate armed protection from all the foregoing are the law-making, gun prohibiting, nuclear power prohibiting politicians, surrounded by armed protection 24/7!
Alan B.

Alan B,

"The use of force to restrain, restrict, prevent or kill an armed intruder is not a right here, but a privilege that is tested in a court by pompous people who just weren't there!"

The use of appropriate force is a right and is recognized by the Law, that is why protection of one's life is a legal defence.
Moreover, one that in NSW, requires the prosecution to prove that one was not in fear of one's life to get a conviction.
Thus placing the onus of proof where it belongs.

I believe any means to protect ones life and property are essential for the sake of life and prosperity itself.
I for one am very much in favour of the "right to keep and bear arms".
I also subscribe to the right to "shoot to kill" any intruders.
I reason that if one were allowed to kill such people, and I would suggest, going much further, such as drug dealers, Imagine what a wonderful place it would be.
Sure we would be subject to a different fear, but I can only speculate that people would not be so quick to harm knowing that their victim was "carrying", so to speak.
We had an incident here in Perth some years ago where a couple of our colourful locals decided to break into an old couples house, (I think they were under the influence of some drug or other, ice maybe?)anyway the old man retreated into the master bedroom where his sick wife lay in bed.
He ended up with a shotgun in his possession, whether he gathered it on the way or it was already there (under the bed) don't know.
These guys kept bashing at the, now locked, door where at some point the old man shouted at them to leave or he would shoot them.
Apparently that made them more determined as they began to break the door down.
I'm not sure whether the old man let one or more rounds aimed at the now broken and almost accessible doorway, killing one or both assailants, (I don't recall).
The stupid f*&king cops charged the poor old bugger with murder.
If it wasn't for the well meaning and reasonably sane public, (certainly more than the cops or the law), the old man was let off with some stupid "save face" warning by the cops and the stupid legal system.
Now the old man, in killing the scum, undertook what I call "natural justice".
Everything in life has it's faults and flaws, but we must look to reason and common sense for direction.
We mustn't take the simplistic or easy way.