They're at it again. First Australia, then the rest of the free (HA!) world
 

A few years back, a psychotic man got hold of a couple of guns. He did not have a license - something which is needed to buy guns in Australia.

One of the guns was like the gun the army has - cost about $6,000. The other had been confiscated in a police raid two states away six months earlier.

So how did this unlicensed man get these guns?

Shh.

This "man" then went and shot a whole bunch of people.

The Australian gummit in their "wisdom" decided that ALL semi-automatic rifles and ALL shotguns with a magazine capacity above two, were illegal and proceded to buy them back.

Of couse, only the honest people handed in their guns. Duh! The crooks and psychos who never bought the guns from a proper licensed source didn't hand anything in. Double Duh!

Now, the Australian gummit is at it again. This time it's semi-auto handguns. If it has no "sporting shooter" use, it is being made illegal.

Why?

Because some drongo Crooks and psychos killed some people with similar type weapons. Would these types of people hand back their illegal weapons?

NO!

Only law-abiding honest people will.

"But it gets those guns out of circulation and the crooks and psychos can't steal them" the anti-gunners say.

"They never got them from legitimate sources in the first place. It's all black market and illegal importing."

Stop THAT and you really hinder their ability to use these weapons.

Taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding ordinary honest citizens solves nothing.

Of course, taking the guns wins votes.

America... watch carefully what is going on in England and Australia with relation to gun laws. Let our examples serve as your warning...

The Gummit wants your guns.

An armed man is a citizen. And unarmed man is a subject.

Gun control works all right. Ask the experts - Hitler, Castro, Gadaffi, Stalin.

Michael Ross

Re: They're at it again. First Australia, then the rest of the free (HA!) world
 

Michael you are so right. It has often been said that "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Jim Rohn One of America's foremost business philosopher said "Beware of those who seek to take care of you lest your caretakers become your jailers". Another of Jim Rohn's quotes
is "You cannot base your life on what the government does or how your tax dollars are being spent. You've got to vote well, and then chart your own course; vote well,and then take charge of your own life". Since today is election day in America I pray to God that us conservatives take charge of this great nation by voting right and defeating the religion of Liberalism which in my opinion is a far greater threat to the world than any terrorist for the well intended but misguided left are enables who permit evil to go unopposed.

Re: They're at it again. First Australia, then the rest of the free (HA!) world
 

What a load of BS! If you can save just one life by taking away guns from all lawful citizens then it is justified. Psychos and criminals are unchangeable in their habits. But why have an additional supply of weapons circulating around society? Just to create an illusive feeling of "security"? No, there are certain areas in which the government indeed has to think and act for others - and this is one of them.

> Michael you are so right. It has often been
> said that "When guns are outlawed only
> outlaws will have guns". Jim Rohn One
> of America's foremost business philosopher
> said "Beware of those who seek to take
> care of you lest your caretakers become your
> jailers". Another of Jim Rohn's quotes
> is "You cannot base your life on what
> the government does or how your tax dollars
> are being spent. You've got to vote well,
> and then chart your own course; vote
> well,and then take charge of your own
> life". Since today is election day in
> America I pray to God that us conservatives
> take charge of this great nation by voting
> right and defeating the religion of
> Liberalism which in my opinion is a far
> greater threat to the world than any
> terrorist for the well intended but
> misguided left are enables who permit evil
> to go unopposed.

Wiser men with first hand experience thought differently
 

Cast your mind back in time... way way back to the 18th century.

Now ask yourself if America would be free if the ruling British back then had thought,

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall. - Adolph Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938

That's why the men of the constitution wrote things such as...

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... - Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ... - James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789)

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Jefferson quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment, 1764

The Constitution of the United States shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. - Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the miltary forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. - Tench Coxe (writing as "A Pennsylvanian") in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

...arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived the use of them. - Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. - Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Priciples of the Federal Constitution"(1787).

These wise men had to FIGHT for their FREEDOM. They new what could happen if the population was not armed. They new they couldn't not prevent tyrants from taking office. So to help prevent what those tyrants were cabable of, they urged the population to be armed and insisted that this right NOT be infringed upon.

And while there may be no need to protect yourself from a tyrannical gummit today. Tomorrow and next year is a different story.

Also, an armed populace makes any possible invader think twice because...

An armed man fighting for his home land is worth ten paid soldiers on a foreign shore.

Michael Ross

Not quite the same topic... but sort of
 

Pythagorean theorem : 24 Words

The Lord's Prayer : 66 Words

Archimedes' Principle : 67 Words

The 10 Commandments : 179 Words

The U. S. Government regulations on the sale of cabbage : 26,911 Words

:)

- Dien

Re: They're at it again. First Australia, then the rest of the free (HA!) world
 

> What a load of BS! If you can save just one
> life by taking away guns from all lawful
> citizens then it is justified. Psychos and
> criminals are unchangeable in their habits.
> But why have an additional supply of weapons
> circulating around society? Just to create
> an illusive feeling of "security"?
> No, there are certain areas in which the
> government indeed has to think and act for
> others - and this is one of them.

Yes indeed there are things our government can do to
take guns out of the hands of outlaws like maybe putting
some Hellfire up the tailpipe of an SUV filled with outlaws
thus removing six terrorist from their guns. Like I said many
people mean well but the road to hell is paved with good
intentions. You can pass all the laws that you want but
action supercedes talk. Enforce our present gun laws and
remove criminals from their guns and I for one won't ever
be willing to give up my right to protect myself. Yes government
can do some things to protect you but you must also refuse to
be a victim and take responsibility for your own protection and
take charge of yourself for despite all the laws there will always
be bad guys who if giving the chance will stab innocent victims and
willing victims in the back. Maybe the government can take all knives
out of our kitchens because it would be worth it if saves just one life.
Am I right or am I wrong?

Sorry! It's been proven.....
 

One suburb of Chicago passed an Ordinance that REQUIRED EVERY CITIZEN TO POSSESS ONE GUN.

Guess what happened to the crime rate in that Town?

Yup! Even your warped little brain can possibly figure this one. Burglaries, Robberies, Rapes and other crimes went down to zilch, nada, close to zero.

Why? Because the chance of running into an ARMED citizen was HIGH! Too much RISK of being SHOT!

And sure nuff...there were some warpies(like you) who said this would "Help Arm Criminals!" because all the criminals had to do was break into any home and grab the weapon or weapons.

HA! What freakos!

An ARMED COMMUNITY is a SAVE COMMUNITY!

One of the things I enjoy seeing in RURAL OREGON is....every other pickemup truck has 2 things in it;
1) A dog
2) A Rifle

One day last month, as I was driving down a rural road listening to the news reporting the "Sniper" had gunned down another innocent citizen....I passed a group of 5 men walking on the side of the road....ALL CARRYING RIFLES!

Do you think the "Sniper" would come to rural Oregon?

Most Oregonians I know will tell people like you that..."The ONLY way you're gonna get my weapon away from me is to PRY it from my cold, dead hands!"

I keep wondering where you LIBBIES get your warped ideas.

Giving up our weapons is NOT the way to protect us! Clintons way of handling an aggressor like Russia or North Korea was to GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT...and hopefully they will go away!

Ha! They will only see how WEAK you are!

Yesterday's elections show that the giant ship called America is slowing turning RIGHT! Thank God! America is starting to "wake up" and get wise to the Libbies failed agenda.

Long Live Conservatism!

Long Live Capitalism!

Now if the Republicans can ACT like WINNERS (unlike their performance after the '94 elections where they didn't face up to the Libbies and the Liberal Press)

Don Alm....Card Carrying Member of the NRA and PROUD OF IT!

> What a load of BS! If you can save just one
> life by taking away guns from all lawful
> citizens then it is justified. Psychos and
> criminals are unchangeable in their habits.
> But why have an additional supply of weapons
> circulating around society? Just to create
> an illusive feeling of "security"?
> No, there are certain areas in which the
> government indeed has to think and act for
> others - and this is one of them.




Make a Bundle from Restaurants

Look where UK went wrong
 

excellent story.... confirms why Don's oregon post works

http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml

Another story
 

Last week a man was killed in California
(where only criminals have unregistered
guns) after he broke into a house and a
ttacked three people there with a hatchet.
Yes, hatchet.

Fortunately one of the three people had a
shotgun in the trunk of his car. The man
made it outside and was able to kill the
intruder.

The homeowners were the mother and father of the
dead man's ex-wife. The man who shot him was
her new boyfriend.

The dead man was out on bail after attacking
the woman previously and was violating a restraining order by coming into contact
with the parents.

What a different story it would have been
if the boyfriend hadn't had access to a gun.

The problem is that there is no real way to
stop people who commit domestic violence. Restraining orders are a joke. The wife/child
beaters get out on bail or they do 2-months
in a county jail and then they're back out.

Yes, it would be nice to live in nirvana
where there is no need for self defense
but look around at the real world.

The people who would be happiest with more gun
restrictions and confiscations are the Mexican
drug cartels because then they'd have a great,
new market = illegal guns and ammunition.

One gun-totting woman's opinion.

You have a point there...
 

You have a point there - not a good point but a point.

I've always figured an easy way to keep a lot of people from dying is to take away cars.

In 2000 41,821 were killed needlessly. 3,189,000 were injured. And there were 4,286,000 cars that had property damage from accidents.

Think of the lives we'd save. Think of the money we'd save if our insurance rates went down and we didn't have to pay for those people who were injured and didn't have insurance through our taxes.

Think of the lost work time and productivity while all those people were at funerals, at the doctor, or getting their car fixed.

Think of us not being as reliant (USA) on foreign oil. There are many, many reasons why this is a good idea.

Of course then if we did this there would be a lot more injuries and death due to bicycles or horses. Heck let's just all walk.

And then we'd need to get rid of hatchets like a previous post mentioned. Ted Bundy killed a couple of girls when I was a teenager in Tallahassee, FL just about a mile from my house. I don't remember if there were other weapons used (it's been a long time) but one of the weapons he used to kill was a limb off an oak tree. So let's get rid of all the tree limbs that could be used as weapons.

I hope you see (but probably not) that if it's not one thing it's another that evil people will use to hurt or kill people. But you might say that 6 year old boy who accidentally shot his friend wasn't evil. So true. The six year old boy that killed his sister by playing with matches wasn't evil either. So let's take away matches or Frisbees or fishing poles.

Just my 2 cents worth.

> What a load of BS! If you can save just one
> life by taking away guns from all lawful
> citizens then it is justified. Psychos and
> criminals are unchangeable in their habits.
> But why have an additional supply of weapons
> circulating around society? Just to create
> an illusive feeling of "security"?
> No, there are certain areas in which the
> government indeed has to think and act for
> others - and this is one of them.