The Australian ban on guns...

[commanding]

Question: In the long run, I suspect that the ban on guns in Australia, will make our brethern in Australia, less able to defend themselves, should all all out attack come to their shores via some unforseeable event(s).

I was frankly shocked when Australia banned guns from the common man.

I find it frightening to concieve of a land where the common man is not at liberty to hone his skill with a firearm (at a range or hunting etc).
I have heard the horror stories of insane guy going on a killing rampage and taking out scores of people...which was one of the key events leading to their ban as I understand the history.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

mmmmmkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyyy

[B_706K]

Good-oh another 'Pro gun ownership Vs Anti gun ownership' thread. Magic.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Good-oh another 'Pro gun ownership Vs Anti gun ownership' thread. Magic.

We haven't had one for at least 5 minutes what are you complaining about? :) At least the OP in this thread was almost written in intelligible English :roll:

[Macs.]

Question: In the long run, I suspect that the ban on guns in Australia, will make our brethern in Australia, less able to defend themselves, should all all out attack come to their shores via some unforseeable event(s).

...

I find it frightening to concieve of a land where the common man is not at liberty to hone his skill with a firearm (at a range or hunting etc).

I don't know where it comes from, but somehow alot of people in the US seem to always live in the fear that tomorrow everything is about to break down and Zombies will run over the country.

[LongShot]

I don't know where it comes from, but somehow alot of people in the US seem to always live in the fear that tomorrow everything is about to break down and Zombies will run over the country.


Blame it on the cold war and rap music....

[Mofreaka]

Well it IS going to happen!!! We must be prepared for the impending apocalypse. Remember, guns don't kill people...but they sure help.

[Cornerstone]

I don't know where it comes from, but somehow alot of people in the US seem to always live in the fear that tomorrow everything is about to break down and Zombies will run over the country.Hollywood has a lot to do with that

[B_706K]

At least the OP in this thread was almost written in intelligible English

Yes credit where credit's due!

[commanding]

The S&W Model 10 revolvers produced from 1940 to 1945 had serial numbers with a "V" prefix and were known as the Smith & Wesson Victory Model. Huge numbers - over 570,000 - of these pistols, chambered in the British .38/200 caliber already in use in the Enfield No 2 Mk I Revolver and the Webley Mk IV Revolver, were supplied to the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa under the Lend-Lease program during WWII. Most Victory revolvers sent to Britain were fitted with a 4" (200 mm) barrel, though a few early models had 6" (150 mm) barrels.[4][5] In general, most British & Commonwealth forces expressed a decided preference for the .38/200 Smith & Wesson over the standard Enfield revolver


Okay, never mind. No one would dare invade another country these days!

[B_706K]

Okay, never mind. No one would dare invade another country these days!
I think guns must be like mobile phones, at first folks are like I dont need one of those, why would I need one? I've managed up till now. But once you've had one you wouldn't get rid of it, especially if everyone else has got one! Meh, it dosent bother me I cant own one and I'm glad alot of the pricks I see around me everyday cant, but if I could, ha, well I probably would.

[Wha_Dar]

There arent many countries in the world now that could invade another country (excluding northern Africa). It would be in the best interests of the invader to have the target country's population unarmed. So Ill start the conspiracy and say that the US has worked real hard to have a lot of unarmed friendly populaces. USS GB is now joined by USS Australia.

Ill get my coat and tin foil hat.

[B_706K]

There arent many countries in the world now that could invade another country (excluding northern Africa). It would be in the best interests of the invader to have the target country's population unarmed. So Ill start the conspiracy and say that the US has worked real hard to have a lot of unarmed friendly populaces. USS GB is now joined by USS Australia.

Ill get my coat and tin foil hat.
And rifle....?:)

[Wha_Dar]

......and rifle. Ill bring the egg banjos if you bring the HP.

[Britishhawk]

Why do you need to own weapons when you have an army?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I was frankly shocked when Australia banned guns from the common man.Australia has no guns at all?

[Britishhawk]

Australia has no guns at all?

Nope, just Aboriginal Australians with boomerangs...

[commanding]

Australia has roughly:

21.5 million population

3 million square miles of land mass (much desert)

ADF= 53 thousand personal active
reserves= 20 thousand.
__________________________________________

comparing for comparisons sake:
Texas has a population of 24 million

Texas has a land mass of (much less) 268 thousand sq. miles,(more densely poplated)

_________________

The United States of America has:
active military= 1.45 million
reserves = 1.45 million
and available and fit for service 60 million men.
--------------------------

My point in all the above numbers, are to show that relatively compared to the USA, Australia is sparsely populated, has a relative small armed forces, and would make a juicy target for any country wishing more land, or "living room" as someone once said in the 30s. Thus I think it would be in the countries best interest to have it's civilian populace not only well versed in the art of arms, but also maintaining a firearm in every home.
but that's just me. It's a free country and they can do what they want.

[LongShot]

Why do you need to own weapons when you have an army?


Some might argue, to protect yourself from that army if the need arises.

[commanding]

I don't know where it comes from, but somehow alot of people in the US seem to always live in the fear that tomorrow everything is about to break down and Zombies will run over the country.

Actually, it comes from our "founding fathers" who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights...which basically only state the rights that ALL free men are entitled to...the bill of rights did not establish those rights, they were already there.

A lot of people in the US have sacrificed their lives to liberate others who had lost their guns and then their liberty. It is a fact that civilians who learn to shoot well early, make darn fine soldiers.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

A lot of people in the US have sacrificed their lives to liberate others who had lost their guns and then their liberty.Some broad brush work here Commmanding, the gun ownership figures pre GW2 for Iraq made even the most gun friendly states in the US look a bit restrictive.

[B_706K]

A lot of people in the US have sacrificed their lives to liberate others who had lost their guns and then their liberty. It is a fact that civilians who learn to shoot well early, make darn fine shots.
I feel that might be more accurate. There is more to soldiering than just marksmanship, and are you really trying to say that anyone who isn't profficient in weapon handling before basic military training cannot be a good soldier?

[Macs.]

Actually, it comes from our "founding fathers" who wrote the constitution and the bill of rights...which basically only state the rights that ALL free men are entitled to...the bill of rights did not establish those rights, they were already there.

I don't think the constant fear of evil is coming from the founding fathers, I have read the constitution.

[B_706K]

I don't think the constant fear of evil is coming from the founding fathers, I have read the constitution.
Unless they came back as founding father zombies.

[Laworkerbee]

Some might argue, to protect yourself from that army if the need arises.

I'd be one of them. p-)

[LongShot]

I'd be one of them. p-)


Wouldnt we all.....

well, those of us with guns anyway.

[commanding]

http://starturl.com/vistx

[commanding]

I feel that might be more accurate. There is more to soldiering than just marksmanship, and are you really trying to say that anyone who isn't profficient in weapon handling before basic military training cannot be a good soldier?

Brush up on your reading. That is not what I said at all. I said that civilians who have trained with firearms their whole lives, from an early age, make remarkable soliders! Case in point, U.S. Marine Carlos Hathcock.

[commanding]

Some broad brush work here Commmanding, the gun ownership figures pre GW2 for Iraq made even the most gun friendly states in the US look a bit restrictive.

I was not referring to Iraq and Afghanistan...history does not stop there.

[B_706K]

Brush up on your reading. That is not what I said at all. I said that civilians who have trained with firearms their whole lives, from an early age, make remarkable soliders! Case in point, U.S. Marine Carlos Hathcock.
I still stand by the bulk of it, you cant argue there isn't more to being a remarkable soldier than being a good shot. And no maybe I cant give a case in point but thats as history is not full of accounts of people who were great marksmen but terrible at soldiering because there is nothing to write of. But you can guarantee there were plenty of them.
But this is getting pedantic and is all completely OT..

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I was not referring to Iraq and Afghanistan...history does not stop there.Your right but I thought I would stay with current liberations.

[commanding]

I still stand by the bulk of it, you cant argue there isn't more to being a remarkable soldier than being a good shot.
But that is all completely OT..

And I can not say there is MORE to being a great soldier than marksmanship...however, in the history of the USA, since the before the US became independent from Britain, the citizens of this land have all been armed, and not because they are afraid of zombies. The citizen solider has long been a vital part of this countries defense.

At any rate...Australia has chosen it's path. History will be the judge if they made a good or bad choice.

[Kilgor]

Australia has plenty of guns, just the boring stuff.

They Took basically all the semis, and pumps away. Don't even mention handguns.

[commanding]

Australia has plenty of guns, just the boring stuff.

They Took basically all the semis, and pumps away. Don't even mention handguns.

does the phrase "don't even mention handguns" mean there are no handguns available for the average citizen? I mean they can not go to the local sporting goods store and purchase a handgun for home defense? That is my understanding.

The fact they ban even pump shotguns, seems to me to be ridiculous.

[Kilgor]

Im not familiar with handgun laws specificially, but I think it is hard to get a handgun unless you are security or the police. Handguns can be kept at ranges, but maybe not taken home.

[LineDoggie]

Excellent, Australia is unarmed.

Zombies, prepare! p-) Never happen

zombies eat Brains

They'll starve p-)

<runs for doorway to avoid beer mugs being thrown>

[B_706K]

And I can not say there is MORE to being a great soldier than marksmanship...
Well we will have to agree to differ then but I really dont see how you could possibly beleive that.



in the history of the USA, since the before the US became independent from Britain, the citizens of this land have all been armed, and not because they are afraid of zombies
How do you know? p-)

[Ed Robinson]

Don’t get all exited, we have plenty of guns in Australia. It is just a bit harder to get them these days.
All guns have to be licensed and you have to have a valid reason to own one.
If you are a member of a gun club, not a problem. If you are a farmer not a problem. If you wish one for self protection, you will have problems unless you can show that you have a genuine fear and reason to own one i.e. you are a Chemist and you work late at night and have been robbed several times.
There are restrictions on calibre and where you can shoot ect but it would take a bit of time to cover all of that.

I have a few myself. More are in the process of being licensed. These are all stored at home.

Also all firearms must be secured in a Police approved gun safe. Ammo stored separately ect. Just like the army.

If you wish to have a firearm “just because” , you will not get one in Aust.

[Kilgor]

Never happen

zombies eat Brains

They'll starve p-)

<runs for doorway to avoid beer mugs being thrown>

We honestly don't care. :P

So long as we are better than the Kiwi's and Poms we are happy.

And we are

[B_706K]

We honestly care. :P

So long as we are better than the Kiwi's and Poms we are happy.

But we aren't
Fixed 12345p-)

[-stk-]

does the phrase "don't even mention handguns" mean there are no handguns available for the average citizen? I mean they can not go to the local sporting goods store and purchase a handgun for home defense? That is my understanding.

The fact they ban even pump shotguns, seems to me to be ridiculous.

Each state differs. In my state (NSW) you are allowed to own handguns, with the only real restriction being on compact models. E.g. no snubbys or G26's. But full size Glocks, 1911's etc are all good to go.

... but in order to own a handgun you must pass a two day training course, and 6 month probation period. Handguns must also be stored in a safe unloaded. Some of the other guys here may be able to elaborate more on this, as I only own rifles myself.

Technically you cannot use "Self-defense" as justification to own a handgun/rifle on your permit to acquire. This doesn't stop anyone though, as they just say "target shooting" instead, which gives them the all clear.

As with rifles, we only have a ban on semi autos. In my state bolt action, lever guns, pump rifles etc are all ok. We have over 2 Million registered firearms in Australia, so we are hardly "gun-free".

As I have also stated in another thread, Australia is one of the very few developed countries in the world that has a growing gun culture.

[Henry's Fork]

I have much faith in the good folk in Australia.

That when they heard that the ban was coming, thousand upon thousands of gun owners took their gunsafes out duck hunting on the lake, and it somehow fell overboard, hence they do not own firearms anymore and are not stashed away for a rainy day. :D

[MichaelF]

I don't know where it comes from, but somehow alot of people in the US seem to always live in the fear that tomorrow everything is about to break down and Zombies will run over the country.

Given some of the things I've seen in Florida, zombies would be anticlimactic.

[Cobber15-08]

Almost any one with out a criminal record in most states of Australia can own a weapon, Hand guns are allowed, and their also appears to be a reasonably sized black market for handguns as well.
"their is however a stringent licensing process in most States and you also have to have appropriate safes dedicated for the weapon and Ammo. In some instances they have to be kept at a Gun club, this differs from State to State.
I hated the idea of these laws at the start however over time it has been shown that if you really want a weapon you can get it.
As a famous man once said, "Those who beat their swords into ploughs end up ploughing for those who kept their swords".

As for Australia being ripe for invasion and occupation by a foreign force, especially due to the population being as said "unarmed". I suggest you do some more research on the Australian Continent and the distances such a foe would have to travel just to be in position to land a force, let alone sustaining it and getting it to the South & East of the continent. They; unless we have a total technological reversal and were totally blind would be seen well before arrival , giving time for the population to go into defensive mode, IMHO we certainly would have enough time to arm and give the population some very basic knowledge of assault and other weapon.

[commanding]

Well we will have to agree to differ then but I really dont see how you could possibly beleive that.



How do you know? p-)

er...my error in typing or thinking...I did not mean to say this:
"And I can not say there is MORE to being a great soldier than marksmanship..."

what I meant to say is that intended to say was there IS more to being a great soldier than marksmanship.

don't know how I got that bass ackwards.:oops:
However marksmanship is a great asset. See Audey Murphy, US soldier from Texas world war two, see Carlos Hathcock US marine sniper, vietnam, etc.

[ArchieGates]

I have much faith in the good folk in Australia.

That when they heard that the ban was coming, thousand upon thousands of gun owners took their gunsafes out duck hunting on the lake, and it somehow fell overboard, hence they do not own firearms anymore and are not stashed away for a rainy day. :D

Damnit, were you spying on me? p-)

[commanding]

Almost any one with out a criminal record in most states of Australia can own a weapon, Hand guns are allowed, and their also appears to be a reasonably sized black market for handguns as well.
"their is however a stringent licensing process in most States and you also have to have appropriate safes dedicated for the weapon and Ammo. In some instances they have to be kept at a Gun club, this differs from State to state.
i hated the idea of these laws at the start however over time it has been shown that if you really want a weapon you can get it.
As a famous man once said, "Those who beat their swords into ploughs end up ploughing for those who kept their swords".

As for Australia being ripe for invasion and occupation by a foreign force, I suggest you do some more research on the Australian Continent and the distances such a foe would have to travel just to be in position to land a force let alone sustaining it and getting it to the South & East of the continent. Of course it is possible, however it is highly unlikly

I am glad to know I was in error as to the complete lack of availability of firearms to the average citizen in Australia. Still, IMHO, I think anyone who wants a firearm and is not a threat, and can pass a background check should be able to own a firearm.

As to Oz being a prize seeming ripe for land expansionist.....I believe the japanese did bomb Australia during world war two, and were on the road to invasion of Australia, if they had not been checked prior to that goal.
But...that is a mute point....if you CAN have weapons. Start worrying when they require you to turn in all firearms, or make the possession of them illegal. 6 million died in Europe in WWII camps, because they were 99% disarmed.

[T3ngu]

I have a firearms license in my state under the categories of recreational, sporting and occupational.

No problems getting or retaining my license or expanding my collection when wanted.

You just need a valid reason.

[Kilgor]

I am glad to know I was in error as to the complete lack of availability of firearms to the average citizen in Australia. Still, IMHO, I think anyone who wants a firearm and is not a threat, and can pass a background check should be able to own a firearm.

As to Oz being a prize seeming ripe for land expansionist.....I believe the japanese did bomb Australia during world war two, and were on the road to invasion of Australia, if they had not been checked prior to that goal.
But...that is a mute point....if you CAN have weapons. Start worrying when they require you to turn in all firearms, or make the possession of them illegal. 6 million died in Europe in WWII camps, because they were 99% disarmed.

Australia is very arid and inhabitable, with very long distances which would make logistics a nightmare.

And we are nicely blessed with a big moat around us :)

[EZFEED]

And I can not say there is MORE to being a great soldier than marksmanship...however, in the history of the USA, since the before the US became independent from Britain, the citizens of this land have all been armed, and not because they are afraid of zombies. The citizen solider has long been a vital part of this countries defense.

At any rate...Australia has chosen it's path. History will be the judge if they made a good or bad choice.

You know back in the day (before it wasn't PC) we used to have some great shooting programs. The CMP, Boy Scouts, various local and state functions. There was a real recreational spirit to it and allot of folks knew their way around a firearm. You didn't hear of the bizzare crap going on that we do today.....wonder what has happened over the years????:roll:

[wagon]

Australia is very arid and inhabitable, with very long distances which would make logistics a nightmare.

And we are nicely blessed with a big moat around us :)

And Australia is full of nasty Australian animals and -wait for it- AUSTRALIANS.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to invade? Even zombies would have trouble getting past those horrid drop-bears.

[TyroneBiggums]

With ol skippy commanding our animal forces were all good.

*Click clock clock click click* Is there a problem skip? *Click click Clock* The Chinese are invading? By Crikey! Fall back to the drop bear line!

Or is skippy dead? :(

[wagon]

Or is skippy dead? :(

Probably dog food now. Poor skip.

[TyroneBiggums]

Probably dog food now. Poor skip.

I hope he had time to pass his knowledge onto Joey.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Question: In the long run, I suspect that the ban on guns in Australia, will make our brethern in Australia, less able to defend themselves, should all all out attack come to their shores via some unforseeable event(s).

I was frankly shocked when Australia banned guns from the common man.

I find it frightening to concieve of a land where the common man is not at liberty to hone his skill with a firearm (at a range or hunting etc).
I have heard the horror stories of insane guy going on a killing rampage and taking out scores of people...which was one of the key events leading to their ban as I understand the history.

1. Guns are not banned.

2. With the exception of National Parks in the state of NSW you can hunt on any rural property and most state forests

3. Gun ownership is not a "god given right" here.

4. You can still legally own practically any firearm. All you have to do is provide "reason" to do so and pay the license fee.

Whilst our laws may seem draconian to a yank they are quite lax and in my view take a common sense approach in the same way as driving licenses are common sense.

IE there is a license for bolt action rifles, a license for handguns, a license for semi-autmatic.

Like there is for bikes, cars and trucks .

[Cobber15-08]

IAs to Oz being a prize seeming ripe for land expansionist.....I believe the japanese did bomb Australia during world war two, and were on the road to invasion of Australia, if they had not been checked prior to that goal.
.


Yes Darwin was bombed over 60 times along with Broome, Townsville and other areas of the far north.
However it has been proven that the Imperial Japs except for a few individuals did not want to invade Australia but rather isolate it from everywhere, thats why they went down to Guadacanal instead of landing in far Nth Australia. Maybe if everything contiued in the positive for the Japs they would of attemted invasion, but not untill well after India had been conquered. The top Japs knew of the distances (even longer during the 1940's), and that Australians would all fight for their mother land.

[commanding]

You know back in the day (before it wasn't PC) we used to have some great shooting programs. The CMP, Boy Scouts, various local and state functions. There was a real recreational spirit to it and allot of folks knew their way around a firearm. You didn't hear of the bizzare crap going on that we do today.....wonder what has happened over the years????:roll:

Well, here in the quaint old USA, where lots of people in other countries think we are nutty...we still have firearms. Granted you can't buy them unless you are "of age" and mentally stable, a non criminal etc.
When I was a youth, and in the Boy Scouts, they had a very good marksmanship program at Scout Camp (Worth Ranch, Texas) which included shooting 22LR rifles, in addition to bow and arrow, etc. So we teach 'em young here. I taught my daughter how to shoot the 38special, and the 357 magnum handgun when she was young (about 11 or so as I remember) at a good gun range. I wanted her to know the gun was not a toy and people do not get up after you shoot them, that the gun throws out flames about 18 inches from the barrel and makes a big bang. So she has respect for firearms. She is 36 now and still has a healthy respect.

Texas has a "concealed carry permit" law that allows anyone who passes a course and tests, to carry a concealed handgun (or two or more) on their person. People at Texas gun shows....are POLITE to one another. Nothing like being in a room full of guns, to make folks polite. p-)

I have been stopped by the police, and the Texas Department of Public Safety for traffic stops, and in each instance I go thru the routine I was taught in class on what to say and do in a traffic stop. The DPS and local cops are very much in favor of concealed carry folks like myself. They are very supportive. (didn't get a ticket either time, but not because of the CHL).

[commanding]

Yes Darwin was bombed over 60 times along with Broome, Townsville and other areas of the far north.
However it has been proven that the Imperial Japs except for a few individuals did not want to invade Australia but rather isolate it from everywhere, thats why they went down to Guadacanal instead of landing in far Nth Australia. Maybe if everything contiued in the positive for the Japs they would of attemted invasion, but not untill well after India had been conquered. The top Japs knew of the distances (even longer during the 1940's), and that Australians would all fight for their mother land.

Yes, but that was then. Imagine if all citizens of Oz had to turn over all their firearms? During world war two, America shipped many handguns, as well as other arms to England, when it appeared that the Nazis were about to invade (and they did have a plan to take England). The problem to me, at least in my eyes, is that once the National govt. bans citizens from owning all firearms, pump shotguns, bolt rifles, handguns, etc, then the gun manufacturers in your country either shut down or move to another country. That leaves your country with no capacity for either building weapons quickly, or improving and doing research and design on new firearms. See the point?

[commanding]

I have a firearms license in my state under the categories of recreational, sporting and occupational.

No problems getting or retaining my license or expanding my collection when wanted.

You just need a valid reason.

that is good. As i said in the post prior to yours, I had been led to believe, by a friend who lives in Tasmania, that all firearms were pretty much banned from ownership by citizens in Australia. I suppose, he was not relaying the correct up to date info.

[wildcat]

We honestly don't care. :P

So long as we are better than the Kiwi's and Poms we are happy.

And we are
Kiwis can have lots of guns and assault rifles, I think you losing that point.

Any who Australia is part of Europe, so it is expected, I think you are confused with Austria down under. Mozart was Australian has to be the worse country in Europe.

[Kilgor]

Kiwis can have lots of guns and assault rifles, I think you losing that point.

Any who Australia is part of Europe, so it is expected, I think you are confused with Austria down under. Mozart was Australian has to be the worse country in Europe.

Kiwis talk funny and live in NZ,

Enough said.

[wildcat]

Kiwis talk funny and live in NZ,

Enough said.
they can own FAL's ARs and all kinds of goodies, to me sound like a great place, no bad spiders either. I think all from down under talk funny.

[LaoSexMachine]

Question: In the long run, I suspect that the ban on guns in Australia, will make our brethern in Australia, less able to defend themselves, should all all out attack come to their shores via some unforseeable event(s).

I was frankly shocked when Australia banned guns from the common man.

I find it frightening to concieve of a land where the common man is not at liberty to hone his skill with a firearm (at a range or hunting etc).
I have heard the horror stories of insane guy going on a killing rampage and taking out scores of people...which was one of the key events leading to their ban as I understand the history.


Different countries different laws.

[digrar]

Australia has roughly:

21.5 million population

3 million square miles of land mass (much desert)

ADF= 53 thousand personal active
reserves= 20 thousand.
__________________________________________

comparing for comparisons sake:
Texas has a population of 24 million

Texas has a land mass of (much less) 268 thousand sq. miles,(more densely poplated)

_________________

The United States of America has:
active military= 1.45 million
reserves = 1.45 million
and available and fit for service 60 million men.
--------------------------

My point in all the above numbers, are to show that relatively compared to the USA, Australia is sparsely populated, has a relative small armed forces, and would make a juicy target for any country wishing more land, or "living room" as someone once said in the 30s. Thus I think it would be in the countries best interest to have it's civilian populace not only well versed in the art of arms, but also maintaining a firearm in every home.
but that's just me. It's a free country and they can do what they want.

Most land owners in the North of the Country, where one would assume the invasion would come from, have firearms, which is great, except it will be them and their half a dozen station hands against what ever the oposing force is going to be. The nearest neighbour is on his station 60km away and he is in a similar position.
The stations up North are big, bigger than some many countries. They could be armed to the teeth and it will make no difference. Any half arse invasion force would be able to mop them up one by one with very little drama.
It is a form of isolation that is really hard to comprehend until you get up there and see it for your self.


does the phrase "don't even mention handguns" mean there are no handguns available for the average citizen? I mean they can not go to the local sporting goods store and purchase a handgun for home defense? That is my understanding.

The fact they ban even pump shotguns, seems to me to be ridiculous.

We don't have the same culture as you, never had and never will. The gun control laws have little impact on most of the population.
We speak the same language, we both inhabit a large land, but we are different. There is little point trying to compare us when it comes to firearms and private ownership.

[California Joe]

But we're still mates right Dig?

[chooky]

If the gungrabbers in the USA follow the same gameplan as in Australia they will first push for registration of longarms.
They will assure you once they get registration that they will cease any more gun reform.
Wrong , once registration is in your screwed.
As we learned in Australia that's when they wait for the next mass shooting and BANG here comes the total ban on semi-auto rifles,that includes 22s.
It also includes random inspections of your own home by the Police to compare their registration data with your gunsafe contents.
Having to gain a permit (which takes over a month ) just to buy another rifle, including having a 'genuine reason' to buy it.


DON'T let them get longarm registration through .Once they do your F***** and so is your 2nd amendment.

So start forming your militias and march on Washington and trash the joint as soon as they start the push after all that's what your founding fathers intended.

In Australia we just had founding bloody convicts.

[Laworkerbee]

We speak the same language

Sometimes, I'm not so sure about that.

[T3ngu]

Sometimes, I'm not so sure about that.
Shut up you drongo. Your a few kangaroos short in the top paddock.

[Laworkerbee]

Shut up you drongo. Your a few kangaroos short in the top paddock.

Oh Christ.

Don't get all Sooky La-La on me who makes this **** up?

[T3ngu]

Oh Christ.

Don't get all Sooky La-La on me who makes this **** up?

S2L2? never......

C'mon cobber, i was only pulling your leg.

[Geezah]

Rebecca Peters was successful in Australia in removing a large number of firearms, she has had her eye on the USA for a long time now. She wants to do the same thing here.

While we may not be the same, there is one major thing we have in common and that is hot weapons.

[grendel]

But what about the fact that Aussie parents have peace of mind, knowing that some crazed gunman isn't going to visit their kids' school?

[T3ngu]

But what about the fact that Aussie parents have peace of mind, knowing that some crazed gunman isn't going to visit their kids' school?
Im going to sound clichéd here, but the number of illegal firearms is unbelievable. They are way more readily accessible than the anti gun lobby would want anyone to believe, cause if they did the stricter guns laws would not be working, would they?

[grendel]

There's always illegal firearms, even before the ban.

But has there been any school shootings? I recall a few years ago, a kid shot his ex-gf and another student - in school grounds - with a crossbow (before he was overpowered by other students).

Also, last year, there were kids who went on a rampage with baseball bats (could have been cricket bats?) at another school (during school hours). They damaged school property, but I couldn't recall if any teachers/students were injured.

Now if guns were readily available in the above incidences, the results would have been much worse.

[T3ngu]

The proliferation of guns in Australia has never been at the level that it occurs in the states. Yes, we have not had any school shootings after the gun buy back, but never had any before (that im aware of).

The incidence of gun crime in the greater community post Port Arthur bans has not decreased proportionally with the number of guns removed from circulation.

Also your point is that if we have guns readily available we will shoot people. Perhaps, perhaps not. Its probably as easy for someone who knows what they are doing to kill with a knife or axe (as examples) as with a firearm. Dealing with those who are likely to do (or do) such things is the bigger issue.

Cross bows in Queensland require a license, so obviously cross bow shootings would not occur here. /sarcasm

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Yes, but that was then. Imagine if all citizens of Oz had to turn over all their firearms? During world war two, America shipped many handguns, as well as other arms to England, when it appeared that the Nazis were about to invade (and they did have a plan to take England). The problem to me, at least in my eyes, is that once the National govt. bans citizens from owning all firearms, pump shotguns, bolt rifles, handguns, etc, then the gun manufacturers in your country either shut down or move to another country. That leaves your country with no capacity for either building weapons quickly, or improving and doing research and design on new firearms. See the point?The UK had a very lively firearms industry before the outbreak of WW2 it was however not able to produce enough arms for a rapidly expanding armed forces and the home guard. The home guard units were armed with a great number of US commercial arms. Firearms pre 1965 were not difficult to obtain but the shooting sports were not that popular after the 1920's and weapons other than .22 and shotguns were expensive.

[Laworkerbee]

But what about the fact that Aussie parents have peace of mind, knowing that some crazed gunman isn't going to visit their kids' school?

Crazed gunmen don't obey laws in the first place, any peace of mind is simply false. Violence can occur anytime, anywhere. Just recently a knife wielding maniac attacked a preschool recently in the Netherlands I believe.

[digrar]

Cross bows in Queensland require a license, so obviously cross bow shootings would not occur here. /sarcasm

Pretty sure the same law would apply here, but a bloke was killed last week up at where I work, short range bolt to the chest.

[T3ngu]

Crossbows are one thing that has slipped through the cracks in the rush to get rid of longarms and handguns. Still a few about, as with compound bows etc.

Not such a good way to go.

[EZFEED]

But what about the fact that Aussie parents have peace of mind, knowing that some crazed gunman isn't going to visit their kids' school?

Already happened.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/oct/21/highereducation.uk3

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24646226-2702,00.html



Some other of the more infamous Aussie shooters

35 dead
Martin Bryant - Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia

28 April 1996 - Slaughtered 32 people at a popular tourist site and a nearby pub. Police captured him when he bolted in flames from a guest cottage, which he had torched with three hostages inside.
8 dead

Frank Vitkovic - Melbourne, Australia

08 December 1987 - A gunman seeking revenge killed eight people in a downtown credit cooperative and wounded several others before falling to his death after crashing through an 11th-floor window.
7 dead

Wade Frankum - Strathfield, NSW, Australia

17 August 1991 - Armed with an automatic rifle and a machete, Wade went berserk in a crowded shopping plaza, killing seven people and wounding several others before turning the gun on himself.

7 dead
Julian Knight - Melbourne, Australia

09 August 1987 - A former military cadet, Julian was wearing combat clothing as he shot at police and motorists while walking up a dark suburban street, killing six people and wounding 18 others.
6 dead
Malcom Baker - Sydney, Australia

27 October 1992 - Went on a shooting spree through three coastal towns, killing his former girlfriend, her pregnant sister and four others before surrendering to authorities.



And its not just guns, restrict them and folks will just find something else....

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...5E2862,00.html (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8907485%255E2862,00.html)

New law to ban swords
Peter Mickelburough, state politics reporter
09mar04

SWORDS will be outlawed from July under new laws to curb the growing use of the weapons in street brawls.
Police Minister Andre Haermeyer said the ban would help police overcome a culture of young people arming themselves with swords.
"For most people running around the street carrying swords there is absolutely no reason for them to be carrying those weapons," he said yesterday.
From July, anyone found possessing or selling a sword without a permit will face up to six months' jail and fines of up to $12,000.
Existing sword owners must surrender their weapons to police, sell them to a licensed dealer or apply to the Chief Commissioner for specific approval.
Collectors and people with legitimate cultural, religious or military reasons to own swords will be exempted from the ban, but must store them under lock and key and have a burglar alarm.
The sword ban follows a string of recent attacks and a regulatory impact statement undertaken by the State Government last year.
Last week, a 13-year-old boy was arrested and charged after allegedly charging police with a sword near Castlemaine, in central Victoria.
A 21-year-old man had his hand severed by a samurai sword in a confrontation between 40 men in the Fitzroy Gardens a fortnight ago -- the second brawl involving swords in 24 hours.
Huy Huynh, 19, was chased from the Salt nightclub and hacked to death nearby in July 2002 by a mob using samurai swords and machetes.
The new laws will make it illegal to sell swords to anyone who does not have a permit.
Sword sellers will have to keep a register of buyers' details and make it available for police to inspect.
Mr Haermeyer said groups such as highland dancers, historic re-enactment groups, bonafide collectors and people with family heirlooms could apply for an exemption from the licensing services branch of Victoria Police.
"Legitimate sword owners understand the importance of ensuring that their swords do not fall into the wrong hands," he said.
"The vast majority of the community would say, 'Look, there's no place for people just being able to go out there and buy these things and carry them around the street'."
Mr Haermeyer said the exact definition of a sword under the new regulations was still being considered.
He said machetes would remain a controlled weapon, requiring a person to have a legitimate reason for carrying them.
The Government is also looking at bans on some other weapons, such as crossbows, and greater restriction on the sale of prohibited and regulated weapons at weekend markets.
Mr Haermeyer warned that police would be actively hunting for knives and swords after being given new powers and 480 metal detectors late last year, allowing them to search people they reasonably suspected were carrying weapons.

regards,
Scott Nimmo
Melbourne Swordplay Guild

And then Kitchen Knives.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/27/health.politics

And then words that are too upsetting to folks.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/3246178/Australia-bans-word-drought-as-too-upsetting-for-farmers.html

A **** ban for Aborigines.....like that will work.......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1555235/Alcohol-and-****-ban-for-Aborigines.html

Incandescent light bulbs with three-year phase-out
http://www.naturalnews.com/021839.html

Legislating problems away.........it works.

[digrar]

Nothing since 96. The gun ban must be working. *Takes cover*

[T3ngu]

[
Some other of the more infamous Aussie shooters
35 dead
Martin Bryant (http://massmurder.zyns.com/martin_bryant.html) - Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia

etc etc

All those gun crimes were pre 1996. Basically the gun licensing has stop the ability of crazies to obtain firearms easily. Please note the use of the word easily.

Dang, dig beat me to it. The use of licenses is the way forward, rather than banning.

[LRPV]

In 1997 it was hard to find end caps in Perth for plumbing pipe. Demand spike according to Bunnings at the time. On another note, in centuries to come archeologists will find buried centre-fire semi-autos and write papers on how the culture at the time was to bury treasured possessions...p-)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Some broad brush work here Commmanding, the gun ownership figures pre GW2 for Iraq made even the most gun friendly states in the US look a bit restrictive.

It's amazing how many of the US gun lobby manage to overlook that because it conflicts with their programming about an armed populace being able to resist government oppression and foreign invasion

[jango]

My father in law is one of the best known gun collecters in my state and has hundred of guns. We are allow to have bolt action hunting rifles and semi automatic pistols in australia but automatic rifles are banned.

The laws are really strict and the police give my father in law a very hard time and are always looking in on him. The goverment just do not want the private intervidual to have guns and just make it hard for people who want to have guns.

But it doe's not weaken our ability to defend australia in case we were invaded. The reality is that it would be impossible to invade becouse of the landscape and the fact the australia is an island nation. Our defence forces are the best in the world and one of the best equipped. But having said that anything is possible .

[RSone]

Crazed gunmen don't obey laws in the first place, any peace of mind is simply false. Violence can occur anytime, anywhere. Just recently a knife wielding maniac attacked a preschool recently in the Netherlands I believe.

Belgium. Dude hit a school somewhere in Flanders. These kind of people are usually locked up in a TBS(available to the state, a sort of high security mental ward) facility, where they usually don't get out untill the judge and facility staff think it's safe. Consequently, something like what happened in Flanders has never happened here AFAIK.

[Cobber15-08]

Quote
Yes, but that was then. Imagine if all citizens of Oz had to turn over all their firearms?

'I doubt it would ever happen'.

Quote'
During world war two, America shipped many handguns, as well as other arms to England, when it appeared that the Nazis were about to invade (and they did have a plan to take England).

This was as said 'to arm a rapidly growing military'. You would not expect them to use old hunting rifles and shot guns except in the very worst of dire cicumstances.

'Quote'
The problem to me, at least in my eyes, is that once the National govt. bans citizens from owning all firearms, pump shotguns, bolt rifles, handguns, etc, then the gun manufacturers in your country either shut down or move to another country.

We allready build most of our own General Issue weapons for the military. so the ability to build will never leave entirly.

Quote'
That leaves your country with no capacity for either building weapons quickly, or improving and doing research and design on new firearms. See the point

I see where you are comming from, however they will never be banned entirly, for as already said, the people on farms, stations, and proffesional shooters etc need some fire arms same with many others in Australia.

[Eztyga]

My dad has got more guns now than he had before the ban on semi-autos.

[Deathchant]

Please everyone just stop.

[Knutsen]

..... 6 million died in Europe in WWII camps, because they were 99% disarmed.

You could also say that 6 million died because they were not mutants resistant to bullets, or that they died because they couldn't become invisible, or that they died because they couldn't fly. It all makes the same sense.

Do you honestly think they wouldn't have died had they been armed? Do you seriously expect old people, kids and babies to shoot (assuming all people aged 15,16-60-70) could shoot?

Some months ago i watched a documentary of a journalist embedded with some US troops in Iraq. Suddenly an old woman approaches the journalist and tells him to follow her. Then she takes him (and the soldiers) to her house and starts to complain that US forces destroyed her house because there were supposed to be Al Qaeda guys.
Do you know what was the reaction of one the soldiers?

He said something like " this woman has no right to complain since everyone in this country owns an AK, she should have shot the bad guys".

And that's it, this guy seems unable to understand that this woman can complain, and that this woman by no means should be morally forced to defend herself with an AK47.

[Kletterbuxe]

Australia unarmed ? They will soon capture it !

[Kippari]

The main purpose of guns is to kill. It's like baseball bat which is a sports equipment can be used to kill, but with firearms it's the other way around.
I think this is the main controversy. For me the best solution is, instead of banning firearms, is to ban lethal ammunition to civilians. If say, the only allowed cartridge for pistols (which is the probably the most used homicide related firearm) would be some low powered, small diameter round with rubber bullets of some sort, people could still shoot them in the range, but they wouldn't be lethal.

[LongShot]

The main purpose of guns is to kill. It's like baseball bat which is a sports equipment can be used to kill, but with firearms it's the other way around.
I think this is the main controversy. For me the best solution is, instead of banning firearms, is to ban lethal ammunition to civilians. If say, the only allowed cartridge for pistols (which is the probably the most used homicide related firearm) would be some low powered, small diameter round with rubber bullets of some sort, people could still shoot them in the range, but they wouldn't be lethal.


So then lawful citizens could have less-lethal ammo, while criminals would still have lethal ammo? Thats brilliant. BTW rubber rounds can be fatal, they are called less-lethal for a reason.:roll:

[commanding]

You could also say that 6 million died because they were not mutants resistant to bullets, or that they died because they couldn't become invisible, or that they died because they couldn't fly. It all makes the same sense.

Do you honestly think they wouldn't have died had they been armed? Do you seriously expect old people, kids and babies to shoot (assuming all people aged 15,16-60-70) could shoot?

Some months ago i watched a documentary of a journalist embedded with some US troops in Iraq. Suddenly an old woman approaches the journalist and tells him to follow her. Then she takes him (and the soldiers) to her house and starts to complain that US forces destroyed her house because there were supposed to be Al Qaeda guys.
Do you know what was the reaction of one the soldiers?

He said something like " this woman has no right to complain since everyone in this country owns an AK, she should have shot the bad guys".

And that's it, this guy seems unable to understand that this woman can complain, and that this woman by no means should be morally forced to defend herself with an AK47.

That 6 million died because they were unarmed is the stance of the http://www.jpfo.org/

I support them and their stance. Do you think the state of Israel would do away with all their arms today, and offer themselves up to be slaughtered by their enemies? I doubt it.

[Macs.]

That 6 million died because they were unarmed is the stance of the http://www.jpfo.org/

That's pure specualtion. :roll:

Even if they had the best weapons of the time, and unlimited ammo how possible on earth could they have defend themselvs against a overwhelming army ? Don't forget that not all people who died in concentration camps where picked from one spot, the population was spread all over the continent. So how would they have been possible to rise up ?

Also don't forget that the Holocaust didn't happen from one day to the other, it was a "slow" process.

Simply seems like a cheap try to use the Holocaust for political gain. Sorry.

[commanding]

You could also say that 6 million died because they were not mutants resistant to bullets, or that they died because they couldn't become invisible, or that they died because they couldn't fly. It all makes the same sense.

Do you honestly think they wouldn't have died had they been armed? Do you seriously expect old people, kids and babies to shoot (assuming all people aged 15,16-60-70) could shoot?

Some months ago i watched a documentary of a journalist embedded with some US troops in Iraq. Suddenly an old woman approaches the journalist and tells him to follow her. Then she takes him (and the soldiers) to her house and starts to complain that US forces destroyed her house because there were supposed to be Al Qaeda guys.
Do you know what was the reaction of one the soldiers?

He said something like " this woman has no right to complain since everyone in this country owns an AK, she should have shot the bad guys".

And that's it, this guy seems unable to understand that this woman can complain, and that this woman by no means should be morally forced to defend herself with an AK47.
Perhaps you should rely less on television to inform you, and read and observe life more......
I liked your "mutants resistant to bullets" argument. :bash:

[commanding]

That's pure specualtion. :roll:

Even if they had the best weapons of the time, and unlimited ammo how possible on earth could they have defend themselvs against a overwhelming army ? Don't forget that not all people who died in concentration camps where picked from one spot, the population was spread all over the continent. So how would they have been possible to rise up ?

Also don't forget that the Holocaust didn't happen from one day to the other, it was a "slow" process.

Simply seems like a cheap try to use the Holocaust for political gain. Sorry.

You have your view....I have mine. I still support them, http://www.jpfo.org/ and you can support your favorite anti gun/ anti Jew organizations.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Perhaps you should rely less on television to inform you, and read and observe life more......


LOL keep taking the tablets they'll help to block out the voices

[Macs.]

You have your view....I have mine. I still support them, http://www.jpfo.org/ and you can support your favorite anti gun/ anti Jew organizations.

Wow, you finally exposed me.

Thanks for this great brainfart.

[Morboute]

is he serious?

[little icebear]

That 6 million died because they were unarmed is the stance of the http://www.jpfo.org/


Incredible... this amount of utter stupidity...

By all means: Lobby for your right to possess fire arms! You´re living in a free society and it is your right do do so!
But use serious arguments and not this kind of obscene bull****e. I can´t believe that a grown man older than 60years comes up with this crap...

[a_very_ex_STAB]

LOL that JFPO website is enough to make your eyes hurt rofl

I wonder why this wingnut decided to focus on Australia when he got let out for the day :roll:

I guess it was just Australia's turn to get the benefits of right wing, Zionist neocon wingnuttery this week :)

[damagejackal]

This thread is redundant ....The OP is an idiot, an obviously never been to Oz.

[Lau]

Some broad brush work here Commmanding, the gun ownership figures pre GW2 for Iraq made even the most gun friendly states in the US look a bit restrictive.


It's amazing how many of the US gun lobby manage to overlook that because it conflicts with their programming about an armed populace being able to resist government oppression and foreign invasion

That would mean the assumption that an armed populace is able to resist government oppression and foreign invasion, were completely wrong, and as long as you own a gun, you are never wrong! ;)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

That would mean the assumption that an armed populace is able to resist government oppression and foreign invasion, were completely wrong, and as long as you own a gun, you are never wrong! ;)

Well I own several firearms so that makes me eternally right ;-)

[Lau]

Well I own several firearms so that makes me eternally right ;-)

I cant argue with that, you own several firearms...

[Knutsen]

Perhaps you should rely less on television to inform you, and read and observe life more......
I liked your "mutants resistant to bullets" argument. :bash:

How do you know i'm using television that much to inform myself? How did you inform yourself to agree with the holocaust stance?

While observing real life, and reading from various sources i've reached the following conclusion:

The developed country with the most guns is the US.
The developed country with the most gun related deaths is the US.

And those are just cold numbers. If you know something about human nature you should probably know that the average human is not "capable" of firing a gun by himself. That's part of the purpose of the military training isn't it? Well, in basic training soldiers are taught to automatically react. Things are repeated all over again so when the soldier finds himself in the middle of the battle he can react and minimize natural human reactions (fear, not killing our fellow humans just to kill them, etc).

This is why even if most population was armed they wouldn't bravely defend whatever they have to defend. Everyone can have a bad day or sudden rage against someone. Everyone reacts violently at some point and everyone has felt the desire to kill. If everyone had a gun, then many fist fights would end in carnages.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

It's amazing how many of the US gun lobby manage to overlook that because it conflicts with their programming about an armed populace being able to resist government oppression and foreign invasionIt can cause an abrupt change of tack in their argument sometimes but mostly they just choose it ignore this obvious fact.

[Cobber15-08]

That 6 million died because they were unarmed is the stance of the http://www.jpfo.org/

I support them and their stance. Do you think the state of Israel would do away with all their arms today, and offer themselves up to be slaughtered by their enemies? I doubt it.

The majority of Israeli's are militarily trained to use these weapons, and many have assault type rifles.
Maybe you should stop jumping around so much and just concentrate on your first post and the weapon situation in Australia where even before the ban their were still limited assault type weapons and handguns.
Also maybe you should of stated earlier that the stance you follow is someone elses.

[Ominae]

Unless they came back as founding father zombies.

That sounds scary...

[bucketfoot-al]

Excellent, Australia is unarmed.

Zombies, prepare! p-)

Actually the Muzzies have already established a foothold there and are starting their time-worn tactics more recently seen in Western Europe - trying to impose their own moral terror on people who stray into their quarters.

Ordinary people need to be able to defend themselves not only against home intruders but against terrorists as well.

Do a little Google search and see how many terror attacks in Israel were cut short by LAW-ABIDING Israeli citizens who carry firearms and who took out the bad guys.

When guns are banned, only criminals have guns. And when those criminals take over a country ....

... do you know one of the first acts of the NAZI Party when it took power in 1933?

That's right. They immediately BANNED PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP.

So consider the company you're keepng if you are a brain-damaged liberal afraid of inanimate objects rather than the evildoers who would use them against you were you unable to defend yourself.

As for me, I find my katanas to be far more 'personal' in nature. Any freak who tries to break into my place has a nasty surprise in store. But that's just me. It takes more skill to wield one than to just fire a weapon. And in the dark, who's to say who has an advantage, eh? http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[bucketfoot-al]

It can cause an abrupt change of tack in their argument sometimes but mostly they just choose it ignore this obvious fact.

Hey Anthrax. I will bet you that I can break into 10 homes chosen at random in NY, Mass, and Connecticutt if you will do the same in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.

The winner is the one who manages the most break-ins without getting caught. Oh, that's right - I'm not exactly being fair in our choice of states, am I?

Because while I would go 10 for 10, you'd be lucky if you didn't get shot by a homeowner by your third attempt.

It is a statistical FACT (unreported by the media but documented in a U of Chicago Study,) that guns in private hands prevent 1 to 2 MILLION crimes a year in the US. And in 99% of those cases, merely displaying the weapon is enough to send the criminal on his way.

Think about that while you are sucking your thumb and bemoaning those DEADLY inanimate objects.

If you are Jewish and disagree with me, DOUBLE SHAME on you. Israelis have learned the lesson of WW2. If you're not armed when they come for you, it doesn't come out well. I'd rather be back to back in a foxhole with an IDF troop than just about anyone else.

And in my days in the service I've met a lot of "anyone else's". The Turks are pretty good at it too. Awesome fighters.

[Netzach]

The only realistic threat to Australian citizens (apart from a deplorable climate) are the motorcycle gangs, and that is a situation which would
be best handled by the local constabulary.

[MaverickCowboy]

How do you know i'm using television that much to inform myself? How did you inform yourself to agree with the holocaust stance?

While observing real life, and reading from various sources i've reached the following conclusion:

The developed country with the most guns is the US.
The developed country with the most gun related deaths is the US.

And those are just cold numbers. If you know something about human nature you should probably know that the average human is not "capable" of firing a gun by himself. That's part of the purpose of the military training isn't it? Well, in basic training soldiers are taught to automatically react. Things are repeated all over again so when the soldier finds himself in the middle of the battle he can react and minimize natural human reactions (fear, not killing our fellow humans just to kill them, etc).

This is why even if most population was armed they wouldn't bravely defend whatever they have to defend. Everyone can have a bad day or sudden rage against someone. Everyone reacts violently at some point and everyone has felt the desire to kill. If everyone had a gun, then many fist fights would end in carnages.

the U.S. has the worlds 3rd largest population, the U.S. also has the largest amount of gun ownership than any other country. so yeah that makes sense, doesn't mean guns are going to cause fist fights to end in carnage. Find a better way to measure crime, each country has different culture/demographics/slums that can unfairly portray legal gun ownership.

Legal holders use pistols to stop crime, not go on sprees or end "fist fights" by killing someone. that is the most ignorant thing i have heard.
Firearms are used to deter crime more than twice as many times as they are used to commit them.

[Laworkerbee]

This is why even if most population was armed they wouldn't bravely defend whatever they have to defend. Everyone can have a bad day or sudden rage against someone. Everyone reacts violently at some point and everyone has felt the desire to kill. If everyone had a gun, then many fist fights would end in carnages.

I think your speaking about yourself here more than anything else. I'm glad you don't own a firearm :|

[Eye]

You´re living in a free society and it is your right do do so!

The possibility of expressing opinion doesn't make you free.
The best solution:
If someone is pro-gun, let him to buy a gun - not forbid him to buy a gun.
If someone is against gun, not force him to buy a gun.
It should solve this problem.

[MaDuce]

We haven't had one for at least 5 minutes what are you complaining about? :) At least the OP in this thread was almost written in intelligible English :roll:

I belive we are due for a "Muslims in europe have more babies then white people" thread.

[Mackie]

That 6 million died because they were unarmed is the stance of the http://www.jpfo.org/


Absolutely disrespectful to the victims.
No wonder why this group of idiots have only 4000 members.

[Laworkerbee]

Absolutely disrespectful to the victims.
No wonder why this group of idiots have only 4000 members.

Some how I think this group wouldn't really care about what some Kraut in Stuttgart thinks about them.

[matthew.manhorn]

Australian drunkards are scarier than American ones since American beer won't get you drunk.....bearing arms is okay in USA but it's a big question mark in Australia

[PeterRJG]

Australian drunkards are scarier than American ones since American beer won't get you drunk.....bearing arms is okay in USA but it's a big question mark in Australia

About the most honest thing said in this thread so far.

Commanding and his belief as to why 6 million died in Europe in WW2 - well, that's just out there with the worst bs ever posted on this forum.

[Ought Six]

m.m:
"Australian drunkards are scarier than American ones since American beer won't get you drunk.....bearing arms is okay in USA but it's a big question mark in Australia"We have rednecks drinking white lightning and playing with their guns. That trumps your diggers drinking Foster's. p-)

[PeterRJG]

m.m:We have rednecks drinking white lightning and playing with their guns. That trumps your diggers drinking Foster's. p-)

Show me a digger that drinks Fosters and I'll show you an American that likes strong coffee.

In other words, no such animal in either case.

:D

[commanding]

About the most honest thing said in this thread so far.

Commanding and his belief as to why 6 million died in Europe in WW2 - well, that's just out there with the worst bs ever posted on this forum.

Heh here is some more (of what you call the worst) BS for you to read...

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/justiz.htm

if you don't believe it fine. Neither does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

[Blue_0]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I hereby propose the banning of the human race. As we have way to large of a survival co-efficient I propose we use unmanned space ships to alter various astroids so that the earth receives multiple apacalyptic direct astroid hits that alter the earths orbit such it plunges into the sun.

In addition, just incase any of our DNA smears off onto fragments that escape immolation in the sun, we need to figure out a way to supernova our sun while our planet is inroute to immolation. Remember, we need to keep people safe!

[digrar]

Heh here is some more (of what you call the worst) BS for you to read...

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/justiz.htm

if you don't believe it fine. Neither does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

That is bull****, Peter said he doesn't believe that a gunned up population would stop the holocaust, you're insinuating that he, like Ahmadinejad, is denying the holocaust. That is crap and I hope you have the testicular fortitude to openly apologise to the man.

[Hando]

Just to clarify this invasion idea...

So besides the fact that a massive assault force would need to cross at least the Timor Sea (Shortest over ocean distance from coats to coast), so therefore the invader would need to be Indonesia or at least really sweet with Indonesia...

Australia would know of this kind of force buildup in our backyard well in advance...

After the attrition that would be the crossing, should any troops get onto the coast, they are automatically confronted with Northern Australia...

Croc and snake infested rainforest, >90% humidity levels, temperatures in excess of 40C, The Australian army and pissed off locals.

Should a total-war scenario arise incidentally, it is my impression that all but a truckload of the handed-in Semi-autos where stored (Notice it was only ever the SAME footage of guns being destroyed) plus we have stockpiled most of the obsolete hardware from WWII and Vietnam at Lithgow. Should we need to mobilise militias, we can arm them by the trainload.

[damagejackal]

Just to clarify this invasion idea...

So besides the fact that a massive assault force would need to cross at least the Timor Sea (Shortest over ocean distance from coats to coast), so therefore the invader would need to be Indonesia or at least really sweet with Indonesia...

Australia would know of this kind of force buildup in our backyard well in advance...



Yeah, this kinda remids me of Otto Von Bismarck's reply to warnings that the British Army would attempt a landing in Pomerania (German Baltic Coast) : "I would send the police to arrest them.":)

[bucketfoot-al]

Absolutely disrespectful to the victims.
No wonder why this group of idiots have only 4000 members.

Stuttgart? As in Deutchland? Dude, if you are a German, you are the LAST person who ought to be commenting on this topic!!!!! My people, OTOH, WERE armed, and although half a million died we gave you Krauts HELL!!!

[gaz]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsN0FCXw914

[PeterRJG]

Heh here is some more (of what you call the worst) BS for you to read...

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/justiz.htm

if you don't believe it fine. Neither does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

You are an A-grade tool. I couldn't be arsed arguing with you rationally, merely because you are immune to intelligent reason.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Guns don't kill people, people kill peopleI strongly disagree its not people that kill its rappers that kill people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv-2XYOtgCg

[commanding]

Peter,
we will just have to disagree. I really don't want to argues with you on this. you have your view...I have mine. Not a big deal.

[California Joe]

Looks to me like you have the same view of history, just differ on what might have prevented it.

I'd venture to say that most people on this forum don't like people from other countries telling them what to do to fix theirs....

[Mackie]

Stuttgart? As in Deutchland? Dude, if you are a German, you are the LAST person who ought to be commenting on this topic!!!!! My people, OTOH, WERE armed, and although half a million died we gave you Krauts HELL!!!

Guys like you have Internet?

[Macs.]

It's pretty easy:

You are either PRO-GUN - That means you love Freedom, you are good looking, have a big ****, and generally are just the top of the top. Ready to blast any Burger King thief into Abbyys, while practcing your cool "Collateral" close-shooting tactics.

THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND - YOU ARE EITHER PRO OR ANTI. THERE IS NO GREY ZONE.

Or you are ANTI-GUN (aka Stinky Asscrab) - That means you are a loser who admires Hitler and Ahmadinedschad, is a member of the socialist league of communist, and generally is a LIBERAL scumbag.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l314/Macs3000/1236138274001.jpg

I thank the posters in this thread for making this clear picture possible.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I think we should congratulate 'Commanding' for his amusing mp.net debut

It's always illuminating to see an uninhibited wingnut in full flow:)

[Walter Sobchak]

Show me a digger that drinks Fosters and I'll show you an American that likes strong coffee.

In other words, no such animal in either case.

:D

Most of my poor countrymen have only seen the Foster's adverts on TV and think that it is the beer of choice in Oz. My old mate used to own the Ship Inn down on Circular Quay in Sydney, and I spent many a night drinking ice cold Resches (sp?) and Tooey's, delivered fresh daily.

Part of the problem is that we "septic tanks" will have a taste of Foster's, and it is so vastly superior to the normal American beer, that we assume it is the best down under, as well.

Now, Vegemite... well, that's another matter altogether! :)

[Aor]

I just love these gun nut threads. A while ago in MP we had people saying they are against a military draft, but were all for gun ownership. Now I read the all time favourite argument that legalizing gun ownership contributes to a nations defence. This is wacko! First of all there will be no uniformity in the gear. Some will have 5,56 rifles, others 9mm SMG's etc, etc. How in Zeus' bunghole are you going to manage an effective fighting plan with all that different gear of various ranges and capabilities into an effective fighting unit? Never mind the logistics. What are these people gonna do, have a stockpile of some thousands of bullets of different calibre required for a battle in their homes? And finally owning a gun doesn't make you an effective soldier, or an effective member of a unit. If that were the case, then I guess the U.S would only need Texas to fight the war on terror. In Greece, Switzerland and other nations were people have guns in their homes, in border areas, these guns are issued to the citizens by the army with the bullets and in some cases the heavy gear is sealed in stockpiles opened only in times of war. Major difference is, THESE COUNTRIES HAVE MILITARY DRAFTS! and the citizens are trained soldiers who have taken an oath to defend their country.

[Walter Sobchak]

I just love these gun nut threads. A while ago in MP we had people saying they are against a military draft, but were all for gun ownership. Now I read the all time favourite argument that legalizing gun ownership contributes to a nations defence. This is wacko! First of all there will be no uniformity in the gear. Some will have 5,56 rifles, others 9mm SMG's etc, etc. How in Zeus' bunghole are you going to manage an effective fighting plan with all that different gear of various ranges and capabilities into an effective fighting unit? Never mind the logistics. What are these people gonna do, have a stockpile of some thousands of bullets of different calibre required for a battle in their homes? And finally owning a gun doesn't make you an effective soldier, or an effective member of a unit. If that were the case, then I guess the U.S would only need Texas to fight the war on terror. In Greece, Switzerland and other nations were people have guns in their homes, in border areas, these guns are issued to the citizens by the army with the bullets and in some cases the heavy gear is sealed in stockpiles opened only in times of war. Major difference is, THESE COUNTRIES HAVE MILITARY DRAFTS! and the citizens are trained soldiers who have taken an oath to defend their country.

Guerrilla warfare is generally conducted by groups that are armed in an ad hoc manner.

You are making a strawman argument. No one is supposing that armed persons will deploy en masse as an armed minuteman force carrying their plethora of arms. Instead, persons who can use a weapon are generally better able to adjust to using a military weapon if called upon to do so.

Gun ownership is also a statement to one's own government. Remember, that governments have killed millions of their own people.

As for a draft, there is a time and place for that, and now is neither.

[Aor]

Guerrilla warfare is generally conducted by groups that are armed in an ad hoc manner.

You are making a strawman argument. No one is supposing that armed persons will deploy en masse as an armed minuteman force carrying their plethora of arms. Instead, persons who can use a weapon are generally better able to adjust to using a military weapon if called upon to do so.

Gun ownership is also a statement to one's own government. Remember, that governments have killed millions of their own people.

As for a draft, there is a time and place for that, and now is neither.

So, correct me if I am wrong, if we are talking about Australia, an island nation with a modern military and strong alliances, or to stretch it, the U.S, the nation with the most modern military force on the planet, armed civilians have merit conducting guerilla operations... and these people will handle these guns better than someone who has received proper military training? Or better yet, a force that has received proper military training, are part of an organised contingency plan set up in cooperation with the nation's armed forces that also provides the weapons and ammo and stores and supplies the entire equipment for that occasion? As for the statement against the government. You are telling me that for example the voters who elect a legitimate government through a democratic process carry weapons threatening with an insurgency? And finally, since you mention it, if there is a time and a place for nations to implement a draft, then it is in a time of crisis and national security threats, especially for nations who's citizens claim to adore freedom and yet don't back those words with actions and cherish the rights their citizenship brings without bearing its cost.

[Walter Sobchak]

Let me see if I can dissect all your points here...


So, correct me if I am wrong, if we are talking about Australia, an island nation with a modern military and strong alliances, or to stretch it, the U.S, the nation with the most modern military force on the planet, armed civilians have merit conducting guerrilla operations and these people will handle these guns better than someone who has received proper military training?

No, you were writing generally, asking a hypothetical question. I just answered, generally.

What do alliances have to do with a guerrilla war on your home turf, unless they are with contiguous states?

You wrote..."armed civilians have merit conducting guerrilla operations and these people will handle these guns better than someone who has received proper military training?"

I didn't suggest that. If you look at the Communist guerrillas in China, the Viet Minh, the Vietcong, the Pathet Lao, the Afghan mujaheddin, the Chenyan's, the KLA and the Iraqi insurgents, they have had pretty good luck with an ad hoc armory and cursory training. That was what I was suggesting.


Or better yet, a force that has received proper military training, are part of an organised contingency plan set up in cooperation with the nation's armed forces that also provides the weapons and ammo and stores and supplies the entire equipment for that occasion?

That whole sentence is unclear. Try adding a couple of verbs for clarity.


As for the statement against the government. You are telling me that for example the voters who elect a legitimate government through a democratic process carry weapons threatening with an insurgency?

Don't forget that many despots have come to power through the ballot box, and if there is an unarmed populace, then they are at grave risk. If you blindly trust your government, then go ahead. All I know is that every time a "government" wants to consolidate and ensure they have a free hand against the people, the firearms are confiscated. The Soviet Union disarmed their populace after the end of the Revolution.


And finally, since you mention it, if there is a time and a place for nations to implement a draft, then it is in a time of crisis and national security threats, especially for nations who's citizens claim to adore freedom and yet don't back those words with actions and cherish the rights their citizenship brings without bearing its cost.

I'm not sure how you mean that, but if you are implying that America's lack of a draft implies that we are somehow lacking in the desire to defend freedom, you are demonstrating a incledibly willful ignorance of this nation and of our character. That's not even a decent stereotype.

[California Joe]

I have quite a few guns, I've never shot anyone, even on the job. I love to shoot. It's fun, I don't really think the Vermont National Guard is going to roll up my driveway one day to get me.

Christ, I just like my flintlock longrifles for the sheer artistry and beauty of the wood, old military rifles for the history they represent, hunting rifles for hunting, and the AR I just put together because...



my **** isn't quite as big as I'd like...p-)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Lol Joe loves wood

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Peter,
we will just have to disagree. I really don't want to argues with you on this.

You clearly insinuate that he doesn't believe the holocaust took place and then state that you don't wish to argue?

Not the first time you've made an irrational, inflammatory statement and then ran away from the consequences.


you have your view...I have mine.

Your views are starting to clarify your state of mind, one that it increasingly at odds with the fundamental principals of this forum.


Not a big deal.

On the contrary.

You owe Peter an apology. Display some of the honour you speak so much of and show some respect.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

--------------------------

My point in all the above numbers, are to show that relatively compared to the USA, Australia is sparsely populated, has a relative small armed forces, and would make a juicy target for any country wishing more land, or "living room" as someone once said in the 30s. Thus I think it would be in the countries best interest to have it's civilian populace not only well versed in the art of arms, but also maintaining a firearm in every home.
but that's just me. It's a free country and they can do what they want.

Living room?

About 100% of the available land in Australia that is suitable for human occupation is already full.

With the exception of Newcastle most major cities have some form of water restrictions in place.

so you know. The continent can barely support the 21 million people that are here already. The people to our north have known about this continent for thousands of years. Yet they never bothered with the place. I wonder why.

[Eztyga]

With the exception of Newcastle most major cities have some form of water restrictions in place.


That is because Novacastrians are too busy putting their ****s in pasta jars to be bothered washing...

[Aor]

No, you were writing generally, asking a hypothetical question. I just answered, generally. What do alliances have to do with a guerrilla war on your home turf, unless they are with contiguous states? You wrote...&quot;armed civilians have merit conducting guerrilla operations and these people will handle these guns better than someone who has received proper military training?&quot; I didn't suggest that. If you look at the Communist guerrillas in China, the Viet Minh, the Vietcong, the Pathet Lao, the Afghan mujaheddin, the Chenyan's, the KLA and the Iraqi insurgents, they have had pretty good luck with an ad hoc armory and cursory training. That was what I was suggesting. In what universe do you see the Australian or the American people conducting guerilla operations against an occupying force and what occupying force will that be? I stated the restrictions an adversary will have to face against both countries. You say that can be overcome and the country will be conquered. Are you for real? Who will do that in the U.S? Mexico? Aliens? About turning the American people to possible Vietcong I can only say you have a vivid imagination. Those examples you posted were third world countries where, due to political instability, there wasn’t or isn’t any legislation allowing weapons to be purchased by civilians. Most of these, if not all of the weaponry were acquired through smuggling or through raids on existing army depots. They didn’t carry them legally and they certainly didn’t purchase them through legal means.
That whole sentence is unclear. Try adding a couple of verbs for clarity Fixed
And these people will fight better than a force that has received proper military training, are part of an organised contingency plan set up in cooperation with the nation's armed forces that also provides the weapons and ammo and stores and supplies the entire equipment for that occasion?
Don't forget that many despots have come to power through the ballot box, and if there is an unarmed populace, then they are at grave risk. If you blindly trust your government, then go ahead. All I know is that every time a &quot;government&quot; wants to consolidate and ensure they have a free hand against the people, the firearms are confiscated. The Soviet Union disarmed their populace after the end of the Revolution. I never trust the government and I always doubt and question anyone’s motives and if need be I protest against it, but protesting on the streets, being politically active and educated is something much different to thinking that the cornerstone for the defense of the constitution and the protection of civil liberties is found in purchasing and possession of assault rifles or even worse, the organizing of militias.
I'm not sure how you mean that, but if you are implying that America's lack of a draft implies that we are somehow lacking in the desire to defend freedom, you are demonstrating a incledibly willful ignorance of this nation and of our character. That's not even a decent stereotype. I mean in the debate of gun regulation the reactions are enormous and yet I didn’t see anything coming close by gun aficionados when the casualties in Iraq were soaring and some voices raised the question of bringing back a military draft. These people that say they cherish their country and principles of the American nation were more than willing to do so by holding on to their rifles in the U.S and herald the doom of the nation if someone took them away, when at the same time they found it unnecessary to put their butts where their mouth is and consider the possibility of being shipped to a war their country is fighting.

[MaverickCowboy]

What does the Iraq/Afghanistan war(s) have to do with the second amendment?

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

I have much faith in the good folk in Australia.

That when they heard that the ban was coming, thousand upon thousands of gun owners took their gunsafes out duck hunting on the lake, and it somehow fell overboard, hence they do not own firearms anymore and are not stashed away for a rainy day. :D

Actually they (the semis, autos, pumps) "fell over" into a ditch in some unknown persons 5000 ha property, and for some reason were stored inside 200mm PVC plumbing pipes, sealed both ends.

By some unfortunate turn of events a tractor happened to be nearby and some land filling was done and those ditches were quickly filled up and because the average battler is terrible at keeping records and paperwork, they were never found...cough..cough...

[Jaegermeister + Red Bull]

that is good. As i said in the post prior to yours, I had been led to believe, by a friend who lives in Tasmania, that all firearms were pretty much banned from ownership by citizens in Australia. I suppose, he was not relaying the correct up to date info.

Actually they should ban ONLY Tasmanians from owning firearms...its hard to aim when you got 2 heads...p-)

[ltrowley]

In my opinion the gun laws are here are just about right. People with a legitimate reason for owning a firearm are able to, subject to strict conditions that generally ensure responsible ownership.

I for one enjoy living in a society where I don't have to keep guessing if some whackjob has a gun down his pants.

Should I want to, there are private gun ranges where I can shoot, ranging from pistol to rifle ranges.

I don't own a firearm, nor do I have a need to.

Our police are armed, gun crime is rare where I live. And when it does happen it usually inter-criminally used. That is criminals using it on other criminals.

Which, from a morally shaky point of view, tends to add chlorine to the pool.

As mentioned, different cultures, different results.

A few years ago I got a gun pulled on me in California for drunkenly startling a bail bondsman outside his office at night (Yes, my fault, stupid, I know) but what if he pulled the trigger and shot me dead? I was only going to ask him directions to buy cigarettes...

[digrar]

Smoking kills.

That's how I see things as well. If I was an active sports shooter like my Grand Father, I might see things differently, but I'm not, so I don't.

[ltrowley]

Smoking kills.



That'd be a unique angle to try and sue the cigarette manufacturers if I survived the shot.

Or if he got me in the lung and I'd have to stop. The irony.

[Ought Six]

PRGJ:
"... and I'll show you an American that likes strong coffee. In other words, no such animal in either case."You are talking to one right now. Here in the Pacific Northwest, just about everyone likes strong coffee.

[Laworkerbee]

A few years ago I got a gun pulled on me in California for drunkenly startling a bail bondsman outside his office at night (Yes, my fault, stupid, I know) but what if he pulled the trigger and shot me dead? I was only going to ask him directions to buy cigarettes...

Are you sure he didn't just hear you speak "Aussie"?

[commanding]

okay I apologize profusely to Peter. I am very sorry that I am irrational, and that I ran away from the consequences. I apologize for my state of mind that is at odds with the fundamental principals of this forum. You are obviously right, and I am obviously wrong. I will try to post less, and be less flame baiting. Life is not worth fighting over such mundane things. I hope this relieves some of your hostility toward me. I know you hate my guts. Too bad. We could likelly be friends over a cold beer, i bet you would like me. I never say anything in these forums to another poster, that I would not say to his face. seriously.
I apologize. I apologize. I am wrong. You are right. Peter is right. I am wrong. I beg your forgiveness. please please please forgive me.
I am wrong. I am serious. sorry. sorry. please forgive. I will zip it. I will likely post less, which is not a run away thing, it is just I don't need the hassles. I have enough problems of my own without the other crap. slap me with demerits. I am not being sarcastic. I am being truthful. I am not flame baiting.
No matter what I say, I suspect you will find fault...so will just wrap it up. again I am sorry.



You clearly insinuate that he doesn't believe the holocaust took place and then state that you don't wish to argue?

Not the first time you've made an irrational, inflammatory statement and then ran away from the consequences.



Your views are starting to clarify your state of mind, one that it increasingly at odds with the fundamental principals of this forum.



On the contrary.

You owe Peter an apology. Display some of the honour you speak so much of and show some respect.

[commanding]

Oh, by the way NGATI, I really don't want to argue on that issue. If you consider it running away...so be it. Somedays I do, somedays I don't. this issue is now a non issue to me., and i don't wish to argue. hope you can understand that.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Well, it was back handed, insincere, and quite frankly fraught with hystrionics, but at least you made the attempt, regardless of how ridiculous it was.

Attaboy snowflake.

[commanding]

Well, it was back handed, insincere, and quite frankly fraught with hystrionics, but at least you made the attempt, regardless of how ridiculous it was.

Attaboy snowflake.
No it was not backhanded and insincere. It was the best I can do. I do find it rather odd that you dispise me so much. From just words.
I don't really know why. Never the less....I have more serious problems than your disdain for me.
by the way, is "snowflake" a racial derogatory term? Also since you refer to me as having a histrionic personality disorder...is this allowed on this forum? Diagnosing from afar, that I have a personality disorder and am insincere? Just curious.
My personal problems at this point in time, far outweigh the squabbles here. So sorry if I seem somewhat detached.

[FourthMan]

I being an Aussie, am pretty happy with the gun laws just the way they are. Plus i live in the country and know where to get my hands on one in the event of some kind of invasion.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

No it was not backhanded and insincere.

Really?

I apologize. I apologize. I am wrong. You are right. Peter is right. I am wrong. I beg your forgiveness. please please please forgive me.
I am wrong. I am serious. sorry. sorry. please forgive. I will zip it.

Sure seems like it.


I do find it rather odd that you dispise me so much.

People who disagree with you automatically despise you?

Wow, that's pretty extreme. Especially for someone who carries concealed...


I don't really know why.

I'm not surprised.

I don't despise/hate you, etc, but if you truly believe I do then it's obvious you wouldn't understand.

Apropos of this being the internet, I don't hate/despise anyone. Far too toxic an emotion.

Too bad you haven't learn't that truism after all these years.


From just words.

Well, to use your favourite frame of reference, didn't the Nazi's start off "from just words"?

But I guess that brand of hypocracy would only work one way, huh?


Never the less....I have more serious problems than your disdain for me.

That is patently obvious.


by the way, is "snowflake" a racial derogatory term?

Why? Do you take it as such?

[commanding]

I being an Aussie, am pretty happy with the gun laws just the way they are. Plus i live in the country and know where to get my hands on one in the event of some kind of invasion.

good for you buddy. when the rubber meets the road...it is always up the individual, to be able to protect his family and himself...at least in the USA. As I said before, my friend in Tassy misinformed me of the extent of the gun laws there...so I was posing a question with bad information in the original posts. and I so stated later on in the thread.

[commanding]

Why? Do you take it as such?

yes I do. and I suspected not matter what I said, if it was short, or brief, or long and detailed, you would likely find fault with either one.

[commanding]

Really?

I apologize. I apologize. I am wrong. You are right. Peter is right. I am wrong. I beg your forgiveness. please please please forgive me.
I am wrong. I am serious. sorry. sorry. please forgive. I will zip it.

Sure seems like it.





well, your long distance mind reading must be not working . it was sincere. (note I say mind reading...as the words are words..you can not see my facial expressions, or hear my voice, or see my eyes...therefore, you interpret the simple words, as you choose.) once more...I am sorry.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Nice edit, too bad your trigger finger is a tad slow there, pard.


yes I do. and I suspected not matter what I said, if it was short, or brief, or long and detailed, you would likely find fault with either one.

Interesting how quick you are to take offence, but on the other hand, quite readily offend others.

Facinating display of hypocracy at work there.

The snowflake comment was in relation to how fragile and delicate you present yourself.

Just like a snowflake.

Maybe buttercup would be less offensive to you.

Exactly what race did you feel it was derogatory too? Jews perhaps?

Also interesting to see you playing the hard done by one as well. Although tactically speaking pretty naive.

But that comes from abject ignorance as to my background. Too bad those classes you took didn't cover situational awareness...

[Young-kiwi]

Smoking kills.

That's how I see things as well. If I was an active sports shooter like my Grand Father, I might see things differently, but I'm not, so I don't.

I am a very active sports shooter, so I do see things differently.

Personally I have no interest in firearms for any defensive or political reasons.
But I have great deal of interest in sports shooting and collection,and if I am a reasonable and responsible individual, and I pose no danger to anyone else, I feel that I should be able to own any type of firearm I wish to.

I do think much of the issue of criminal firearm violence, comes from a sociocultural source, and general attitude from firearms in society rather than from a population of firearms.

The thing that really annoys me is just the lack of logic in most firearms laws. [I have had licences both in NSW and NZ]
In Australia, why, for IPSC shooting (my sport of choice) is 9mm acceptable, but anything with a larger calibre banned ? ie. 40S&W or 45ACP
In NZ, Why is a 7 Shot self loading rifle available on a standard licence, but a 10 shot self loading rifle requires a restricted licence ?

Only a small rant p-)
BTW, In NZ I have the full suite of licences, except dealer related ones.

[commanding]

Nice edit, too bad your trigger finger is a tad slow there, pard.



Interesting how quick you are to take offence, but on the other hand, quite readily offend others.

Facinating display of hypocracy at work there.

The snowflake comment was in relation to how fragile and delicate you present yourself.

Just like a snowflake.

Maybe buttercup would be less offensive to you.

Exactly what race did you feel it was derogatory too? Jews perhaps?

Also interesting to see you playing the hard done by one as well. Although tactically speaking pretty naive.

But that comes from abject ignorance as to my background. Too bad those classes you took didn't cover situational awareness...
did not think adding a few lines would to my post would upset you. as for what ethnicity I thought maybe you were referring to me as a "snowflake" was "white" or european of course.
your next sentance is confusing and I don't know what you mean as to "hard done" and tactically speaking naive.

My ignorance as to your background...I admit I have no idea what race you are, or anything about you other than you are most likely from NZ.
sure you can call me buttercup, if I can call you rose.
Would it please you greatly if I just died right here and now? you seem to have such a low regard for my education, and intelligence...I can't help but wonder why.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

as for what ethnicity I thought maybe you were referring to me as a "snowflake" was "white" or european of course.

Wow, aren't you the touchy one? Guess that comes from being so quick to accuse others though...


your next sentance is confusing and I don't know what you mean as to "hard done" and tactically speaking naive.

Let it sit a spell, you might get it.


My ignorance as to your background...I admit I have no idea what race you are, or anything about you other than you are most likely from NZ.

betchadupa.


sure you can call me buttercup, if I can call you rose.

You can call me whatever you like, buttercup.


Would it please you greatly if I just died right here and now? you seem to have such a low regard for my education, and intelligence...I can't help but wonder why.

Again with the hystrionics.



Nah, I wouldn't drink a beer with you. I'm particular about who I associate with.

'People', and I use the term loosely, who advocate torture, no matter what the excuse, are not among them.

[ltrowley]

Are you sure he didn't just hear you speak "Aussie"?


This is possible, and just as he was about to shoot he looked yonder down the barrel and saw within his heart that it would, indeed, be a crime to shoot one of God's own people.

He holstered his weapon, apologised and started to cry.

I still told him he's a ****ing maniac and to go **** himself.

[FourthMan]

As I said before, my friend in Tassy misinformed me of the extent of the gun laws there...so I was posing a question with bad information in the original posts. and I so stated later on in the thread.

It was because of what happened in Tassie that the gun laws were tightened more. I'm also not sure what they're state law on guns are. So perhaps it could be worse down there.

[Eztyga]

It was because of what happened in Tassie that the gun laws were tightened more. I'm also not sure what they're state law on guns are. So perhaps it could be worse down there.

Nope, there are officially more registered rifles in Tasmania than prior to the Port Arthur massacre.

That wouldn't include all those guns buried around the place of course...

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Aslo the title of this thread is misleading.

There is no ban on guns. Never has been a ban nor will there ever be a ban.

We simply have categories/classes of firearms that require a corresponding license. Now to get an AR-15 for example one only has to show cause why they need such a license and they will be able to get an AR-15.

It's that easy.

Much has been said about how tough it is here in Australia. It could not be further from the truth. The show cause part of an application can simply be met by joining a shooting club. And since a lot of clubs have arrangements that also allow them to take care of vermin and the like. Any firearm that was available prior to 1996 is still available to be legally owned.

The only big change between pre 1996 and now is the introduction of classes of firearms and the different type of licenses for each class.

Kinda like the difference between a motorcycle, car, truck and prime mover vehicle license.

[Eztyga]

^ See, even a bogan from Flannocastle can see it clearly.

[Walter Sobchak]

In what universe do you see the Australian or the American people conducting guerilla operations against an occupying force and what occupying force will that be? I stated the restrictions an adversary will have to face against both countries. You say that can be overcome and the country will be conquered. Are you for real? Who will do that in the U.S? Mexico? Aliens? About turning the American people to possible Vietcong I can only say you have a vivid imagination. Those examples you posted were third world countries where, due to political instability, there wasn’t or isn’t any legislation allowing weapons to be purchased by civilians. Most of these, if not all of the weaponry were acquired through smuggling or through raids on existing army depots. They didn’t carry them legally and they certainly didn’t purchase them through legal means.

Never say never, sport. Study a little history and never, ever underestimate the ability of our secure little universe to turn upon the most remote events. And you certainly underestimate Americans. As for stealing arms to attack an invader, I am well-armed and could probably use those arms to acquire even more from them. If unarmed like the people in so many "social democracies" or armed with stern invective and strong outrage, I'd either have to bow to my new masters or be mowed down at will.


I never trust the government and I always doubt and question anyone’s motives and if need be I protest against it, but protesting on the streets, being politically active and educated is something much different to thinking that the cornerstone for the defense of the constitution and the protection of civil liberties is found in purchasing and possession of assault rifles or even worse, the organizing of militias.

The smartest, most righteous, most educated person in the world, whose moral opinion and outrage are absolutely justified and well-founded can be shot dead by a conscript with a third-grade education. Or, put another way, your ability to protest is only as secure as such rights you are permitted to have by the government. So, your statement that, "I never trust the government" is either a lie, or you are seriously naive. You cannot trust an organization with your life and have no recourse or insurance against their violation of that trust.

I have the Second Amendment to protect me from a government that may become a threat to my freedom and safety, and you have what... faith in the inherent goodness of your government? Yeah...


I mean in the debate of gun regulation the reactions are enormous and yet I didn’t see anything coming close by gun aficionados when the casualties in Iraq were soaring and some voices raised the question of bringing back a military draft.

How insightful. You were listening to a political hack, Charlie "Tax Cheat" Rangel, whose position was that if there was a draft, no one would support wars. Only he and the inevitable anti-Bush echo-chamber ever mentioned this. No one in the military - certainly none of us who saw how bad the "draft" army was 40 years ago - would ever advocate this, except in time of real national crisis. Also, many "gun aficionados" are not of military age.


These people that say they cherish their country and principles of the American nation were more than willing to do so by holding on to their rifles in the U.S and herald the doom of the nation if someone took them away, when at the same time they found it unnecessary to put their butts where their mouth is and consider the possibility of being shipped to a war their country is fighting.

That is a totally ridiculous statement that verges on trolling. Those two principles are not even related. I'd venture to say that there are more persons from pro-gun families, who hunt and own weapons and who are patriotic serving in the military and deployed than there are who are just the opposite. You clearly, clearly have no clue about gun rights in America, and you've let some anti-war, anti-gun bias slip into your brain as a way of tieing it all together.

Like I said before, your narrow minded view of Americans and gun ownership won't even hold water as a played-out, B-movie stereotype. Your ignorance of the US Constitution and the whole concept of gun ownership, as guaranteed in that document, is laughable and shows that you've only read other peoples' opinions. Try some Madison, Jefferson and Franklin...

[Ought Six]

"I don't know where it comes from, but somehow alot of people in the US seem to always live in the fear that tomorrow everything is about to break down and Zombies will run over the country."Intellegent people learn the lesson of history. One lesson we have been taught so many times in the past is that civilization is, in certain ways, a fragile thing. Pandemics, coups, wars, massive natural disasters and other things can bring down a civilization rather quickly. Today, due to our technology, things happen much, much faster. With air transport and airports, a plague could be spread interationally and become unstoppable in a day. Once something triggers a nuclear event, global nuclear war could ensue literally within minutes. The long list of natural disasters that we have never seen the like of, but are normal periodic geological events, is well known by scientists, and anyone else paying attention.

That is 'where it comes from' (except for the zombies; that is from watching bad scifi while eating too much junk food). What is dangerous is the head-in-the-sand, 'it will never happen to me' attitude that seems to be so common until it actually does happen. Who knows what the next event that truly challenges the human race will be. A moderate sized asteroid striking in the ocean, with the resulting massive tsunamis? A caldera eruption? A pandemic? A 'Carrington Event' solar flare (Google it) which results in the equivalent of a global saturation EMP attack? A nuclear war in the Middle East that goes global? We cannot know. What we do know is that something will happen sooner or later. Being prepared to survive and defend yourself and your loved ones does not make one paranoid any more than keeping a fire extinguisher does. I am not a dedicaded prepper/survivalist, but I certainly see the logic in it.

As for conventional invasions, that seems unlikely. But tyranny from within is already happening. Whether people will wake up before we find ourselves living in a police state is an open question. An armed populace makes that proposition a lot more difficult for those who hunger for total power.