No, we trust that if a government gets truly out of line we can deliver one almighty arse kicking without using guns
For your sake, I hope you are right. It didn't work out to well for these countries over the last 120 years. http://www.fightthebias.com/resources/gundebate/history_of_gun_control.htm
Such a grotesque blanket indictment and yet you offer nothing but a wild assertion to support it?? Familiarize yourself with self defense laws in the U.S. before making such sickening claims. This thread should never have been allowed to remain open. This is putrid.
Anti gun people tend to mock gun owners by asking if they're going to go against tanks with small arms. Apparently they never considered what it would be like facing a government with fists.
Worked in India and THEY were fighting the British Imperialism. Worked elsewhere too - wars are so passé now. Jokes aside if you propose to stand up to the government using guns then that is what you will get - civil war.
hahahahahahahaha and how are you going to stop them? toss 'em a barbie? You sure wont have anything more powerful than insults and slurs against a armed force...............right, sure
Thats simplistic. Here in the US, we have a recognized nascent police state with the population under surveillance, the govt targeting people for their political opinions, and a rapidly growing federal internal police organization (Homeland Security/TSA/NSA) geared specifically to monitoring, searching, and controlling Americans within the borders of the US. We have increasingly militarized local police forces which with impunity kill around 500 innocent people every year, perform around 50,000 no-knock raids every year many for trivial regulatory crimes which a few years ago would have been handled through the mail, and kill peoples pets routinely (one pet dog evey 90 minutes, in fact the SOP in raids is to immediately go through the area and kill every dog). Its openly advised in the media that people should think twice before calling the police. We have a President which openly breaks the law and brags about it, and a political system which is not just out of touch with the people but beyond peoples influence. Politicians and universites are even admitting we live in an oligarchy, cronyism rules the day. And specifically regarding gun control, we have one party (Democrats) with the objective of a gun ban and who will blatantly lie in order to achieve their objective, and are supported by a partner in major media "news" organizations who will cooperate in manipulating people. Combine that attitude with the willingness to abandon the rule of law and the political process, and the use of the federal regulatory agencies to target people for political reasons, and the overall situation is unraveling. I suspect that the current situation in Australia is not as peaceful politically as you think it is but gun rights groups are definitely on the defensive. The gun banners have achieved much of their objective and hold the upper hand. Having banned the major categories of guns (semi-auto center fire long guns, most handguns of any significant caliber), the banners are probably not making much of a PR campaign beyond scare tactics when a group questions the effectiveness of the bans. If the major media is like the media in the US (complicit in promoting the gun ban agenda) then they probably report less on gun related crime (and crime in general) now that the bans are in place.
Do you realize how hat a "barbie" is in Australia? I still don't see it as a good defense. BB - I don't buy guns with a plan to start a war. The public having guns is meant to be a last resort. It also keeps criminals from preying on the innocent.
I am glad to see females rolling around to the idea that they too can protect themselves just as easily as any man can. Even more so women should carry. But first they need gun safety classes and practice practice and practice just like any guy carrying should be doing.
a "barbie" is a barbeque................................neitherdo I. They couldn't even come up with enough arms to put up a weak resistance, then like to sit back and claim that it would never happen to a nicer bunch of folks........................right, sure...........
Then you need to do what we did - get your lawyers on side and kick the bloody cases out of court - that is what we did with the American style "Patriot act" that Howard signed into place As far as I can see you have only one real threat to your civil liberties - and it is called the NRA. The NRA LEGISLATED to repress freedom of speech - fortunately your government (federal) saw this for what it was and overturned the legislation
But if you put guns as the first line of action that is exactly what would happen. Nearly did at the Bundy ranch and I applaud America for NOT allowing it to spread further. But what the "guns protect my freedoms" bunch have never been able to explain to me is how that happens without it becoming a civil war
We don't use guns as a first line of action. Our first line of action is like everyone else, at the ballot box. Texas isn't becoming more Republican. We already have a 2/3 majority in house and senate. We are, however, becoming more conservative. Tea party candidates are challenging and often beating Republican incumbants. Texas can't be the only state doing this. Cantor is another example. If a moderate wins the Republican nomination for 2016, he will lose again. Republicans won't elect another McCain or Romney. They need to quit aiming for the moderate 20% and quit alienating their conservative base. I guess that's for another thread. Guns are always a last resort, or hopefully just a deterant to an overreaching federal government. Quit assuming we are a bunch of blood thirsty savages.
Of course they are last resort and always should be however the rhetoric does not make it sound that way. Some of the responses I have had to this challenge has been "Because we own them that keeps the government honest" Me I am a "pen is mightier" kind of girl and would MUCH rather put complaints in writing
Can you be anymore absurd? First the NRA protects one of our civil liberties against the authoritarians in government. Second, the NRA cannot legislate anything. Really, what do you have against people petitioning government to protect their rights. Seems to me it is the gun grabbers that want to squash that freedom.
You don't live in US and clearly don't understand the conditions here. The case of the American Assoc. of Pediatricians, the case was not legislated by the NRA but was a grass roots movement brought directly to the Florida state legislature by parents who had been harassed by AAP doctors. The NRA and many other groups supported the effort, but certainly did not instigate or lead it. In the larger arena of civil rights and the police state, the NRA is irrelevant. It's easy to say "get the lawyers to kick it out", its much harder to do. Its not easy to fight when the evidence against a person is secret and cannot be revealed in court, in fact some of the laws themselves are secret. How does a person fight when they don't even know what law was broken? Many people have tried and some cases went to the Supreme Court only to have the majority of the Patriot Act & NDAA upheld. The politicians are not on the peoples side either. obama campaigned against the Patriot Act, was elected, and then did the opposite of what he promised - he greatly expanded the Patriot Act, NDAA, HSA, TSA, etc. Outside of some Tea Party and Liberal Democrats, the feds in DC seem to like having so much control. And even if someone wins in court, there is no insurance that the feds will obey. Its all in secret, after all. The feds flat out lied to us (to Congress, the media, voters, foreign govts) for 11 years about surveillance, drone strikes, rendition, and only started to come clean when whistle blowers (like Snowden) came forth. And even then, the feds admitted just enough to cover the latest whistle blower release. If you in AUS have control of your govt, good for you. We in the US have lost control of ours.
written complaints are prove of subversive thoughts..................we know what happened in Russia during the Great Purge......
Parent - singular http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ian_gag_rules_and_the_cdc_aca_and_states.html And the NRA was certainly involved http://boingboing.net/2011/05/08/nra-and-florida-gag.html That CANNOT happen here as it is a breech of natural justice Well chuck your bill of rights and go back to a system where EVERYTHING ties into natural justice
Owning doesn't, but using one generally does, given that application of lethal force is what they're designed for.
You're assuming that if she had a gun she would have killed him(can't say that I would blame her either). Maybe all that would have been necessary is for her to point the gun at him. In the end though neither of us really know.
