mgmorden
Member
Yes, I'd bother. I'll fight every attempt to make firearms ownership more complicated or a pain, but I'll always go through with whatever paperwork or hoops are necessary.
Would you bother owning a handgun under these conditions?
- Thread starter Mr. Ready
- Start date
- Status
palmrose2
Member
That is an excellent point. A poor man may be able to afford a firearm but not the license, or the fuel to go somewhere to get one.
palmrose2
Member
The OP just doesn't think it is worth the hassle to own a firearm. Recently we here in the States have been told that more background checks are no big deal and anybody that thinks otherwise is being unreasonable. It's no big deal to register a firearm. It's no big deal, fill in the blank. I've been telling everybody I know that every little hoop I have to jump through is a big deal. As far as I'm concerned the hoops we need to jump through should be the same hoops we jump through to buy a screwdriver. Zero. ANY new gun laws that don't relax current restrictions should be resisted with every fiber.
No personal offense is intended with the following comment.
While you may be right about a few (D's) getting an A rating from the NRA, I'd be surprised if there were "plenty". That is even more true of (R's) receiving an F rating.
That said, I like the fact that the NRA is non partisan, and will give any candidate a rating solely based upon their RTKBA positions. Some argue that by supporting some (D's) even though they are pro 2A, it helps to thwart the overall 2A cause. They may have a point when you consider how polarized the parties have become, to where conservative (D's) do not mount a challenge to Pelosi. The same can be said for (D's) in the senate who seem to vote lock step for liberal SCOTUS and federal judge appointments. It is like a go along to get support from fellow (D's) for an election time cabal.
Still the days of a mix of conservative or even pro-2A (D's) is close to an end. So do not delude yourself into thinking this is 1980 when conservative (D's) still had decent numbers and influence in the party. In todays politics, they are looked upon as an anachronism among their fellow liberal (D's).
Look no further than what Zell Miller(D) said in that he does not recognize todays Democratic party.
That was almost 10 years ago, and it has obviously gotten worse. I'd bet Miller and other (D's) like him are embarrassed to have a (D) attached to their name since todays (D) party is virtually unrecognizable from just a decade ago, much less 20 years ago.
`
folks sorry aint been around much but a mate sent me this ,
anything and everything we can do to ensure our ownership of guns MUST BE DONE
through us showing lawful ownership is not the problem is how we have been able to crawl and claw back what little rights we have , we dont have a second amendment here , we started as a penal colony .. so we have a very hard fight as no-where does it say here we have any rights , but facts do slow and in a small way reverse the draconian laws we have here , remember when NO_ONE could own a semi auto ?? those days are gone , how ? folks did jump through hopps and at the same time protested rallied started our own political party and we have fought tooth and nail all the way
be greatfull for those who have gone before who have fought even to the point of being locked up , some for LIFE . in their fight against the gun grabbers
i post this a day after ANZAC Day , the folks we remember on this day DID NOT FIGHT SO YOU COULD CRY?DEBATE QUERY IF GOVT RULES ARE TOO TOUGH, they did so so we could have a say .. against anyone INCLUDING THE GOVT .. get your gun mate , and be active in your right to own it and keep it
anything else is submission ,
no offence meant
but thats the facts
i will not subit
i will not bow down
and while i have breath i will do all in my power ( with a preference for peacefully and within the law ) to do so
you choice eh ?
but thats where it be
cheers eh
Jack
NSW ( the ultra anti gun nazi state ) Australia
use your vote to support gun rights here
write folks (registered letter)
get petitions going to your local state and fedseral reps
YOU YOURSELF and get ya mates
ITs the only way and make it clear if they dont act on your behalf YOUR VOTE WONT GO TO THEM
100,000 letter from shooter will have these mongrels worrying about thier futures
seriously if you care about this nation , jump in and help , dont sideline and ponder online , deal with the lowlives doing this and show em they'll be unemployed if we dont get our way , theres enough here voting for handouts , we gotta do the same but about or rights and liberties
and if your a Beleiver
its your obligation .. seriously , look it up
anything and everything we can do to ensure our ownership of guns MUST BE DONE
through us showing lawful ownership is not the problem is how we have been able to crawl and claw back what little rights we have , we dont have a second amendment here , we started as a penal colony .. so we have a very hard fight as no-where does it say here we have any rights , but facts do slow and in a small way reverse the draconian laws we have here , remember when NO_ONE could own a semi auto ?? those days are gone , how ? folks did jump through hopps and at the same time protested rallied started our own political party and we have fought tooth and nail all the way
be greatfull for those who have gone before who have fought even to the point of being locked up , some for LIFE . in their fight against the gun grabbers
i post this a day after ANZAC Day , the folks we remember on this day DID NOT FIGHT SO YOU COULD CRY?DEBATE QUERY IF GOVT RULES ARE TOO TOUGH, they did so so we could have a say .. against anyone INCLUDING THE GOVT .. get your gun mate , and be active in your right to own it and keep it
anything else is submission ,
no offence meant
but thats the facts
i will not subit
i will not bow down
and while i have breath i will do all in my power ( with a preference for peacefully and within the law ) to do so
you choice eh ?
but thats where it be
cheers eh
Jack
NSW ( the ultra anti gun nazi state ) Australia
use your vote to support gun rights here
write folks (registered letter)
get petitions going to your local state and fedseral reps
YOU YOURSELF and get ya mates
ITs the only way and make it clear if they dont act on your behalf YOUR VOTE WONT GO TO THEM
100,000 letter from shooter will have these mongrels worrying about thier futures
seriously if you care about this nation , jump in and help , dont sideline and ponder online , deal with the lowlives doing this and show em they'll be unemployed if we dont get our way , theres enough here voting for handouts , we gotta do the same but about or rights and liberties
and if your a Beleiver
its your obligation .. seriously , look it up
Last edited:
Fishslayer
Member
[off topic]
Hoist one in honor of our ANZAC allies fallen and returned.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
[/off topic]
Carry on...
Hoist one in honor of our ANZAC allies fallen and returned.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
[/off topic]
Carry on...
RetiredUSNChief
Member
While there are those who adamantly say "absolutely" in response to your question, the fact of the matter is that such a decision is based as much on personal means and criteria as it is a philosophical one with respect to the "greater responsibility" of opposing government tyranny.
That said, I've done some research on the history and tactics leading up to the implimentation of Australia's draconian gun control laws and, sad to say, Australian citizens and organizations allowed themselves to be victim to the time honored tactic of "divide and conquer". (As well as strong arm bullying tactics and such.) Heaven help the rest of us if we don't pay attention to the lessons of history with respect to this.
The various "gun clubs" and such played directly into this, because they were made to play patsy through their own greed. The gun club business wasn't doing so hot...so when the government said "We'll make gun club membership and attendance a requirement for people who want to own guns", they went along with it.
The government kept the various gun interests fractured, playing them off on each other to the benefit of the gun control agenda...as a result, there was no large, unified opposition representing gun owners against the gun control crowd.
There IS a movement to reverse this, but it's a long, uphill battle and I darn sure wish you all the best of luck.
Might I suggest the following, if you find the requirements and hassle too much for you with respect to personal ownership of firearms:
Set aside a portion of your budget that might otherwise have gone to support private ownership of one or more firearms and wisely invest it by donating towards a well organized, large/growing anti-gun control organization. This will help further the cause for private ownership of firearms.
That said, I've done some research on the history and tactics leading up to the implimentation of Australia's draconian gun control laws and, sad to say, Australian citizens and organizations allowed themselves to be victim to the time honored tactic of "divide and conquer". (As well as strong arm bullying tactics and such.) Heaven help the rest of us if we don't pay attention to the lessons of history with respect to this.
The various "gun clubs" and such played directly into this, because they were made to play patsy through their own greed. The gun club business wasn't doing so hot...so when the government said "We'll make gun club membership and attendance a requirement for people who want to own guns", they went along with it.
The government kept the various gun interests fractured, playing them off on each other to the benefit of the gun control agenda...as a result, there was no large, unified opposition representing gun owners against the gun control crowd.
There IS a movement to reverse this, but it's a long, uphill battle and I darn sure wish you all the best of luck.
Might I suggest the following, if you find the requirements and hassle too much for you with respect to personal ownership of firearms:
Set aside a portion of your budget that might otherwise have gone to support private ownership of one or more firearms and wisely invest it by donating towards a well organized, large/growing anti-gun control organization. This will help further the cause for private ownership of firearms.
Last edited:
Blackstone
Member
I don't know about about Australia, but the UK has no unified body representing gun owners. The only organisation that has fought hard against recently proposed legislation and consultations is the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, but it is aimed at hunters and shotgunners. The NRA-UK is widely believed to have thrown the pistol shooters under the bus in 1997 to protect their rifles.
Heck, the previous NRA-UK chief executive, Derrick Mabbott, had this to say about the NRA-USA:
Heck, the previous NRA-UK chief executive, Derrick Mabbott, had this to say about the NRA-USA:
Certaindeaf
member
His poor little head would have exploded had he heard Ted Nugent.
JFrame
Member
I read with interest the English Bill of Rights of 1689, specifically the portion in regard to defense:
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; "
Granting what a milestone work of individual rights the 1689 bill was on its own merits -- it is clear that an automatic abridgement was built into the bill, and that a governing body had the "right" to determine what the limits should be, rather than a natural right as stated in the U.S. Bill of Rights:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The differences in context are striking.
Not to say that the U.S. Bill of Rights hasn't suffered assault and violation throughout its history, or that the 1689 English bill wasn't a watershed document guiding the evolution of individual rights -- but it's clear that the 2nd Amendment started from the basis of greater inviolability than the 1689 bill.
All Americans need to cherish what a profound gift the Founding Fathers provided us in this amazing document -- a culmination of thoughts on liberty from the greatest thinkers that preceded it.
.
Am I to assume then that NRA-UK is in name only, and not affiliated with the real NRA?
Radagast
Member
Vector:
NRA UK started as a militia training organization and the American NRA was modeled on it. Many years ago it lost that focus, becoming a specialized form of target shooting for the establishment.
The Australian NRA originally fulfilled much the same purpose, maintaining skill at arms for the Citizens Military Forces - the home militia. By 1968 The NRAA had aped its British betters and become a target shooting clique. when the Australian army changed from the Lee Enfield to the SLR the NRA decided it was not accurate enough and went with a single shot .308 Omark target rifle instead. Within 12 months their access to army ranges began to be restricted as they no longer had a common purpose with the military.
By 1996, when the semi-auto ban was introduced, the Prime Minister asked the chief of the army if the NRAA was of any use to them. The answer was no and the exemption from state firearms laws that the NRAA membership had enjoyed for close to a hundred years was revoked.
The closest we have to an NRA in Australia these days is the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, which attempts to represent every discipline of target shooting and hunting. It does not represent those who would own a firearms for self defense, as the law specifically states that firearms are not allowed for self defense.
That being said, there are still a million licensed shooters here in a population of 23 million. When you must have membership of a gun club or written permission to hunt on a rural property before you can get a license, this is not a bad number. The number of shooters is also slowly rising, much to the disgust of the anti-gun crowd.
NRA UK started as a militia training organization and the American NRA was modeled on it. Many years ago it lost that focus, becoming a specialized form of target shooting for the establishment.
The Australian NRA originally fulfilled much the same purpose, maintaining skill at arms for the Citizens Military Forces - the home militia. By 1968 The NRAA had aped its British betters and become a target shooting clique. when the Australian army changed from the Lee Enfield to the SLR the NRA decided it was not accurate enough and went with a single shot .308 Omark target rifle instead. Within 12 months their access to army ranges began to be restricted as they no longer had a common purpose with the military.
By 1996, when the semi-auto ban was introduced, the Prime Minister asked the chief of the army if the NRAA was of any use to them. The answer was no and the exemption from state firearms laws that the NRAA membership had enjoyed for close to a hundred years was revoked.
The closest we have to an NRA in Australia these days is the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, which attempts to represent every discipline of target shooting and hunting. It does not represent those who would own a firearms for self defense, as the law specifically states that firearms are not allowed for self defense.
That being said, there are still a million licensed shooters here in a population of 23 million. When you must have membership of a gun club or written permission to hunt on a rural property before you can get a license, this is not a bad number. The number of shooters is also slowly rising, much to the disgust of the anti-gun crowd.
Blackstone
Member
I agree completely. Even then, when the pistol ban was being debated, the Bill of Rights was rarely brought up. Nor were Blackstone's Commentaries, which made common law accessible to laymen, in which he affirms the people have the right to arms for self defence.
Deanimator
Member
I wouldn't bother LIVING in that country under those circumstances.
I won't live in Chicago.
I certainly won't live some place immeasurably worse.
Pack you bags and come to Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Texas or some other FREE place.
I won't live in Chicago.
I certainly won't live some place immeasurably worse.
Pack you bags and come to Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Texas or some other FREE place.
EnfieldEnthusiast
Member
I don't know about about Australia, but the UK has no unified body representing gun owners. The only organisation that has fought hard against recently proposed legislation and consultations is the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, but it is aimed at hunters and shotgunners. The NRA-UK is widely believed to have thrown the pistol shooters under the bus in 1997 to protect their rifles.
Heck, the previous NRA-UK chief executive, Derrick Mabbott, had this to say about the NRA-USA:
Quote:
They are fanatical [...] Their main aim is to lobby for the protection of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. I once had to sit through a diatribe from their CEO and it made me physically ill.
The only member of the UK NRA top brass worth his salt was Peter Saroney,who fought the UK NRA in 1985 to allow them to use L1A1 SLRs for civillian matches.Of course the colonial-era dinosaurs stabbed Saroney in the back in 1987 & told the Home Secretary at the time Douglas Hurd that self-loading rifles weren't recognised as rifles,etc & so they were banned.The gun lobby in the Uk has come along way since then,but its too late to reverse the damage done,I think.The GCN want Stormont Castle MPs,to ban all handguns in Northern Ireland & in British territories,such as The Channel Islands & Isle Of Man.
Heck, the previous NRA-UK chief executive, Derrick Mabbott, had this to say about the NRA-USA:
Quote:
They are fanatical [...] Their main aim is to lobby for the protection of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. I once had to sit through a diatribe from their CEO and it made me physically ill.
The only member of the UK NRA top brass worth his salt was Peter Saroney,who fought the UK NRA in 1985 to allow them to use L1A1 SLRs for civillian matches.Of course the colonial-era dinosaurs stabbed Saroney in the back in 1987 & told the Home Secretary at the time Douglas Hurd that self-loading rifles weren't recognised as rifles,etc & so they were banned.The gun lobby in the Uk has come along way since then,but its too late to reverse the damage done,I think.The GCN want Stormont Castle MPs,to ban all handguns in Northern Ireland & in British territories,such as The Channel Islands & Isle Of Man.
Blackstone
Member
I was told the only reason we were allowed to keep our pistols was because the Unionist politicians refused to sign the Good Friday Agreement if Westminster tried to extend the pistol ban to NI and remove their personal protection weapons.
EnfieldEnthusiast
Member
Oh right,well I commend your polititions for doing that & at least they had the spine,to stand up to the GCN-influenced,Labour Party,unlike our polititions who'd do anything to stay in power.Liberals I don't think are quite welcome in Northern Ireland..lol.Even Blair never believed in the pistol bans effectiveness over there & in the UK mainland.
45_auto
Member
kiln said:
Your choice. Sounds like you would rather be carried by 6 than judged by 12.
I was about to make some smug comment about subjects of the crown when it occurred to me that there was something familiar about this post from down under...WELCOME BACK JACK.Your internet walkabout has been too long in the taking.
Your input is very timely as our government attempts to put the building blocks in place to do the same to us while 94% of the gun owners in the USA stand by more silently than a humming bird feather hitting a shag carpet.
In fact some of your sound wisdom from another time and place may be the reason why I am suffering zero shortages...backatcha mate.
Your input is very timely as our government attempts to put the building blocks in place to do the same to us while 94% of the gun owners in the USA stand by more silently than a humming bird feather hitting a shag carpet.
In fact some of your sound wisdom from another time and place may be the reason why I am suffering zero shortages...backatcha mate.
The quote didn't take JACK404...but my post was right at you.
I was shooting an SMLE to try some loads and thought what a shame it was that some polished pants bureaucrats had decided that citizens of the crown could no longer own or shoot the same arms they had used to broker peace over half the globe.How quickly they forget.
I was shooting an SMLE to try some loads and thought what a shame it was that some polished pants bureaucrats had decided that citizens of the crown could no longer own or shoot the same arms they had used to broker peace over half the globe.How quickly they forget.
22-rimfire
Member
Interesting thread. I would go to the trouble of owning at least a few firearms.
The gun control groups in the US reference what Great Britian and Australia did and laud the results.
You can not control something unless you know what you are trying to control. Hence registration or a registry is the first true step to confiscation and excercising absolute control over firearm ownership here in the US. It would be done in baby steps, but the end result will be the same.
Like Britain, our schools are training (perhaps brain washing) our young children to stigmatize anyone who owns or wants to own a firearm as being a social outcast and potential terrorist/mass murderer. The CDC has been purposively stopped from getting into the regulatory mix, but our President wants them involved. Whats wrong with reasonable gun controls? The lead bullet thing has come up again in CA.
It has to stop, but it won't as the liberal mindset controls the agenda in our schools. Eventually here in the US, you will be able to take a poll and get essentially the same result as Britain... guns are evil. There will be no right to keep and bear arms any longer or the effort will be so expensive and restrictive that it essentially eliminates regular people from owning firearms.
The safe requirement is an infringement. Big one. I'm glad that the US actually has a Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment. Our founders clearly believed in the right of a free society to keep and bear arms to keep it free.
During WWII, the Japanese feared a land war within the continental US. You think if Great Britain was in close proximity to Japan that their powers would have "feared" invading England? Or ...Australia now?
The gun control groups in the US reference what Great Britian and Australia did and laud the results.
You can not control something unless you know what you are trying to control. Hence registration or a registry is the first true step to confiscation and excercising absolute control over firearm ownership here in the US. It would be done in baby steps, but the end result will be the same.
Like Britain, our schools are training (perhaps brain washing) our young children to stigmatize anyone who owns or wants to own a firearm as being a social outcast and potential terrorist/mass murderer. The CDC has been purposively stopped from getting into the regulatory mix, but our President wants them involved. Whats wrong with reasonable gun controls? The lead bullet thing has come up again in CA.
It has to stop, but it won't as the liberal mindset controls the agenda in our schools. Eventually here in the US, you will be able to take a poll and get essentially the same result as Britain... guns are evil. There will be no right to keep and bear arms any longer or the effort will be so expensive and restrictive that it essentially eliminates regular people from owning firearms.
The safe requirement is an infringement. Big one. I'm glad that the US actually has a Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment. Our founders clearly believed in the right of a free society to keep and bear arms to keep it free.
During WWII, the Japanese feared a land war within the continental US. You think if Great Britain was in close proximity to Japan that their powers would have "feared" invading England? Or ...Australia now?
Certaindeaf
member
Ma Kettle just took over Britain with her old smoothbore. It wasn't even a fair fight. details at eleven
i get about still though busier than a one legged bloke in a butt kicking competition
my veiws are long known, wasted years on it here and hope you folks dont get to do similar , Keep your rights and shoot thise who try to diminish your rights , as once that starts , it dont stop at guns , then your right to anything can be taken , guns stop your enemies and those wishing you disarmed are just enemies lining you up for later attacks .. stay safe , stay armed , stay free
Cheers to all in the US of A , remember you lose your freedoms , where else in the world in there a bench mark for the rest of us to get back too ?? seriously ? where
nowhere folks
YOUR IT
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
That's frightening, jack, but thank you for the reminder.
We ARE it.
We ARE it.
- Status
Similar threads
