posted July 20, 2000 10:54 PM         

As some of you may know, here in Australia we have pretty strict guns laws. No auto matics, no semi-auotmatics, and all lever action and pump action limited to 5 shots. (please, someone correct me if I am wrong)

I think it is a great for this country to get control of this situation befor it got out of hand. Fair enough , crims can always get a gun, but here is my point.

When someone here goes out to commit a crime, they don't go out with the intention of shooting someone, or even thinking they may have to. Why? because they know not everyone has a gun. They don't have to worry about Grandad sitting in the back of the store with a .44. Or if they rob a house they are not going to get shot at. Hell, I really wonder how many of the guns are even loaded when they do it.

I know it sucks, but two people + 2 guns usually = at least one dead. Most of the time it is the innocent.

I wouldn't like to live in a place where everyone had a gun, and felt it was ok to use it.

But at the same time, it sucks how the majority has to pay the price for the actions of the minority, those with no common sense.

Well thats my opinion.

By the way, my brother and I had to hand in 12 guns in total (durning the gov. buy back scheme.) But he kept the .9mm and i kepth the Dessert Eagle (98). We are members of a club, but only go about twice a year!

posted July 20, 2000 11:03 PM         

simply put

Guns preserve freedom

If you ban guns all the lawbiding citizens
will turn over thier guns & the criminals
wont,leaving us helpless
& unable to defend ourselves & protect our
families from these animals.

------------------
-----------------------
Weights before dates

posted July 20, 2000 11:10 PM            

Now, I am all for making it harder to buy guns and ammo. (ie:backgroubd checks,courses,etc.) And for not allowing the sale of fully automatic wpns. or wpns. that have no other purpose other than to kill people (ie:sug-machine guns)

But, this new law, making everyone register their guns is absolute bullshit!

This will not cut down on crime at all. The criminals won't register their guns, the only ones who will are the law abiding citizens. This is just another tax grab that our fucked up goverment has devised in order to rape us of a little more of our hard earned money!

I have talked to a lot of people and nobody can tell me how this is really going to work.

Just my opinion.

posted July 21, 2000 12:01 AM            

chris

------------------
6 gauge in my tongue,
22 gauge in my ass...

posted July 21, 2000 12:46 AM         

A criminal isn't going to register his firearms!!!!!! Therefore how the hell is it going to reduce crime?

posted July 21, 2000 06:42 AM            

------------------
Expect the unexpected.

posted July 21, 2000 09:28 AM            

Good law fearing people should always have the right to ownership.
After all gun control is hitting what your aiming at.

posted July 21, 2000 10:12 AM            

My wife is vehemently anti-gun and we argue constantly about the subject.

5 years ago some punks decided to attempt a robbery at my house. They threw a rock and busted our plate glass window. My wife heard them say "Lets go get em" and she screams to me:

"GET YOUR GUN!!!!!!"

I did, pointed it at them and guess what? They all fled. Swiftly I might add into the night. I guess the prospect of having to face an armed "victim" changed the minds of these miscreants.

I will never give up the RIGHT to protect myself. My wife is a little more forgiving of my views even though she still hates guns.

I often remind here of that brief moment she loved a gun.......

posted July 21, 2000 10:36 AM            

I do not want some poitician to tell me what gun I can own and cant. If I have a gun and the gov says I can not own it and tryes to take it from me they are going to have a fight on there hands.
I realize some thing simmiler to this happened to the gun ownes of austraila ( I believe), and simmiler in england.

Dladie I realize some people are scared of guns, but being scared and ignorant is no way to base an oppinion. Not a flame on you ,just using you as an example.

If people want more protection from guns why not enforce the laws on the books aginst gun violance instead of trying to take guns away from people who never broke a law in there life.

I am not a careless person when it comes to my firearms. Each on is locked up in a case, and the ammo to it is locked up in a seperate cace and they each have a triger lock. This is 3 locks you have to get through to use the gun. These are precaushions I decided to do to make it very difficult to use any of my firearms.

posted July 21, 2000 10:54 AM            

god i love meaningless platitudes....

of course most of us are gonna be pro-gun, this is a totally biased population sample...

WE ARE ALL REAL MEN AND WOMEN!!!!!

posted July 21, 2000 01:43 PM            

------------------
"The more you sweat in training the less you bleed in battle"

posted July 21, 2000 01:49 PM         

Here is something I always found funny...you do not need a permit (other than being 21) to buy liquer, yet more people die from drunk driving than are shot by an enourmous margin. Maybe we should outlaw liquer again. And while we are at it, cars cause thousands of deaths a year...those should probably go too. Bathtubs...got to go. Electricity...got to go. Baseball bats, knives, etc.

The bottom line...law abiding citizens do not kill people with guns (unless it is a criminal intent on violent crime, then it is open season!)...criminals do. Registration does nothing except give criminals a list of people with guns...so they can avoid breaking in on them...or know where to go when they need some.

posted July 21, 2000 01:59 PM         

HISTORY....
==============
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER; In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun
control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in
Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2% Assaults are up 8 % Armed robberies are up 44% In that countries' state of Victoria, homicides with firearms
are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain
how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."

It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.
Take action before it's too late, write or call your delegation.

OPINION
Paul Harvey on Guns
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Harvey's comment on Columbine High shootings:
How can we blame it all on guns?

For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton, CO. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy.

Yeah, it must have been the guns. It couldn't have been because half our children are being raised in broken homes. It couldn't have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. After all, we give our children quality time.

It couldn't have been because we treat our children as
pets and our pets as children.

It couldn't have been because we place our children in day care centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the law of the jungle while employees who have no vested interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is
spilled.

It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch, on the average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn't fit for adult consumption.

It couldn't have been because we allow our children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in themost sadistic way possible.

It couldn't have been because we have sterilized and contracepted our families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of the
material with love.

It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time.

It couldn't have been because we give two-year prison sentences to teenagers who kill their newborns.

It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of
mud by teaching evolution as fact and by handing out condoms as if they were candy.

It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that actions don't have consequences. What the heck, the president gets away with it.

Nah, it must have been the guns.

posted July 21, 2000 03:46 PM            

------------------
"The more you sweat in training the less you bleed in battle"

posted July 21, 2000 06:59 PM            

Conan, I could not have said it better myself. Great post dude!!

posted July 22, 2000 03:24 PM            

After Columbine, Waco, Oklahoma City, etc., etc., etc., I just don't understand all you pro gun zealots. I really wish you'd get a little less paranoid, grow up a little, and take a look at where you're going with this buillshit.

Let sportsmen keep guns. Sure. I grew up with a .22 and couple of shotguns myself.

Handguns, though? Unhunh! Ditto with assault rifles, and anything else that appeals to the lunatic fringe. That interferes with your constitutional rights? Fine, let's repeal the 2nd Amendment! We've done it before (we repealed the 18th [prohibition]), and that might settle it.

We were not, by the way, historically a nation of gun owners. That's a myth. Less than 10 percent of Americans owned a firearm prior to the Civil War. Now there are as many guns as there are people in his country,

Handguns, assault rifles, and easy access to any kind of instant death have no place in a civil society. They belong in the wetdreams of your adolescent sons who, I hope, you keep as far way from them as possible. Just my $.02, but I'm as firm in my opinions as you are in yours.

Now, go lift something a lot heavier than a gun!

posted July 22, 2000 03:24 PM            

After Columbine, Waco, Oklahoma City, etc., etc., etc., I just don't understand all you pro gun zealots. I really wish you'd get a little less paranoid, grow up a little, and take a look at where you're going with this buillshit.

Let sportsmen keep guns. Sure. I grew up with a .22 and couple of shotguns myself.

Handguns, though? Unhunh! Ditto with assault rifles, and anything else that appeals to the lunatic fringe. That interferes with your constitutional rights? Fine, let's repeal the 2nd Amendment! We've done it before (we repealed the 18th [prohibition]), and that might settle it.

We were not, by the way, historically a nation of gun owners. That's a myth. Less than 10 percent of Americans owned a firearm prior to the Civil War. Now there are as many guns as there are people in his country,

Handguns, assault rifles, and easy access to any kind of instant death have no place in a civil society. They belong in the wetdreams of your adolescent sons who, I hope, you keep as far way from them as possible. Just my $.02, but I'm as firm in my opinions as you are in yours.

Now, go lift something a lot heavier than a gun!

Bjaarki

------------------
"'Til the weard of the world, stands, unforgotten,
high under Heaven, the hero's name." - Hrolf Krakki's Saga (Iceland)

posted July 22, 2000 04:33 PM            

The right to bear arms and protect your family was NOT GIVEN to you by the politicians! It is a God given right that was there before anything else.And I don't mean with a f*cking little .22 popgun! I don't hunt, because I can buy my meat at the grocer's.

I'd like to know what the gun control nuts would do if they heard a noise donwstairs one night and it turned out to be three guys that just wanted to have some fun with your daughters, hide under the F*cking bed? Let them do whatever? Because I don't care how big and strong you are, or how much gear you're on, one 9mm pistol will stop all of your defense intentions COLD. Wake up people!
Jesus! 911 isn't going to stop anything. But the knowing use of a handgun will. even without firing it.

I KNOW THIS IS LONG BUT ANYONE WHO VALUES THE 2ND AMENDMENT WILL **LOVE** THIS, AS FOLLOWS [SORRY IT'S A CUT AND PASTE JOB]:

Les Adams, a lawyer and scholar, has written quite a bit about the 2d
Amendment. The following was gleaned from his work "The Second
Amendment Primer" published in 1996:

As heirs to the majestic constitutional history of England, the
intellectual and political leaders of the new Colonies intended
nothing less than to incorporate into their new government the laws
and liberties of Englishmen, including the well-established right of
the law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms. They revered English
customs and law. Chief Justice Howard Taft observed that the Framers
were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke its vocabulary.

He said that when the Framers came
to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a
compact draft, they expressed themselves in terms of the common law,
confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.

Chief Justice Taft's analysis explains, in part, the confusion that
has developed, especially in this century, over the interpretation of
the language of the 2d Amendment. The meaning of such words as
"militia," "bear arms," discipline," "well
regulated," and "the people" was the meaning of these
words as they were used in the English common law of the sixteenth
through eighteenth centuries--not as they are used today.

In colonial times, the term "well regulated" meant well
functioning. It was a term that included the concept of familiarity
with firearms and their use, which can only come about by personal
possession and frequent employment of the arm. Only a personal right
of firearm ownership, rather than a collective right, can create this
condition.

In the colonial period, the "militia" was the entire adult
male citizenry. These men were not simply allowed to keep their own
arms, but were affirmatively required to do so. The different
colonies imposed a duty to keep arms upon every household. Even the
over-aged and seamen who were outside the definition of
"militia" were required to keep arms for law enforcement and
for the defense of their homes from criminals or foreign enemies (82
Mich. Law Review 214-215 (1983)).

All the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution because of a
desire to alleviate what James Madison and the other Federalists saw
as an Anti-federalist quibble; a suspician of the extraordinary
powers that were to be granted to the federal government by the
Constitution. Madison just wrote up a set of principles--of
truisms--in which everybody believed, and the Congress duly passed it
as the Bill of Rights. Two of these truisms that got cobbled into one
article were: THAT THERE IS A NATURAL RIGHT TO BE ARMED; and THAT MILITIAS ARE A GOOD THING, A MUCH BETTER THING THAN A STANDING ARMY.

Therefore, like it or not, revisionism and ignorance of history
notwithstanding, the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right
derived by natural law. That is to say, all law-abiding citizens have
the right whether the 2d Amendment were written or not! The natural
law derivation of the right trumps any strained interpretation of any
of the Bill of Rights based upon the "intent" of the founders
or that the Constitution is a "living document" and should be
redefined as times change.

Thus endeth the lesson (but not the argument, I'll wager).

posted July 23, 2000 10:42 AM            

------------------
Through mud and blood, to the green fields beyond..

posted July 23, 2000 10:53 AM            

------------------
Patience is a bitter plant, but it has sweet fruit.

posted July 24, 2000 12:32 PM         

BJAARKI, you said...
"We were not, by the way, historically a nation of gun owners. That's a myth. Less than 10 percent of Americans owned a firearm prior to the Civil War. Now there are as many guns as there are people in his country,"

I wonder what the source is for your information....sounds incredibly wrong to me.