Gun "control" - to protect or disarm the citizens?

Post Reply New Topic

Spooky. I didn't know this. All I knew about Knight was that he was a National Front (one of those Neo-Nazi style groups, like the facist group founded by Mosley prior to WW2) nutter. But the NSW Premier would have eaten his words after Port Arthur.

Psy-op? Is that a psychic operation? As in some government-controlled psychic forced Bryant to gun down those people? Do me a favour. I'd sooner believe that Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks rather than sit on his hiney and ignore the reports of terrorists. And I'd also sooner believe that JFK was murdered by the CIA and the Vatican, in association with the American Footwear Association (readers of the Chopper books will know where I am coming from here).

I remember when they banned the import of military semi-auto in the US. The law
is kinda of a joke I not up on the latest laws. But what you had to do to make it non-militray.

1) remove threads on end of barrel
2) remove bayonett lug
3) remove pistol grip (use a thumb hole stock)

Still the same damn weapon!

On and all the parts were available and you could legalily put them on a late model import gun and you could still make the military style in the US.

I think the only real ban is no new production of Fully automatic weapons and sound
supressor in 1986! Yes if you paid a $200 tax and were 21 and were not a criminal you
could by a new production mini-gun in 1986. You gotta love America. Oh and in no
case have any weapons been taking back. You can still buy any of the weapons that
were made before 1986.

No. The conspiracy theory is that Bryant was not the only shooter. He was such a moron and his guns in such crap condition that he was set up by government agents, in order to get public opinion behind the new laws/powers they wanted.

I don't say I believe it, but there are a lot of unanswered questions and definately some cover-ups

Look at http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/port_arthur.htm

Includes other co-incidences such as Tas gov't bought a refridgerated mobile morgue with capacity of 22 just before and sold it just after.

Occam's razor, people, Occam's razor.

Good thing it can only be used on metaphorical carotids, eh? I'll demonstrate. I'll put it up to my throat, and slash like so--- ggggggggghkkkkkk!

(Sound of arterial spray)

You lucky Yankee bastards, how I envy you!

One or two morons a year purposely kill people with (legal) fire arms in this country. Every time, coward politicians and journalists shout that all guns should be banned, although there are 700000 law obedient gun owners in Sweden and although most private owned guns are either semi automatic rifles for huntings with a capacity of 5 rounds at most or semi automatic pistols, often with a capacity of less than 8 rounds and/or often smaller caliber than 9 mm. A new license for a fully automatically gun with a capacity of 30 rounds or so is practically impossible to get for a private person, if he's not a policeman or military man in his work and often not even then...

It may not be a fully deliberate conspiracy, but they sure as hell are trying to ban guns for "ordinary" people for very questionable reasons...

Lit, machine is not citing the regulation exactly correctly, there are some restriction that he does not indicate and regarding the issue of fully automatic weapons...there are some states that have a complete ban...the federal law is a tax law and only those weapons on the nation register can be tranfered among civilians upon payment of the tax...NO new weapons manufacturered either domesticlly or foreign since 19,May 1986 can be added to the registry, the result is that prices are so high that none but the most wealth can sfford them...a WWII era sub gun changes hands for about 20 thousand dollars....

Of course they do it very Swedish and progressively, tightening the law every 5-10 year. Practically all guns were free until 1927. Already 1934 most pistols were (in theory but not in practice) banned for other reasons than sports shooting and very strong reason to believe that one needed it for self protection. Today you wouldn't get any gun if you applied for a license for self protection. As cowards we shrink...

EDIT, I refer to my own post above.

Last edited by Litigious on 20 Sep 2006, 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

I know that, but you still have an enormous advantage over most European countries. The whole attitude to guns here is completely different. Most people except legal gun owners themselves think that gun owners are some macho morons and are hysterical over the fact that any gun is legally available for private persons...

Last edited by Litigious on 20 Sep 2006, 11:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

Granted, and it shows the wisdom of our Founders. When they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, they realized that these rights existed and were granted by God because of our humanity and took steps to ensure in writing in the Constitution itself, that government could never deprive us of these rights.

The greatest problem with most people in Europe is the fact that they look upon themselves as subjects, not citizens, so that they don't have it with their mothers milk to demand their rights so to speak. Second they make the mistake to trust the government just for being the government. This is a problem mostly in northern European countries, like Sweden, Norway, UK, Germany, etc.

In southern and eastern Europe people tend to have a healthy mistrust in authorities and are more willingly to break laws they know are morally wrong. That's the reason why almost every person in Sweden or England owing an illegal gun is a criminal most of the time, while an illegal gun owner in Italy or Greece is law abiding most of the time...

I've spent extended time in Finland and I would have to say that I disagree about the Scandinavian attitude towards citizenship. I think the idea is that 'we are all in this together' and that the people in the government are basically you and me, just doing a different job. There isn't a great stratification of wealth in Scandinavia like there is in the rest of the industrialized world. Doctors and heads of companies don't make *tremendously* more than the average person, and even unskilled employees such as janitors and fast food workers make decent salary and benefits. Lawyers don't make outrageous money like they do in the US. Same for politicians -- they aren't the extremely wealthy, powerful, well-connected people they are in other countries.

In the US, there's the attitude of the simple homeowner versus some corrupt, tyrannical class of politicians in DC, who would confiscate your proeprty and send you to a concentration camp if only they had appropriate excuses to do so. It's a paranoid 'Us versus them' -- forgetting that we are the people that voted them in. When you point out that we elect these representatives, you get some libertarian rant about Republicrats and how voting doesn't change anything. This view forgets that you are just one person in a sea of people, and if you don't like not getting your way all the time, either A. grow up, accept it, and learn to get along with your neighbors, or B. buy an island somewhere and start your own government, where you will have the freedom to do whatever you want.

You're right about the wealth and that the government people are more "ordinary folks" than in the US. I'm just angry, because I consider it a human right to defend yourself from criminals and tyrants and you never know when either might turn up...One shouldn't need a license for a human right.

Now the social democrats (who aren't that socialist any more) lost the election and the new government in Sweden will probably act more like they do in the US, and then I don't mean the gun laws etc but treating "ordinary" people more like servants. The idiot who became prime minister thinks it's good for people with cancer to go to work..."They'll feel more motivated to get healthy then"

So despite being an admirer of the Second amendment I wish the social democrats back...

But the new government won't loosen up the gun laws anyway.

That is possibly the most absurd thing I have ever read. Care to provide a single piece of evidence in support of this calumny?

I think it is an obligation on every citizen to practice civil disobediance in regard to bad laws. I have no respect for gun laws that make criminals out of peaceful law abiding citizens.

I recall an interesting observation in my economics course at uni... people who raise cattle, whereever in the world (Holland, Texas, Australia) do not like being controlled and resist government authority more than others. I don't know much about Holland, so cannot say if that is true, but just mention this as an interesting observation.

I'd say that was a load of bull.

Actually, it is an interesting observation.