Gun reform in Australia


PDA






Aussieseek
April 6, 2006, 05:44 AM
John a valued poster at AussieSeek Messageboards

http://www.aussieseek.com

has some ideas on Gun reform in Australia.

Go there or here to contribute

--------------------

Now that Banana 2 has been banned, and Banana 1 and Cardy-man have taken their balls and gone home, maybe there' the opportunity for a sensible and reasonable discussion on the subject of gun control.

I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb and ask that we limit the discussion to Australian gun control issues.
(American readers might find this interersting and your input is welcome but there is also a large readership
in Australia of this board)

What do you think the laws should be in Australia governing the private ownership and use of firearms, and why ?

If everyone's OK with it I'll start the process.

1. Individual registration of long arms is a total waste of time, and diverts valuable resources away from more important crime control programs. The money spent each year on firearm registration in Victoria alone would put between 50 and 100 extra police officers on the beat. It has never been shown to solve a single crime, but face's wide non-compliance due to it's benefit to firearm confiscation programs. Society has decided Billy Jone's can be in possession of firearms, whether or not Billy Jones has one .22 rifle or two is totally irrelevant!

2. The carriage of concealed arms for the purposes of self defence should be allowed, where a person has undergone appropriate training and can show a genuine requirement for such arms.

3. Antique firearms (defined as made before 1900 and not designed for fixed ammunition, or made before 1945 and designed for fixed ammunition which is not commercially available) should be free from all licencing requirements except, where the owner intends using that firearm.

4. Prohibited persons, found in possession of arms, where it is reasonable to believe such arms were held with criminal intent, must face custodial sentences, and those sentences must be cumulative with any other sentence handed down by a court.

5. Firearms currently classified as Category C firearms (semi-automatic .22 rifles, semi-automatic and pump action shotguns) should be moved to Category B firearms, allowing their ownership on the basis of genuine need.

6. The law should allow recreational ownership of Category D firearms (semi-automatic centrefire rifles) for some types of hunting and target shooting, where legislated safekeeping requirements and genuine reason provisions can be met.

7. Anybody found to have carried a firearm during a violent or drug related crime must face a lengthy custodial sentence for the possession of that firearm, in addition to and cumulative with any other sentence handed down by a court.

8, Changes to pistol ownership laws introduced after 2002 are a total waste of time from a community safety viewpoint and should be repealed in total. Licencing requirements for handguns owned for sport or target shooting should be as they were in Victoria prior to 1996, including graduated access for new club members, and renewal based on pistol club attendance.

9. Legislated safekeeping requirements should be based on making unauthorised access to firearms difficult, not on making comlpiance with those requirements difficult.

10. Theft of a firearm should attract a length custodial sentence, again cumulative with any other sentence handed down.

Anybody else with any suggestions?

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun reform in Australia" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Spiphel Rike
April 6, 2006, 08:45 AM
Do away with the whole category thing, and simplify the license system. Break it down to "all long arms", "handguns", "other weapons", and something similar to the C & R license the americans have. Remove a lot of the "genuine need" clauses, that allows for a little too much discretion by the police. Drop the current waiting period of 28 days.
Remove the "permit to acquire" as well, since paying that amount of money every time you buy a gun gets expensive after a while, especially if you chop and change regularly.

Thefabulousfink
April 6, 2006, 01:26 PM
As an American living in a state that has very limited controll on firearms I would say that thoughs restrictions are way too much. However, given what the laws in Austrailia currently are, they sound like a step in the right direction.

One point, the "show genuine requiment" clause can be a horrible thing unless it is defined. Several states in the US require that a person show need before a CHL will be issued. In places like LA county CHLs are given out as favors to the rich or politically powerful. If an average person applies for a CHL because they have to walk to work eveyday through a high-crime area where there have been numerous muggings/rapes/murders they will be denied because in LA "protecting yourself" is not considered a valid need by the police.:barf:

White Horseradish
April 6, 2006, 02:08 PM
1-4 while not going as far as most Americans would feel be necessary are quite reasonable. Realistically, it should be doable.

5 and 6 are hard to comment on for people unfamiliar with the particular category system in question. On the face of it, I fail to see how .22 rifles and shotguns can be in the same category. There are no substantial similarities between the two. What exactly is the breakdown? Is it by perceived power, ease of concealment, lethality, frequency of use in crime? What is the purpose of having it?

8 is also hard to form an opinion about without knowing what the old law was and what the new law is. Generally, I would say that requiring membership at a club imposes an unreasonable hardship on the recreational shooter. I do a good bit of my shooting in a sand pit at a friend's farm. There is no risk to anyone there. Were I required to have a club membership I would have to give up the hobby, since the closest and most reasonably priced club to where I live has a waiting list to join that I have been on for about a year. Other clubs I could not afford. Again, what is the purpose of requirig a club membership? I did not think there was a shortage of unpopulated areas in Australia... :)

7,9 and 10 sound like excellent ideas.

Aussieseek
April 6, 2006, 07:47 PM
Thanks to

Chrisper.rainbow.rhw,mark,Spiphel Rike,
Thefabulousfink,Davehd,Dr. Dickie,Kane,White Horseradish
Erroneous Maximus , and zeke for ideas thrown in so far
concerning Australian Gun Laws- Proposals for reform

Where will our Gun Rights be here and there in 2010?

In Australia The Howard Liberal Anti Gun Government
may evaporate
at the next election and what after GWB?.

The next generation will have some challenges

and who will use and care for your guns
when youre gone ?? !!

At Aussieseek the anti gun posters
are feeling pretty cocky.Theyre leading in a Poll

which is called Poll Question:

Do you think gun control laws reduce crime ?


Poll Poll Question: Do you think gun control laws reduce crime ?
Should Guns be kept in a house with kids? (1 vote, 4%)
Should federally-gun buyback programs continue? (1 vote, 4%)
Should shooting be banned as an olympic sport" (1 vote, 4%)
Should there be stricter gun laws ? (11 votes, 44%)
Should Gun Laws be Relaxed? (6 votes, 24%)
Should all Guns be kept at Shooting Ranges? (1 vote, 4%)
Is it OK for people to carry concealed Weapons? (3 votes, 12%)
Should manufacturers be liable for misuse

Tp vote just register as a member Anyone can vote at

http://aussieseek.proboards25.com/index.cgi

The poll is at

http://aussieseek.proboards25.com/index.cgi?
board=general&action=display&thread=1144021091

Thanks for all your help


Keith

Aussieseek
April 7, 2006, 04:14 AM
If you support this

Should Gun Laws be Relaxed? Yes?

When voting the only button to click is that one !!!!

You can only vote once

Aussieseek
April 7, 2006, 04:09 PM
This Post in from NoGun if you want a Laugh
-----
I dont mind the Asylum Seekers.

Why do guntards and convicts oppose illegal and legal
immigration ?

They don't want to lose their lawnmowing jobs !!!!!

Australians are to lazy to take the lowest paid and
and hardest working jobs


To busy playing pokies all day Many are breaking seats in our lovely asbestos filled trains with their fat arses


There is Australian fruit laying on the ground. Sheep are unsheared and the only thing that saves our wool industry
are maori shearers from New Zealand.

Our beef industry is ok with no mad cows but lots of mad people.

Honest John is right in allowing Asian Guest workers to flood the
country to work for a dollar an hour.Thats why he changed the
workplace agreements, The secret plan by Mc Donalds is to
dispense paying money to workers and replace it with a wage of one big mac an hour if you make it yourself.

Have you noticed there has NEVER been any lunchbreaks at maccas?

Unions oppose Imigrants because the visitors wont join a union to
fund the union bosses Huge salaries of $200.000 a year

Howard has never done anything about guest workers in the booming Aussie Sex Industry.,,and why should he?
They have clean sheets and pay Tax.

He has been VERY laid back
about it.

Of course he is slow to introduce an Australia Card. It will expose 500,000 Ilegal Chinese visa overstayers all on the dole and with driving licences because centerlink and rta staff cant speak or read chinese or Arabic.

No need for proof of identity for Welfare or driving licences ! Where they come from they dont have birth certificates.

Centre Link and the rta wisely gave up trying to read their own forms a long time ago.

Arab speaking imigrants work harder because they have more mouths to feed with several wives. SBS TV Likes them cause thet watch Soccer and the porno movies !!!

Councils like them for Parking revenue cause they park anywhere.

but Lets face it Most convicts oppose immigrants, legal or not, because of
sheer bigotry. It's a constant theme throughout history - a large
share of a society always opposes newcomers who are different.

The theory that it's some sort of affection for law which motivates
such people is lame.


The Irish were hated, the Scots were hated, the Greeks and Italians were
hated, on and on.


a typical guntard-- convict is a xenophobic blue-collar yank loving dumb****
who believes Muzzies will mongrelize his race and take his
factory/lawn job away and his lesbian girlfriend.

They havent noticed if Muzzies interbreed they get shot
by their parents.

Then theres those silly people people who feel laws should
be enforced, crimes investigated, and criminals prosecuted and punished.
Currently hopping the border is a crime, and given the number of people
doing it clearly the current punishment is inadequate deterrence.

Its OK if you come in a boat from PAPUA but not if you are a muzzie from IRAQ or Afghanistan eh Lennie and Angry?.

How does that work Ms Vanstone?

Thank god The police will turn a blind eye if youre a muzzie smashing cars because we back the yanks in IRAQ but lock you up if your parking meter expires.

And Willy

Tell me are you playing stupid, or are you really as stupid as you're making
out?

And Just remember John . Discuss Gun reform as much as you like and clog up the site, but in a survey here more than twice the amount of people polled prefer tighter gun laws.

As for all your crowing about the banning of straightshooter by your gun loving moderator all I can say is

He was the only straightshooter that was ever here.

NoGun
-------------------

Translations

Convicts. (Native Born Australians.Used as a slur by those who are uncomfortable with life in australia and us.
Australia was a dumping ground for UK Convicts. By the way my favorite DVD is Mel in the Patriot.Some nice muskets there)
Muzzies (radical muslims)
Honest John (Prime Minister John Howard. Good that he likes Bush. Bad that he is anti gun)
pokies (slots)
arse (Butt)
----------------------------

Aussieseek
April 7, 2006, 04:23 PM
General Chong is a retired Air Force Surgeon and past Commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio. So he is real, is connected to Veterans affairs, and these are his thoughts. They are worth reading and thinking about!! (Google search will direct you to some of his other thought-provoking writings.)

MG Vernon Chong, USAFR,

This WAR is for REAL!

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581
terrorist attacks worldwide).

2 Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4 What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also "Christian"), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get

What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.
Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.
Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels!
That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant..' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but our children, our grandchildren, our country and the world.

Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world!

Good reason to own a gun!

Zeke


__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness".

=======================
Stay Strong

Keith

Aussieseek
April 10, 2006, 10:17 PM
700,000 Firearms stolen by Government

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Governor of the Syn Byn ( A Jail where wayward board posters but not banned - like a purgotary are sent ) in his infinite wisdom and kindness has granted me letter writing priviledges.

Lurker said
---------
"Oh.. Theyve left the Door unlocked !

Do you feel safe with an armed ex prisoner
Like John running around. ?

I am not complaining.If you want someone to abuse all other members,be slack and drive other gun supporters away from the board. John is your Man. Have you learnt your lesson yet?
Some gun lovers are like drug addicts who will even sell their mother for their fix.As some of the other posters have said here the bigest problem for Gun owners is mostly themselves.
His War on Journalists for anti gun stories suits me fine.
Whilst you allow him to post all that I am Smiling.

Lennie the poster with a lock em up mentality has egg all over his face with 20 Votes for our side and the Gun Poll showed a 2 thirds win with most wanting to tighten gun laws.Not talk about a rollback.

We are still waiting for a reply to our question as to what would have happened at the Cronulla riots if the Australian Community was Armed. I wont Hold my Breath"

-------------

My reply

Me, "running around" you odviously don't know me very well, I'm much too old and fat to run anywhere, plus I've got a dickie knee.

Some anti's are also like drug addicts and will sell their souls for a whiff of moral superiority, their lives are so empty they feel the need to attack others and stamp their own sense of morality on their fellow man. When the anti-gun movement have crushed the last legally owned gun in the country, whats next computers? book burning ?
When last licenced recreational firearm owner in the country has been beaten into submission, who'se next trade unionists, freemasons, or will it be the poor bloody Jews turn again?

Lurker describes my attitude to Journalism as it is currently practiced in this country as a "war", I've never thought of it in those terms, but if it is a war, it's not one I declared.

In a way we all want tighter gun laws, the current Australian laws were based on a political will, not on community safety. I have made no mention of a roll-back, but of reform, gun laws must be based on maximising community safety not on political ideals. There have been twenty-odd criminal shootings in Sydney so far this year, but we tie up Police time registering muzzleloading antiques? A properly deactivated automatic weapon cannot be legally held by a licenced collector, but a replica automatic weapon can be purchased without a licence?
Twenty-odd criminal shootings in Sydney so far this year, but a properly licenced pistol shooter cannot use a .45 Colt in a Practical Match!

According to an article published on the weekend in the Herald Sun, one in nine Victorians owns a legal firearm, but there were no guns at Cronulla, propbaly because there wouldn't have been too many licenced gun owners at Cronulla either. Almost 700,000 formerly legally owned firearms have been taken from law abiding Aussies over the past ten years, with the threat of criminal sanction for non-compliance, no riots, a couple of peaceful protests. That's probably because whilst we think the law is foolish and unfair, it is the law and we will respect that, until we can get it changed.

John from the Aussieseek Messageboards at
http://aussieseek.proboards25.com/
__________________

sterling180
April 15, 2006, 08:54 AM
After Port-Arthur, that slimey-creepy excuse for a prime-minister decided to ban semi-automatic rifles(both sporting and tactical-types) and also pump and semi-automatic shotguns.:banghead: :cuss:

Why is it that scummy Johnnie-boy decided to include these shotguns in the ban and not pump-action rifles?

In the UK after the Hungerford massacre it was argued that pump-action centrefire rifles would be substituted for semi-automatic rifles, by psychotic individuals and one Australian commenter has said on this forum that pump-action rifles were excluded from the ban in 1997.

Now I would have thought that a pump-action rifle has a greater range than a shotgun in this format, because firstly a rifled-gun has grooves in the barrell to propell the bullet further at a greater range than a smoothbore-weapon like the shotgun that has limited range-but effective in close-quarters.

Could some of you here tell me the truthful reasons why these types of shotguns were banned,?and is it true that only Olympic-team members are still allowed to own and shoot them legally.

Also, do you or do you not still have practical shotgun disciplines available in Australia?,because your anti-gun organization was moaning that some disciplines survived the 1997 ban, when I last looked on their website.

Finally:Is there any hope on the bleak horizon, that pump and semi-automatic shotguns will return to Category B status?and would you love to have the UK reapeating-shotgun legislation incorporated into the Australian firearm licensing laws, considering your limited choice of shotties for sporting and target use, at present.

Spiphel Rike
April 15, 2006, 09:06 AM
"Could some of you here tell me the truthful reasons why these types of shotguns were banned,?"

IIRC they were commonly used in similar shootings in years before. I'm not sure how true it is, I never really looked. That or maybe little Johnny thought they were too "evil" ;)

sterling180
April 15, 2006, 11:16 AM
Spiphel Rike

I find that the perception of those types of shotguns,-in the eyes of your wonderful Prime-minister-ridiculously farcical and it made me laugh uncontrollably-if I might add,-but not at your or any other Aussies expense though.Jonnie-boy should come on over to the Norfolk-broads and other wetland areas in the UK and let his condomed-brain inflate with anti-gun hatred and let his big mouth spew out idiotic comments to the wetland shooters,like:"Why do you need them"etc,etc.Im sure they'll listen to him reasonably or if he is really lucky, they might give him a wide-blast with a 12 or 10 guage,so that he would be crapping himself uncontrollably and would be hopping around like a demented-kangaroo-all the way back to the airport.He should of met Tony MARTIN, when he had his pump-action shotgun and should have told him that he doesn't need a pump-action shotgun.Im sure that old Tony would have be really pleased with him, and would have give him a welcoming souvenier.:neener: :) :)

In your country you have sufficient wildlife for you to be legally-allowed to own the prohibited types of shotguns, even if people think that there is no reason to allow them back. Johnnie-boy should consider others instead of imposing his mean,pig-headed and crappy views on the public.It smells as bad as cattle-dung.:cuss: :cuss: :banghead: :fire:

What you need- in order to replace Jonnie boy- is another man called Howard-MICHEAL HOWARD,-who used to be the Tory Party leader in the UK-before David Cameron succeeded him recently.This man has his faults-as we in the UK know, but recognises the importance of what pump-action and semi-automatic plays in the shooting-community.Another thing is that you won't have to do ridiculous tests to qualify for firearms- and airguns in the UK Tory's minds are 100% license-free.You would be free to purchase swords again and break-action shotguns would be easy to get-as well as semis and pumps being allowed to be crimped and stored on a break-action shotgun license.(Section 2 in the UK.)

Aussieseek
April 18, 2006, 08:54 PM
Update:uhoh:

Announcement: Gun Reform. Who is Right " John or Gunsafe (Read 245 times)
tom
AussieSeek devils advocate said

http://www.aussieseek.com.au




Never Trust a Gun Owner




Joined: Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 49
Location: Atlanta
Karma: -3 Re: Gun Reform. Who is Right " John or Gunsafe
Reply #29 on Today at 9:30am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apr 17, 2006, 6:06pm, AussieSeek Search Engine wrote:

John Says to TOM (gunsafe)

I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb and ask that we limit the discussion to Australian gun control issues.

fine. Bit of a cowards approach though

What do you think the laws should be in Australia governing the private ownership and use of firearms, and why ?

You know what we feel by now. Australia had a cosmetic gun buyback. Now Mr Howard has to get serious

If everyone's OK with it I'll start the process.

1. Individual registration of long arms is a total waste of time, and diverts valuable resources away from more important crime control programs. The money spent each year on firearm registration in Victoria alone would put between 50 and 100 extra police officers on the beat. It has never been shown to solve a single crime, but face's wide non-compliance due to it's benefit to firearm confiscation programs. Society has decided Billy Jone's can be in possession of firearms, whether or not Billy Jones has one .22 rifle or two is totally irrelevant!

One Gun per owner.Registration renewed monthly
period

2. The carriage of concealed arms for the purposes of self defence should be allowed, where a person has undergone appropriate training and can show a genuine requirement for such arms.

NO

3. Antique firearms (defined as made before 1900 and not designed for fixed ammunition, or made before 1945 and designed for fixed ammunition which is not commercially available) should be free from all licencing requirements except, where the owner intends using that firearm.

NO. Antiques are for Museums and must be disarmed

4. Prohibited persons, found in possession of arms, where it is reasonable to believe such arms were held with criminal intent, must face custodial sentences, and those sentences must be cumulative with any other sentence handed down by a court.

I Agree. NO need for the criminal intent condition though

5. Firearms currently classified as Category C firearms (semi-automatic .22 rifles, semi-automatic and pump action shotguns) should be moved to Category B firearms, allowing their ownership on the basis of genuine need.

NO

6. The law should allow recreational ownership of Category D firearms (semi-automatic centrefire rifles) for some types of hunting and target shooting, where legislated safekeeping requirements and genuine reason provisions can be met.

NO

7. Anybody found to have carried a firearm during a violent or drug related crime must face a lengthy custodial sentence for the possession of that firearm, in addition to and cumulative with any other sentence handed down by a court.

YES

8, Changes to pistol ownership laws introduced after 2002 are a total waste of time from a community safety viewpoint and should be repealed in total. Licencing requirements for handguns owned for sport or target shooting should be as they were in Victoria prior to 1996, including graduated access for new club members, and renewal based on pistol club attendance.

NO and if the owner no longer attends the range. Guns must be surrended with no compensation and prosecution on non compliance

9. Legislated safekeeping requirements should be based on making unauthorised access to firearms difficult, not on making comlpiance with those requirements difficult.

NO. Spot checks by police should be conducted with warrants and if the gun is not secure. Prosecution would follow.Period

10. Theft of a firearm should attract a length custodial sentence, again cumulative with any other sentence handed down.

And for the owner of the firearm also. If a Gun Owner loses a Gun a Lifetime Ban
on Gun Ownership and/or a fine or jail sentance for
the owner should also apply.


I hope you find these suitable.

-------
Tom,Nogun,straightshooter,
aligator,cardigan,gunsafety
-
Many Voices-One Message

1000 people killed day ..a world awash with guns - 1 for every 10 people.
-
GUNS KILL PEOPLE CAUSE
PEOPLE PULL THE TRIGGER
...
The USA Supreme Court says the Second does not guarantee individual rights to own arms

Courts are the entity to interpret the Constitution,

Not NRA

Get GUNSAFE NOW



Well Johnmelb, been asleep I see ZZZZZZZZZZ !
Your point made is a good one
If the guns are disabled of course there is no reason if they are under lock and key. One of the main thursts we have is to ensure that gun owners
secure their guns or gun as we would like but collectors of historical items are different I spose.1945 is a late cut off date though isnt it?
You mean to say there is a Gun Museum somewhere?
Muskets are interesting. As for clearly separating the situation with guns in
Australia from America I dont think you can. There is a lot of interaction
between the USA and Australia, Its just like an American State.
We should look towards learning from the us experience and they could
learn from us. In no way does the Gunsafe coalition propose the banning of Guns. We seriously propose the use ofr stun guns by police and certainly security people and guns are not available to criminals.
Dont tell me that this is not bad
The Australian Institute of Criminology [AIC] noted in June 2002 that approximately 4200 guns including about 600 handguns are stolen in Australia each year
"It is of concern that the theft of 4,000 firearms a year means that on average 12 firearms are reported stolen across Australia every day

"Of all firearms reported stolen, 81% were from residential premises."
meaning that tells us what Lingus ignores.

Storage of Guns IS a problem and should be talked about.

Why do you and other gun owners at this place stick your head in the Sand?

Now whether that points to our draconian proposals is for you to think about.

The NSW Government has responded by setting up a police task force for illegal guns, but the gun control lobby says New South Wales has refused to recognise the seriousness of the problem.

In Sydney this year there's been an upsurge in crimes that have seen stolen guns end up in the hands of Sydney's gangs, who shoot it out in the streets of the city's south west, often with fatal consequences.
But you would have to think that the people are after the guns just as much as the money. There have been some significant thefts of handguns in New South Wales this year.
The prickly State to deal with has been New South Wales, who has refused to acknowledge that there's a problem with handguns in Australia, other than saying that handguns are being brought into the country illegally. And we've called on them to show evidence in that, and there is no evidence, and they've really had their head in the sand, as thousands of guns are being stolen around Australia each year to make their way into the black markets in Sydney.

Why keep your head in the Sand?

Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the farm, Ev'ry Friday
On the farm, It's rabbit pie day
So ev'ry Friday, that ever comes along
I get up early,And sing this little song...
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
Bang, bang, bang! goes the farmer's gun
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
Run, rabbit, run rabbit, run, run, run
Don't give the farmer his fun, fun,fun
He'll get by without his rabbit pie
and his gun

xd9fan
April 19, 2006, 03:03 AM
whatever happened to just plain Liberty.....that you just "can" not if and or buts.

wheelgunkid
April 19, 2006, 03:23 AM
With international terrorism on the rise, I believe all nations would be wise to re-consider allowing their citizens to go about their business armed. Stats are showing gun laws in both England and Australia to be failing. Italy has seen this and recently passed some pro gun laws for their citizens. I think everybody else better re-think not allowing their law abiding citizens to carry guns.

John G
April 19, 2006, 03:35 AM
Criminals are stealing guns? Aren't there laws against that? :rolleyes:

psychophipps
April 19, 2006, 10:49 AM
I think everybody else better re-think not allowing their law abiding citizens to carry guns.

Well, you are missing the critical step in the process, my friend. You are assuming that "thinking" is part of the equation on the parts of the governments involved. So far, in both Australia and the UK, crime has skyrocketted since the aforementioned banning of firearms and the people who make the laws don't seem to frickin' care.
You think that the Prime Minister is going to get mugged? Some member of the House of Commons? Hell no! So why should they care if Joe and/or Jane Blow is getting shot, stabbed, mugged and raped? He's perfectly safe and sleeps well knowing that some legal firearms owner out there isn't going to be inconveniencing their assailants with a firearm any time soon.

"Re-think"? Hell, they weren't thinking in the first place so what makes you think they'll start now? :rolleyes:
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

Spiphel Rike
April 20, 2006, 04:40 AM
"whatever happened to just plain Liberty.....that you just "can" not if and or buts."

People's idea of "the greater good", "community safety" and that sort of junk got in the way. To the uninformed the strategies of anti-gunners seem logical. Chances are that most see any crime something like this:
-crime happens in area where guns are legal.
-assumes weapon was legally owned
-thinks that a law against it will work.

A lack of knowledge can be blamed for the successes of anti gun movements everywhere. If more people had known that the dunblane shooter had a lot of dealings with the police, or how much of a nutcase bryant was (whether he did the shooting or not is another thing) they would be appalled. Sadly, knowing anything about it now carries a kind of stigma with it. Also, mentioning Bryant's extremely good shooting usually gets people thinking "oh wow, that gun lets anyone shoot like that" so it doesn't do you any favours. That or they try telling you that snipers usually have a pretty low IQ :scrutiny:

LAR-15
April 20, 2006, 10:33 AM
The problem with your country is that they-the press and anti gunners- make no bones they want all guns banned.

They constantly complain on their websites about HUNTING and how it should be banned (never mind that non native rabbits, cats, water buffaloes and deer need to be kept under control) :confused:

Even the anti-gun groups in the US support (or claim to) guns for hunting, including semi-automatics and pumps. And they've conceded in some instances that handguns are useful for hunting and competition shooting.

sterling180
April 20, 2006, 06:15 PM
Both in the UK and in Australia,the only firearms that were deemed acceptable,by our respective anti-gun organizations for hunting and target-shooting were:single and double-barrelled or combination-guns.The multi-shot bolt,pump and lever-actions-the anti's wanted banned,because they claimed that they were are as dangerous as semi-auto rifles,shotguns and pistols.

American By Blood
April 20, 2006, 07:21 PM
"Genuine need?"

"Categories?"

Rubbish.

My suggestion for gun reform in Australia: "Being that the universal armament of free men is in keeping with Anglo-Saxon tradition, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Clean97GTI
April 20, 2006, 07:59 PM
Just in case anyone wants to see comparisons of crime stats.

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics35.htm
The only graph on the page is about burglary (care to guess whos on top) but the PDF document at the bottom contains the full report.

Joey2
April 20, 2006, 10:40 PM
Aussieseek,
I have cousins living in Perth. Australia is cursed with the English mentality.
While the real Aussies were out in the bush making something of the country the English sneaked into the government and established English Rule.

True, Australia is suppose to be a country of itself, but this is not the case. Grammaw wuz here. :)

John-Melb
April 25, 2006, 07:15 PM
IN an attempt to free up the AussieSeek board for more mainstream users, AussieSeek has opened up the Matilda board, now calling it the Matilda Gunsafe Board for those involved in the current AussieSeek gun debate.

Or should I say for some involved in the current AussieSeek gun debate.

I registered there last night, checked this morning and couldn't get on. went in for a look aound as a guest and found this.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Topic: Sniper Vipers (Read 11 times)
tom
New Member
*
member is online

[avatar]

People with GUNS KILL KIDS



Joined: Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 7
Location: Atlanta Georgia
Karma: 0
Sniper Vipers
Thread Started on Today at 8:46am
Hi Anti Gun Coalition members. Its all quiet on the western front at

http://aaamatilda.proboards67.com/


We got the wall up in time and repulsed a sniper viper who tried to breach the security last night ???

(Johnmelb)

We got him with a sling shot

Just think. Here we are safe from abusers,spamming,lies,threats,manipulation,traitors. bullnuts artists,conmen,
crims,bashers,lowlife,Gun collectors,shooters and the brain dead bang bang crew.

You should have heard the sniper viper yelp !!!!

He skirted the perimeter but didnt get one shot in.

He couldnt swim without his water wings so the moat
kept him away.

Now that the Wall is built. We can use this place to send out raiding
parties and party on here.at our new place.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal...
that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

TOM :o
Last Edit: Today at 8:50am by tom Link to Post - Back to Top IP: Logged
On the farm, Ev'ry Friday
On the farm, It's rabbit pie day
So ev'ry Friday, that ever comes along
I get up early,And sing this little song...
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
Bang, bang, bang! goes the farmer's gun
Run, rabbit, run, rabbit, run, run, run
Run, rabbit, run rabbit, run, run, run
Don't give the farmer his fun, fun,fun
He'll get by without his rabbit pie
and his gun

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So the anti-gun posters can post on matilda but pro-gun cannot, that's political censorship!

Am I P***** right off, you'd better believe it, I'm more than that, I am angry!

John.

John-Melb
April 27, 2006, 03:28 AM
There's been some interesting developments over at AussieSeek.

AS mentioned above, the AussieSeek moderator "handed over" the matilda board to the anti's hoping to move the gun debate over there. The problem was the anti-gun crew immediately set about banning any pro-gunner who had taken them to task and building a "wall" around Matilda. They would only let in tame pro gun posters who would not challenge them.

They then proceeded to boast about their ability to come out of Matilda, attack gun owners over on AussieSeek and retreat behind their "wall"

When I noticed a post from an anti advocating that gun owners and their families should be dragged from their homes and shot, that was too much. I have lodged a complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority over the matter. This post read in part
"There is NO REASON for anyone to own a gun, EVER! Guns kill and that's all they are good for. The kind of person who would own a gun is not fit to live amongst civilised peoples. They are cowardly, murdering, lying, [expletive]s who have never contributed anything to society and every one of the [expletive] mother[expletive] [expletive]-heads should be dragged out into the streets and executed with their own [expletive] guns along with their families!"


I have again been banned at Aussie Seek. I only went back last time after being asked "I know they all miss you. Ive had 4 emails greiving and 2 from Tom prancing around."[/I]

ReadyontheRight
April 27, 2006, 04:37 AM
Interesting how first the right to keep and bear arms is taken away and then the right to free speech follows.

sterling180
April 28, 2006, 05:30 PM
Quote:crims,bashers,lowlife,Gun collectors,shooters and the brain dead bang bang crew.Well it seems that extreme-antis are extreme- antis and will attack pro-shooters-whoever they are.I think that those people posting anti-gun insults at us shooters, are definately more foolish themselves,than they try to make us out to be-because the above comments are garbage.

I think that they are a bunch of ignorant prattling morons,because not all of us fit their stated profiles of shooters in general.But those who argue with us civilly,I have respect for.:).By the way they fail to grasp the fact that we shooters shoot in competitions and these are referred to as disciplines-where one focuses on hitting a single or multiple targets-depending on what discipline you enter into.

All guns are checked by range-officers-who would shout at you-if you would fail to comply with the rules and saftey proceedures or messed around like a moron-before and after each event.So therefore to say that we are or to imply that we are a bunch of dead-headed Rambo-freaks is very stupid indeed.Aussieseek,why don't you tell these morons to get their facts straight and get some hands-on experiance-before they write their CLEVER comments,about a sport and its members-whom they know nothing about.

Aussieseek
April 29, 2006, 03:12 AM
Youre no banned John and you know it.
Theyre prorected by the 5th
I would have replied and told them what I thought

Anyway we are now asking the members what they think in a poll and toms lot cant vote.

No more porkies please:uhoh:

John-Melb
April 29, 2006, 05:40 AM
At the time of posting message 25 on this thread, any attempt by me to log-in to Aussie Seek resulted in the "go away" message.

AS one of tom's "sniper-vipers" I am not allowed to become a member at Matilda, In fact, I was the first "sniper-viper". If, by some strange twist of fate I did become a member at Matilda, tom, who you made the moderator would delete anything I post.

You yourself refused to guarantee fair moderation on Matilda.

AS all the gun debate is on Matilda, and I'm not allowed there, there's no point hanging around. I have said my farewells and moved on. Interestingly, someone didn't like me saying goodbye and deleted the post.

Latest from AuusieSook is
“One claimed he could not register which is not true. Anyone can.
One is using this porky to demonise the site elsewhere.”

Keith, do you remember this
“"i Anti Gun Coalition members. Its all quiet on the western front at

http://aaamatilda.proboards67.com/


We got the wall up in time and repulsed a sniper viper who tried to breach the security last night ???

(Johnmelb)

We got him with a sling shot

Just think. Here we are safe from abusers,spamming,lies,threats,manipulation,traitors. bullnuts artists,conmen,
crims,bashers,lowlife,Gun collectors,shooters and the brain dead bang bang crew.

You should have heard the sniper viper yelp !!!!

He skirted the perimeter but didnt get one shot in.

He couldnt swim without his water wings so the moat
kept him away.

Now that the Wall is built. We can use this place to send out raiding
parties and party on here.at our new place.""

That’s what YOUR moderator tom, posted on both AussieSeek and Matilda.

I’m not allowed in, period, ‘cos I’m a “sniper viper”

I’m not demonising anyone, nor am I telling porkies

Aussieseek
April 29, 2006, 10:43 AM
John
In return for a link to Matilda Tom agreed to hand the Moderation back. I used the example of your experience
before it came back to me and reminded her that some of the existing members were on on the staff with several well known australian gun and shooter organisations which is a great compliment and asset to the site.
They will be treated with respect
As both Matilda and High country are on American servers Im not breaking the privacy act in telling you that.
BUT DONT REPEAT it on an Australian Site. As for Toms content and creative writing thats up to her. Strangley traffic is up which all comes from the links to our search site (about 15,800 for aussieseek) as found on google
So theatrics are not a worry. We will always have readers and posters. The site wont die.Posters will always come and go with our best wishes..
As for people wanting me to act as a storeroom for their posts,, we are not yahoo and its to expensive.
If people want to keep things they should print them out if they like the item.
Oh and im running a poll for all members except Toms Group to find what people want>Should be interesting.
Some think that ALL gun content is a liability :banghead:

John-Melb
April 29, 2006, 11:41 AM
Keith,

I aint real smart (as tom and cardigan will tell you) so let's get it straight.

You're saying
Tom is no longer the Moderator on Matilda?
Tom's wall around Matilda is now down.?
Those tom referred to as "sniper-vipers" are now welcome back on Matilda?
Pro-gun posts on Matilda will only be deleted for abuse or some other "legitimate" reason, not because "tom" doesn't like what's being said?

and
Is Cardigan going to withdraw his comments about shooters and their families?

Yes or no.

Aussieseek
April 29, 2006, 05:31 PM
I aint real smart (as tom and cardigan will tell you) so let's get it straight.

You're saying
Tom is no longer the Moderator on Matilda?

CORRECT

Tom's wall around Matilda is now down.?

"Did you REALLY think I was going to put up with that?
SURE IS"



Those tom referred to as "sniper-vipers" are now welcome back on Matilda?

"ALL are werlcome"

Pro-gun posts on Matilda will only be deleted for abuse

i"ts impossible to define abuse"

or some other "legitimate" reason, not because "tom" doesn't like what's being said?

"CORRECT"

"What is lawful ( To own= to protect) is not wrong John"

and
Is Cardigan going to withdraw his comments about shooters and their families?

Yes or no

"THATS Been deleted and its a matter between you and cardigan to discuss. Cardigan made a remark that removed her/his credibility. Im not going to buy her claim that they would be blanks"

"Me ? I was shocked . I have to put up with a lot but there are limits." Cardigan was Syn Byned for that"

-----------------------

I have changed the Matilda notice to

-----------------------------------------------------


You can talk about Life. GUNS. or anything here ,

But Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks or demonising a group (Racism or a form of it)
attacks are prohibited.

You can disagree
with other members, even vehemently,
but it must be done in a well-mannered form.
Attack the argument, not the poster.

The Views expressed are not always those of Matilda, or Aussieseek or The only Moderator ( KA)
----------------------------------

IM a bit slow.( Adding groups as well as personal to the notice)
But its fixed

Keith

John-Melb
April 29, 2006, 07:32 PM
Tom, the anti-gun village idiot over at Matilda thought she could silence the pro-gun movement by banning us from posting and building her silly wall around Matilda, making it into an anti-gun "castle" from which she could raid with impunity.

She was wrong

Fortunately it appears that is now passed, I am going to suggest we all now rejoin both Aussie Seek and Matilda. Tom thought she could silence us, I suggest we get back in there and absolutely can tom (politely) for her attack on freedom of speech.

Aussieseek
April 29, 2006, 07:59 PM
Yes thats fine John but you shouldnt call her anti-gun village idiot

Right now Andu and Tom are talking Fashion.

You should try to lose that punishment mentality/

To say

I TRULEY forgive you is hard

Please try.

Keith

John-Melb
April 30, 2006, 04:00 AM
Keith says
"Yes thats fine John but you shouldnt call her anti-gun village idiot

Right now Andu and Tom are talking Fashion.

You should try to lose that punishment mentality/

To say

I TRULEY forgive you is hard

Please try.

Keith"

Forgive! Forgive!
Forgive the vilification I have had from tom and her bunch of anti-gun idiots, not bloody likely. Forgive having my right to take part in public debate removed by this jumped-up control freak, Forgive being blasted as a "sniper-viper" and a coward, you have got to be kidding me! Forgive Cardigan assertions re. the summary execution of gun owners and their families, not whilst my B** points earthwards.

I am optimistic about the changes happening on AussieSeek and Matilda, how tom was no longer moderating on Matilda, tom's sniper-viper wall was down and we now had a guarantee of fair moderation. I was going to suggest as many as possible pro-gunners get into AussieSeek and Matilda and we absolutely can tom over her disgusting attacks on freedom of speech and Cardigan over his summary execution opinions.

Remember folks, AussieSeek and Matilda are not the enemy, tom and company are. AussieSeek and Matilda only become the enemy when they protect tom and company and allow them to pull the sort of stunts they've been pulling.

When he visited Australia in the early ninetie, then NRA President Bob Corbin said something which I have always adhered to when dealing with anti's

"You're either with us or against us, and we don't take prisoners"
_________________
Pass the Word!

Aussieseek
May 1, 2006, 06:51 AM
For the first time the persistance of Gun owners has made a lead in a poll being conducted by Aussieseek.

Poll Question:

Do you support John Howards new WAR on GUNS ?

Not that they will even care about public opinion or any counter argumenrs suggested


http://aussieseek.proboards25.com/index.cgi?board=main&action=display&thread=1146163603

We have made some improvements to the Matilda Guns Message Board at

http://aaamatilda.proboards67.com/

There is a link also to that special page on
the Australian Messageboards at

http://aussieseek.proboards25.com/

There are now featured links to highroad and

Primer Pocket (AU) http://www.primerpocket.com
Gun Control Australia http://www.guncontrol.org.au/
AussieSeek Australian Messageboards http://www.aussieseek.com/
NRA USA http://www.nra.org/
Brady Anti Gun USA http://www.bradycampaign.org

You will see that the selection of Links is balanced.

I saw Johnmelbs post on Aussieseek he said

And
"Remember folks, AussieSeek and Matilda are not the enemy, tom and company are. AussieSeek and Matilda only become the enemy when they protect tom and company and allow them to pull the sort of stunts they've been pulling.

When he visited Australia in the early nineties, then NRA President Bob Corbin said something which I have always adhered to when dealing with anti's

"You're either with us or against us, and we don't take prisoners"
_________________
Pass the Word!"

How is that rubbishing Keith?"

Thanks for that. You Johnmelb have your agenda,but I have to publish all opinions. Pro and con/

The Posters are all of diverse opinions.

Thats a selective grab of johns post so if you want to see his post
in full have a look.

Cortez or Tom or crado or corso or whatever. Again You were syn byned for your remark about dog crap. You were never banned. If you were how come you could put up all that hate spam?

I suggest you forget about your vendetta and concentrate
on learning to aim straigjht. Attack the anti gun poster
not the messenger.

Of more interest is trying to find out what Howards new gun restrictions are.

Does anyone here know or can speculate?

Keith

Spiphel Rike
May 1, 2006, 09:33 PM
I think that they'll try to cover up some "loophole". My guess is that the penalty for illegal possession will be raised for the sake of "deterrence".

Of course he could jump the gun and try to ban all semi automatics, restricting us to revolvers. They look less scary than "3vil gl0cks" after all.

Aside from somehow ousting Howard from government, what would be the best way to get the RKBA recognised over here again?

Aussieseek
May 2, 2006, 05:23 PM
Note to Cardigan, tom and anti gun posters


Matilda at
http://aaamatilda.proboards67.com/

is a forum for Gun Owners

| NOTE | The administrator has disabled public write access to you at matilda
for anti gun posts. These can still be made at

http://aussieseek.proboards25.com/

Zen21Tao
May 15, 2006, 12:43 AM
I decided to do a search of Aussieseek’s post as I remember him being called out for being something of an anti-gun troll in the past. Here is what I have found. Feel free to verify this yourselves.

Aussieseek’s seems to start threads to promote and gather members for his website. He presents some antigun argument from someone on his site (usually Tom or Cardigan) and then invites people to his site to combat their arguments. However, pro-gun people seem to get themselves banned when they present strong logical arguments.

Nearly all of Aussieseek’s post count comes from threads he himself has started. With the exception of a thread started by Cortez and a thread started by Duach Laidir, none of Aussieseek’s posts come from contributions to other THR members’ threads. And as for those threads by Cortez and Duach Laidir, both threads were on the subject of how pro-gun posters are banned but anti-gun posters get free reign over the Aussieseek forums. In each thread, Cortez and Duach Laidir were making the same complaints about being banned that John-Melb was making in this thread. What else is quite interesting is that the same anti-gun people (Tom, Cardigan, etc.) that Cortez, Duach Laidir, and others were complaining had free reign over the Aussieseek forums were given mod rights over Aussieseek’s Matilda forum. You guys can be the judge of whether of not Aussieseek is on the up and up.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun reform in Australia" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!