Alan L.
Elite Member
Incredible.
Australian gun buyback explained.
- Thread starter alchemysa
- Start date
- Views: 6720
Incredible.
zonta223
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 507
- Location
- Adelaide South Australia
- Tractor
- Foton FT404, International 444 with forklift, International B250, Kubota L2000DT, Truck converted to all terrain forklift and lots of other junk
I can understand the confusion and that's why I posted my reply. If you watch the video without sound (so as not to be distracted by the rubbish spouted) and actually look at the guns you will see what I am saying is true. The most commonly held rifle used to be the .303 Short Model Lee Enfield the standard British/Australian/Canadian etc etc WW11 army rifle. In the video's you can see them in racks on the wall and being thrown into rubbish bins etc, these weapons were not covered by the by back scheme they were handed in because the owners wanted to hand them in for the cash.
I am not anti gun ownership and you guys in the USA have to work out whats best for you without interference from outside.
Are Australian gun control laws perfect?? NO
Do they stop all gun related crime?? NO
Are people being shot in Australia??? YES
Would an Australian type buy back scheme work in the USA??? I doubt it
But there is one fact that can't be argued before the ban on assault weapons we had a massacre every 12 to 18 months since the ban there has been none.
So please lets have no more misleading video's
clemsonfor
Super Member
SIMPLY DICSTURBING!
MF1433V
Gold Member
Yeah we cannot let this happen in the US!
dave1949
Super Star Member
There is one simple fact that you are avoiding; you can't shoot someone without a gun. If I say our LEO's shouldn't have to worry about a punk with a gun, your answer is they better not be complacent. They are two different concepts.
I am amazed at some of the comments here.
Obama is a tyrant. No, he was elected in a democratic process. Was GW Bush a tyrant when he pushed the Patriot Act, the act that really bit into freedoms? I am unhappy that Obama didn't roll back some of that, but the political realities won't allow it, just like closing Guantanamo.
Because John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, 1996-2007, put his letter in the New York Times, it is a biased article. No, it is not an opinion piece written by the NYT, it is the actual words of John Howard.
If two TBN members from Australia write posts that clearly conflict, most of you, with no rational basis for doing so, choose to accept the post that sounds most threatening to gun ownership.
"Gun ban" cities, are gun bans in name only. Clearly, if guns are being used, then guns are present. The statistics are comparing apples to oranges. In our country, more guns always translates to more gun violence and accidental gun injury and death.
I would like to live in a country where personal security is not dependent on carrying a gun. In any case, it will always be the young and elderly who will remain undefended in such a scenario. What concealed carry recommendations do you have for my 86-year-old Mom with severe arthritis in her fingers?
Turning our schools, or anywhere else, into hardened bunkers is the sickest outcome I can imagine. It would reflect the sickness in our society, and the NRA is fully behind that sick idea. If you are unable to see that for the debased morality that it is, nothing I say will make sense to you.
I don't have the answers. It is possible that the Founders' 2nd Amendment ideas which seemed sound and necessary at the time, are not workable in modern reality. There sure seems to be a lot of collateral damage attached to the 2nd Amendment. Yes, I own guns. I do not have a CC permit.
westcliffe01
Veteran Member
There is one simple fact that you are avoiding; you can't shoot someone without a gun.
No, I think what you mean to say is - The law only prevents law abiding people from owning a gun to protect themselves. It does NOT prevent the criminals from having them, even if they have to make them themselves (many fully automatic sub machine guns being made in backyards shops in the 3rd world). Do you wish to state for the record that banning guns will take them away from criminals ? If you agree it will not, then please do not dictate the removal of our means of defense from evil people. You do as you wish.
If I say our LEO's shouldn't have to worry about a punk with a gun, your answer is they better not be complacent. They are two different concepts.
Why do LEO's carry a GUN ? Answer: to protect themselves. So how are we different ? I can tell you one way: Civilians are not IMMUNE from prosecution if they draw and brandish a weapon or point it at anyone when a judge and jury later decides it was not justifiable. The problem is that law enforcement has been escalating the level of violence used against civilians and the judicial and executive branch has been backing them up all the way. With VERY few exceptions, shootings by law enforcement are considered justifiable. Even if it is 6 different officers emptying their 17 round magazines at the same lone knife wielding mentally handicapped guy. Or the former marine shot 17 times in his own house by the "No Knock" swat team executing a search warrant at 9am. One does not need to be a genius to see that rising violence against the civil population, coupled by the Federal governments refusal to enforce US sovereignty at the southern border - leading to out of control human, gun and drug smuggling operations by Mexicans is leading to an arms race between the state and the people.
"Gun ban" cities, are gun bans in name only. Clearly, if guns are being used, then guns are present.
So if you lived in one of them, and you could not own one to defend yourself without becoming a felon, how would you feel about "in name only" then ?
I would like to live in a country where personal security is not dependent on carrying a gun.
We all want the same thing. The difference is that one either accepts personal responsibility for providing for your own protection, or you don't and you can tell us afterward how it feels like to be a victim (if they let you live and you retain your faculties intact - a matter of luck vs planning)
In any case, it will always be the young and elderly who will remain undefended in such a scenario. What concealed carry recommendations do you have for my 86-year-old Mom with severe arthritis in her fingers?
It has always been the responsibility and DUTY of able bodied men and women to help those who are unable to help themselves. If all of us are to be disarmed, except the criminals (who never will) what are we supposed to do to help others ? Right now the federal government ENSURES that we CANNOT by prohibiting law abiding citizens from being discreetly armed in the places that sociopaths choose to act out their game of one-up-manship in the human equivalent of the arcade game. Then the same people who disarmed everyone wish to express their shock and revulsion at their own handiwork ??? I say sentence every politician for criminal conspiracy, who voted "Aye" on the "Gun Free Schools Act". But I forget, our politicians are immune from prosecution for the outcome of their laws, in the same way law enforcement and the military can't be held accountable for "collateral damage" when they use force.
Turning our schools, or anywhere else, into hardened bunkers is the sickest outcome I can imagine. It would reflect the sickness in our society, and the NRA is fully behind that sick idea. If you are unable to see that for the debased morality that it is, nothing I say will make sense to you.
Do you suppose Israeli schools look like bunkers ? No, they simply have staff and family members on the premises who are discretely armed and have access to greater firepower in a short time if needed. Have you ever been to a school in a real conflict zone ? Does it occur to you that seeing people who are armed for your own protection (as opposed to law enforcement - who often have a tenuous relationship with local communities) is actually reassuring ? But I forget, you have probably never been anywhere where your life was in danger.
I don't have the answers. It is possible that the Founders' 2nd Amendment ideas which seemed sound and necessary at the time, are not workable in modern reality. There sure seems to be a lot of collateral damage attached to the 2nd Amendment. Yes, I own guns. I do not have a CC permit.
Every bit of collateral damage is caused by criminal behavior. 2000 years ago, apparently the "Ten Commandments" sufficed to govern a peoples behavior. Today the law is an incomprehensible mess of billions of pages that takes qualified lawyers months even years to work through a single case. We now have a judicial system that has become its own bureaucracy, which in many cases no longer serves the interest of the people. A situation where 30% of the adult population has a criminal record, combined with a pious population who believe that once convicted, a person is to be marked as a criminal for life and should be deprived of their most basic rights (right to work, right to defense) FOREVER is just the right recipe for the kind of social breakdown that we are seeing. When someone convicted of a minor non-violent crime is then basically unemployable, where do you think this leads ? The answer is plainly into more criminal activity and the stakes are constantly escalated until they feel there is "no way out" at which point the killing begins.
I do not wish to condone any kind of criminal behavior, but the population needs to consider carefully the cost of the lives wasted by the present laws, law enforcement, judicial system, local and central government. The freedom we currently have has become a very narrow path indeed. Straying just a tiny bit (which is human after all) can quickly cost you everything you have and any future prospects. All of these people who enter the judicial system end up costing us at payroll time (for those of us actually working or living on investments). All of those people sitting on the other side of the bench are costing us too. Very handsomely I might add. The typical LEO here in MI is retired before 50 with full pension and medical for life. People are entering these professions for the wrong reasons, it never used to be a job that revolved around money and benefits, but it is now. Not to mention all the perks for that special interest group (permitted to be armed anywhere within the US regardless of state law, real estate tax breaks etc etc). And I hate to say it, but some join the profession because they are hungry for the power that goes along with being the only party who has control of the "justified and legitimate" use of force in the community, like a bouncer at the door of a nightclub.
Last edited:
Alan L.
Elite Member
The 2nd amendment is more important now than it ever has been. There is one reason for disarming the people, and stopping criminals is not it.
westcliffe01
Veteran Member
westcliffe01
Veteran Member
Here is another Florida cop threatening to shoot a conceal carry permit holder in the back
Obama bringing the military back home to fight on US soil
http://www.examiner.com/article/renowned-author-obama-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens?CID=obinsite
Renowned author: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens
Military
January 22, 2013
By: Joe Newby
On Monday, Dr. Jim Garrow, a renowned author and humanitarian who was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, sparked a firestorm of controversy when he wrote on Facebook that President Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens. In an exclusive interview with Examiner.com, Dr. Garrow said the man who told him this is a military hero who is known by everybody in the country.
"I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new 'litmus test' in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks," he wrote.
"The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not," the unnamed military officer reportedly said. Dr. Garrow also wrote that those who do not meet this litmus test are being removed.
On Tuesday, Dr. Garrow said that officers who know about this cannot come forward without endangering themselves and facing possible retaliation from the administration.
According to Dr. Garrow, the officer who made the allegation learned about the litmus test from the person who got him interested in military service. That person, Dr. Garrow added, was forced out for failing to meet the criteria.
Dr. Garrow said he promised to keep the officer's name from the public, adding that he stands behind what he was told regardless of the consequences.
"I would stake my full reputation on this gentleman," he said.
"If people want to throw things at me, fine," he added, calling it "an honor" to come under fire for keeping his promise to the officer.
Dr. Garrow told Examiner that there are people in the administration who are paid to "attack those who raise doubts" about anyone who criticizes the Obama administration.
As numerous sites have mentioned, Dr. Garrow is no conspiracy theorist or "random crackpot on Facebook." Not only is he the author of "The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China," he is a highly-regarded human rights activist who has rescued thousands of young girls from certain death in China and currently owns over 250 schools in that country.
Examiner's Dave Gibson said the shocking claim comes on the heels of a Washington Free Beacon report that says Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis will leave his post as Commanding General of Central Command in March, several months earlier than anticipated.
The Free Beacon described his dismissal as a "bum's rush."
A post at the blog Nice Deb reminds readers that a paper issued by a West Point think tank warns of so-called “far right” groups like the “anti-federalist” movement, that supports “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.”
According to an article at the Washington Times, the report describes "anti-federalists" as those who "espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”
Given today's political climate, that definition could encompass much of the Tea Party and those who espouse conservatism.
Obama bringing the military back home to fight on US soil
http://www.examiner.com/article/renowned-author-obama-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s-citizens?CID=obinsite
Renowned author: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens
Military
January 22, 2013
By: Joe Newby
On Monday, Dr. Jim Garrow, a renowned author and humanitarian who was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, sparked a firestorm of controversy when he wrote on Facebook that President Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. citizens. In an exclusive interview with Examiner.com, Dr. Garrow said the man who told him this is a military hero who is known by everybody in the country.
"I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new 'litmus test' in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks," he wrote.
"The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not," the unnamed military officer reportedly said. Dr. Garrow also wrote that those who do not meet this litmus test are being removed.
On Tuesday, Dr. Garrow said that officers who know about this cannot come forward without endangering themselves and facing possible retaliation from the administration.
According to Dr. Garrow, the officer who made the allegation learned about the litmus test from the person who got him interested in military service. That person, Dr. Garrow added, was forced out for failing to meet the criteria.
Dr. Garrow said he promised to keep the officer's name from the public, adding that he stands behind what he was told regardless of the consequences.
"I would stake my full reputation on this gentleman," he said.
"If people want to throw things at me, fine," he added, calling it "an honor" to come under fire for keeping his promise to the officer.
Dr. Garrow told Examiner that there are people in the administration who are paid to "attack those who raise doubts" about anyone who criticizes the Obama administration.
As numerous sites have mentioned, Dr. Garrow is no conspiracy theorist or "random crackpot on Facebook." Not only is he the author of "The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China," he is a highly-regarded human rights activist who has rescued thousands of young girls from certain death in China and currently owns over 250 schools in that country.
Examiner's Dave Gibson said the shocking claim comes on the heels of a Washington Free Beacon report that says Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis will leave his post as Commanding General of Central Command in March, several months earlier than anticipated.
The Free Beacon described his dismissal as a "bum's rush."
A post at the blog Nice Deb reminds readers that a paper issued by a West Point think tank warns of so-called “far right” groups like the “anti-federalist” movement, that supports “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.”
According to an article at the Washington Times, the report describes "anti-federalists" as those who "espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”
Given today's political climate, that definition could encompass much of the Tea Party and those who espouse conservatism.
TripleR
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 18,084
- Location
- Missouri
- Tractor
- Kubota M8540HDC, L5740HSTC, BX2200, BX2660, John Deere 425&1025R, Case, Massey Ferguson, Ford
Thanks for the information, I take all such videos on both sides with a grain of salt, kind of like the John Deere v Kubota or Chevy v Toyota videos, my confusion was not from it but from another Australian. Apparently unlike in the US where we all agree, some Australians don't.:laughing:
