Election in Australia -- Howard and Latham on guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TimLambert

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Messages
58
Location
Sydney, NSW
Prime Minister John Howard (Interview on 2GB 17 Apr 02: (listen )
we will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns. I don’t think people should have guns unless they’re police or in the military or in the security industry. There is no earthly reason for people to have … ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.â€
Click to expand...
(Via John Tingle .)
Mark Latham, Leader of the Opposition (letter to the Shooters Party):
In conjunction with its State colleagues, Labor will work with sporting and recreational shooting organisations to control the criminal use of firearms without adversely affecting legitimate sporting and recreational shooters.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree with Howard and agree with Latham here. I think law-abiding sporting and recreational shooters should be allowed to have guns and banning such ordinary citizens from having weapons is wrong. Howard is also the architect of the 1996 gun ban which I have already said was bad policy. Now I had already decided to support Latham over Howard because of other issues, but it’s still nice to be supporting the party with the better policy on firearms issues.
John Tingle, MLC for the Shooters Party writes:
In my opinion, it’s hard to believe we could be any worse off under Latham than we are under Howard, and, because I’m an optimist, I believe from my conversation with him and from the letter, and from frequent contact I had with him in my radio days, that if he becomes the next Prime Minister, a very real and present threat will be lifted from Australia s LAFO’s [Law Abiding Firearm Owners].
Click to expand...
Some shooters are running candidates in the election to oppose Howard.
 
The gun control people want "reasonable gun control" the same way Hitler wanted "reasonable Jew control". And their "final solution" will be death camps for anyone who ever owned a gun.

Jim
 
we will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns.
Click to expand...
So, Australian politicians can ban what they want because they don't like it?

And their "final solution" will be death camps for anyone who ever owned a gun.
Click to expand...
You would have thought they would pick a group that wouldn't fight back, wouldn't you?
 
You would have thought they would pick a group that wouldn't fight back, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

I've seen photos of the mountains of guns the Aussies turned in. I would say they guessed right in the amount of opposition they would face. They were moving those collector grade guns with scoops and dozers!

Gregg
 
Well, I guess Howard (bletch! :barf: ) could be at least called up front .... ''I hate guns''!:rolleyes:

His approach tho is so narrow, whereas at least Latham makes the distinction re criminals. Oh for some real logical decsion making ..... instead of gut driven rhetoric. I feel for you guys down under.

I point out my prime sig line ..
 
Frankly, I wouldn't trust Latham as far as I can kick Howard! The ALP has always had a platform of disarmament as part of its (socialist/communist) policy.

So, Australian politicians can ban what they want because they don't like it?
Click to expand...

Basically, yes. Both the government and the opposition joined forces to pass the firearms bans and new legislation virtually unopposed.

The Federal government has NO control over firearms; that's given exclusively to the States in our Constitution. So the PM simply blackmailed the States into compliance -- if they didn't comply, he would withhold literally billions in Federal funds, which would have gone close to shutting down the States. They gave in.

As to individual compliance -- don't forget, most of us already had full registration of our firearms -- the police (and any other authority) already knew who had what and where. Under those circumstances, there's little chance for withholding. In those States without registration, turn-in rates are estimated to be, at best, 20-25%. So not all of us are sheep.

In Australia, there is no single, nationwide party that offers support for gun ownership. Even the two main minority parties, the Greens and Democrats, are dedicated to the total disarmament of Australia -- including the police and, ultimately, the armed forces (no, I'm not joking).:fire:

Bruce
 
Haha, the American disease??? Of falling crime rates, as opposed to Austrailia's increasing rate of gun crime??


THAT disease!
 
Bruce,

When it's time to bury your guns...it's time to dig them up.

I feel for you people. I pray for all of the English speaking peoples. I'm afraid that most of them have let the opportunity to fight back pass them by.

Here in the US we haven't let that final opportunity pass us by though we have let far too many pass by. I'm still trying to understand why people didn't rebel here in 1914-1916. Story of the frog being slowly boiled I suppose.

The position that only the military and the police should have firearms is the position of wannabe tyrants or their wannabe henchmen. That might no even know they are such. That doesn't change the fact.
 
Poor Aussies! Additional you have Kerry's sister there to mess up things even more. Perhaps you'll have Old Puple Heart at your shores after he lost the election here. Not a comfortable thought.

I feel very bad for you because you are on a fast path to tyranny, a reminder that "Democracy" only works for a limited time, tyranny can survive infinitely. Just ask the history of mankind.
 
To Bruce in West Oz: "bringing it to light"? I post under my real name, with a link to my web site (that's the www button on each post) and folks hiding behind pseudonyms have the gall to imply that I'm trying to hide something?

To F4GIB: How does consistently opposing Howard's gun laws make me "anti-gun"? Well?
 
Well, its nice to know that the ad hominem is alive and well on this board despite my less frequent visits nowadays.

F4GIB / Bruce, a clear and honest look at his website doesnt reveal much about whether he is pro or anti-gun; he is however clearly anti-BS with skills far beyond mine to demonstrate very simply why some of those your side champions are undeserving of that respect. As an example, the recent attacks on Lott for instance should cause people (if they werent doing it already that is) to seriously question the man's practices and his ethics.

As I have tried to show in my own way here and on TFL for the past two years, the vast majority of what passes for "informed opinion" on the (from my point of view) UK firearms / rights issue consists of so much rubbish that even an amateur like myself can demonstrate within five minutes from first reading the article exactly what is wrong with the piece. This should cause the readers to question it, but it rarely does, as we all know.
 
Mr. Lambert,

Ah, yes, the anonymity of the internet. Had a man accuse me on TFL of hiding behind that cloak. My name and location was on my responding post. It's been there ever since on every board I frequent and on every email address I have.

No pseudonym here. Real name. Real location. I'm in the phone book. Come to call.



I'm not up on the statistics and such. These are really immaterial to me.

Twenty years or so ago, I was attacked by a man wielding a sledge hammer handle. I moved rearward diagonally to get off his line of attack.
While doing so, I was sweeping my jacket to reach my FN Highpower. Realizing that I was in the midst of preparing to kill his sorry butt; he released the hickory sledge hammer handle. Wonder if he would have done so if I had just said please?

The gun I carried was legally owned and legally carried. If I had shot his butt before he ceased his attack then, in this jurisdiction, he would have been legally dead.

People who call for gun control are actually saying that I should have been beaten to death twenty years ago. For some odd reason, I take exception to that stance.
 
Pseudonym? My name is Bruce and I do live in Western Australia.

I don't check on every person's profile here; hence the 'bringing it to light' comment.

Dress it up any way you like, your postings on your blog and on the old talk.politics.guns indicate to me (my prerogative) that you are indeed implacably anti-gun. Argue all you want, I'm not interested.

Agricola, if you're talking to me, you've been on 'Ignore' for months now, about to be joined by Lambert. I have no interest in anything you have to say either.

Have a nice day.
 
personal attacks are prohibited?

I checked the Rules of Conduct for the HighRoad. They state: "personal attacks are prohibited". "Bruce" and F4GIB did not address in any way the substance of my post. I provided links to my sources. Anyone can check that I have accurately quoted Howard, Latham and Tingle and accurately reported their positions. Instead of discussing this, "Bruce" and F4GIB did nothing but attack me personally and misrepresent my views.
 
Hey guys...what Tim wrote was in no way an attack....

"I strongly disagree with Howard and agree with Latham here. I think law-abiding sporting and recreational shooters should be allowed to have guns and banning such ordinary citizens from having weapons is wrong. Howard is also the architect of the 1996 gun ban which I have already said was bad policy. Now I had already decided to support Latham over Howard because of other issues, but it’s still nice to be supporting the party with the better policy on firearms issues."
************************************************************


That's quite a balanced and reasonable statement for an Australian academic to author. :)

Thanks for that support, Tim.

I'm not so sure we can trust Latham on the issue, as one of our group approached him at the Labour Party selection in Sydney and he had absolutely no words of encouragement for firearms owners.

"Labour will not be the party for shooters" were his words, I believe.
 
Against everything I believe, I went back and read your last post, Dr Lambert.

What exactly is it with you? Because I refuse to engage in a futile debate with you, you regard it as personal attack? No one is allowed to disagree with you?

Get a life! You are only debating the firearms issue to keep your hand in. (Sound familiar? Check your own website.) It's an academic wank to you.

Appeal to the mods all you want, pal -- then tell me where I broke any rules.

I refuse to debate with you because any debate with you is not genuine; it is an academic exercise, with no endpoint other than the exercise itself. Go for it; but count me out.

I give you fair warning -- you are on my "ignore" list because I don't feel there is any value in debating this further. Understand this: I don't want to hear your bull???? any more!! Is that too hard for you to understand?

You'll continue to try to suppress firearms ownership in Australia, and I'll work equally hard to promote it.

Bye, bye Timmy baby.
 
he just did it again, remember:

3.) As a family-friendly board, we ask that you keep your language clean. If you wouldn't say it in front of your dear old Grandma, you probably don't want to say it here.
Click to expand...

by bruce:

Get a life! You are only debating the firearms issue to keep your hand in. (Sound familiar? Check your own website.) It's an academic wank to you.
Click to expand...
 
Did I miss something, Bruce?

Tim certainly has a problem with John Lott.

I made the attempt to investigate that issue a while back and reached the conclusion that it was between Dr. Lott and Dr. Lambert.

John Lott seems quite open to data sharing and appears to have done so freely with Tim.

Bruce, I agree that Labour is not trustworthy on the firearms rights issue.

Tim's statement would appear to be genuine concerning his sense of injustice done to 'ordinary citizens' who wish to own firearms.

Why the heated rhetoric?:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
(Australia) Shooters up in arms over legislation
Replies
0
Views
410
Drizzt
D
D
  • Locked
(Australia) Minister aims to help shooters tote big guns
Replies
1
Views
716
Bruce in West Oz
B
W
  • Locked
Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) on gun regulation (states' rights, pro-gun)
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
MicroBalrog
M
C
  • Locked
Australia: "Confusion over new handgun crackdown"
Replies
3
Views
406
CZ-75
C
W
  • Locked
Australian Murders up 20% ("a victory for gun laws"?)
Replies
10
Views
1K
Don Gwinn
D
Back
Top