Large Scale Central

They're after our firearms, again

General Discussion
#41

Three Reasons in a Nutshell To Resist Gun Registration

(1) Practically speaking, registration and licensing laws do not affect criminals, they only affect innocent citizens.

(2) Fundamentally speaking, citizens in a free society do not have to get permission from anyone to exercise their right to self-defense, just as they don’t need permission to freely speak or worship. Licensing and registration schemes require citizens to get permission to defend themselves, so those schemes don’t belong in a free society.

(3) Historically speaking, registration and licensing have been part of “gun control” programs that made possible the calculated mass murder of between 70 and 170 million people. Registration and licensing make genocide easier, not harder. I fight against genocide and I don’t want to make genocide easier anywhere in the world.

#42

So Tim, was Quigley’s portrayal of the war with the Aborigines and the British accurate?

I’ve always envisioned Australia as a rather arid climate, with some fairly independent minded folks.

#43

David,
like other indigenous population, the aboriginals saw white settlement in Australia as an invasion. From the very landing, the British were very keen to retaliate any action seen as hostile, extracting revenge far in excess of the original native action. If one whiteman was killed then ten aboriginals were dealt with. It has been estimated that within 12 months of the first permanently occupied landing in Australia (Sydney), by whitemen, that 50% of the local aboriginal population had been decimated, due the combined effect of disease and brutal retaliation. I have heard that Australian aboriginals were the only native tribe that the British did not make a treaty with, as they considered them to be insignificant.

    The aboriginals saw the whiteman with hundreds of farm animals and did not consider taking one or two for survival as stealing (punishable under law by death).  To the whiteman,  their action was seen as an attack on themselves, personally and a systematic action of extermination was initiated.   Massacres were quite common.  The aboriginal was regarded as a second class person and very harshly dealt with by the law.  Mixed marriages were forbidden, under law and any mixed race children were 'kidnapped' and placed in christian missionary schools.   This action of stealing children took place up into the mid-20th century.   It took 200 years for them to be recognised in law and I was only made aware, very recently,  that the manner in which black Americans were treated,  right up until the late 1960's,  was reflected here in Australia in rural towns.   We excluded aboriginals from using facilities designated for the use of whites only.  Many rural towns had white only policies,  such that the local municipal swimming pools could only be used for one hour per week, on Wednesday afternoons,  by aboriginals.  Prior to using the pool,  the aboriginals were required to rigorously scrub themselves clean and when given approval by the whites, were allowed to use the pool for one hour only, each week.  Whites were excluded from using the pool during the time being used by the aboriginals. 

   Australia is roughly 80% arid climate, with most of the population centred on the fertile east coast edge of the continent.  In so far as being independent minded, then this has come about historically, from having to be able to survive in a harsh climate and being fiercely loyal to our country.
#44

Kevin makes the point beautifully.

But in addition, I wonder if those who argue so strenuously against any “infringement” of the 2nd amendment would make the same argument about the first? For example, in the 1950s communist party members were required to register their names with the Attorney General, and they were, under the McCarron act, forbidden from taking federal jobs. Advocating communism was taken to be illegal speech which could be prohibited

Should a muslim fundamentalsit preacher who advocates the destruction of the United States be allowed to speak freely, without restraint? Should he have to be registered with Homeland security?

#45
Quote:
... (1) Practically speaking, registration and licensing laws do not affect criminals, they only affect innocent citizens.

(2) Fundamentally speaking, citizens in a free society do not have to get permission from anyone to exercise their right to self-defense, just as they don’t need permission to freely speak or worship. Licensing and registration schemes require citizens to get permission to defend themselves, so those schemes don’t belong in a free society.

(3) Historically speaking, registration and licensing have been part of “gun control” programs that made possible the calculated mass murder of between 70 and 170 million people. Registration and licensing make genocide easier, not harder. I fight against genocide and I don’t want to make genocide easier anywhere in the world.

  1. On one hand, yes. However, registration and regulating sales does make it more difficult for the criminal element to get their hands on weapons. You’ll never close all the barn doors, but if you give the horses only one exit, you can at least watch to see who leaves.

  2. How is registering “asking permission?” You have yet to explain that. When I go to the DMV, they can’t tell me “no.” When I register to vote, they can’t say “no.” Asking permission implies that there is an avenue for denial. Assuming you meet the qualifications–mentally competent, not a convicted felon, etc.–they cannot say “no.” It’s that simple.

  3. Huh??? 70 to 170 million people? Please explain, and please point to specific references to how a registry was used to carry that out.

Later,

K

#46

“How is registering “asking permission?” You have yet to explain that. When I go to the DMV, they can’t tell me “no.” When I register to vote, they can’t say “no.” Asking permission implies that there is an avenue for denial. Assuming you meet the qualifications–mentally competent, not a convicted felon, etc.–they cannot say “no.” It’s that simple.”

What if a person does not want the government to know how a citizen can protect themselves from the government? Isn’t that the biggest fear of our government? That they may not really be able to control us.

#47

Without registration, the government does not who or how many guns are owned or by whom.

I admit to not having researched all the stated facts here, If someone wishes to disprove any or all be may guest, but the fact of registration giving Big Brother the information is a threat to liberty. You may trust the current administration. But what about the next one?

A Little Gun History Lesson---------------
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

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

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

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

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

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

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

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results a re now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that whilethe law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns… The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won ’ t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns…We Are ‘Citizens’.
Without Them…We Are ‘Subjects’.

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U . S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U . S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

#48
Quote:
... Isn't that the biggest fear of our government?
Nah. Not getting reelected is. :)

Later,

K

#49

Deleted

#50

What about the wack-jobs in Japan that allows NO private ownership of guns? The mass stabbing in 2008, the poison gas a few years earlier.

Gloria: “65 percent of the people murdered in the last 10 years were killed by hand guns”
Archie Bunker: “would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?”

#51

Deleted

#52
David Hill said:
...During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED !...
Uhm...sure...so they went up against the Army, and the Navy, and the Air Corp but they were afraid of uncle joe and his 12ga.

I’m done wasting my time here.

#53

David…

Yes, history is full of examples where the armed beat up on the unarmed. No one denies that, and such imbalance is the foundation of the 2nd amendment. Your examples were carried out regardless of whether there was a registry or not. Governments bent on wiping out populations don’t care about such formalities. The US Army knew full well the native Americans were armed, even without a registry. They didn’t care who had what kind of gun, they simply outgunned them.

Quote:
... the fact of registration giving Big Brother the information is a threat to liberty.
Yes, the information used by people with ulterior motives [i]can[/i] be a threat to liberty. That can be said for any information database. Believe me--I've seen the kinds information that various organizations keep on us. Whether or not we own a gun is pretty far down on the "threat to liberty" list. (Here's a hint - don't use your credit card at the gun shop.) But such a threat (however remote) does not equal a ban on gun ownership. The correlation between the two simply doesn't exist.

If you realistically think the US government will ever be remotely successful in banning guns, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It’s simply not going to happen. I don’t think there’s a person in this country who realistically has that expectation. Gun ownership isn’t “Republican” or “Democrat,” “Liberal” or “Conservative.” Gun owners cross every political spectrum, and gun ownership is far to engrained in our national identity. It’s simply not going to happen. We’ve been enduring attempts at curtailing the 2nd amendment pretty much since it was written. Two-hundred years of surviving them is a pretty good track record.

Later,

K

#54

Kevin,

Your statement - “We’ve been enduring attempts at curtailing the 2nd amendment pretty much since it was written. Two-hundred years of surviving them is a pretty good track record.”

Do you know if there has been a history of regulating private ownership of weapons before WWII or even through the 1950’s? I’ve never heard of that. I can’t imagine any farmer not having at least a shotgun. I’ve always thought this ‘gun control’ stuff came about the same time as the pill, abortion, seat belts, the “great Society” and all other types of regulations on life after Kennedy was shot. Maybe Mike knows something about that part of history.

#55

Specifically, no. Anecdotally, I’ve heard of attempts dating back to the 1920s; aimed try to curtail gangland violence. I also have vague recollections of stories from civil war times. If I recall, those were along the lines of “donate your guns to the army” drives. I don’t know how widespread either of those efforts would have been, nor if they ever had any serious traction. None–to my recollection–were aimed at outright weapons bans, just trying to control their distribution.

I think you are correct–the most serious efforts didn’t start in earnest until the second half of the 20th century. Still, if the 2nd Amendment could survive the 60s, I’d think it can survive anything. :slight_smile: Even then, most attempts were aimed at banning only certain types of guns (automatic rifles, DC’s ban on handguns, etc.) and were not an all-out ban on all types of firearms. I don’t know what effect the Supreme Court’s ruling on DC’s handgun ban had on attempts to ban automatic weapons and the like.

Later,

K

#56

Also this statement:

“With Guns…We Are ‘Citizens’.
Without Them…We Are ‘Subjects’.”

Is ridiculous. Think about it:

So ok, if I don’t have a gun but I have a 2x4 fashioned into a club, and I’m willing to use it, am I a citizen or a subject?

If I have ten guns and my neighbor has five, am I more of a citizen than him?

Do paint ball guns count? BB guns? If I have a really good BB gun, am I a citizen or a subject?

How about .22s? If I buy a .22 will I become a citizen? Or does it have to be something more high powered? Semi-automatic? Will the NRA let me know?

How about if I have a swiss army knife–if I killed someone with it, would I then be a citizen and not a subject?

As the NRA is fond of pointing out, “guns don’t kill, people do.” So is it ability to kill with a gun that makes you a citizen? If I have windows and can push people out of them, does that make me a citizen? I guess a black belt in Karate is more of a citizen than, say, a disabled vet in a wheelchair? Oh wait–if the vet still has his gun, he’s a citizen. If not, he’s a subject.

Citizenship isn’t defined by gun ownership, it’s defined by law. This is some kind of comforting fantasy gun owners tell themselves, that they will stand alone with their arsenal when govt. come knocking, and be “citizens” and not "subjects, but if to ever comes to violence they will be dead just the same, no matter how many guns. As Kevin pointed out, the US army didn’t care that the Indians had unregistered guns, they just got gatling guns.

If you tell me I’m any less of a citizen because I don’t own a gun (actually I do, but even if I didn’t) I’d tell you to cram it and your guns someplace uncomfortable. The presumption that because someone owns guns they somehow uniquely embody the virtues of a patriot is just silly. Any jackass can buy a gun, and pat himself on the back and tell himself now he’s a citizen and a real American hero, but his neighbor isn’t.

And again I own a gun and grew up around guns. But never believed that owning a gun made me more of a citizen

#57

On the history of gun control, I’m not really sure. It’s complicated by the fact that mass production makes guns cheaper and easier to own. I think I remember instances of “gun control” in the 19th century, but I’m not sure. I have a couple books about it at my office, I’ll see what I can find out.

#58
Tim Brien said:
It was not unusual for American servicemen on R&R, from Vietnam in the early 1970's, to consider taking up residence in Australia on their discharge and I am proud to have known several who actually did so.
That's how I got my land near Alice Springs...

Jon.

#59
mike omalley said:
Also this statement:

How about .22s? If I buy a .22 will I become a citizen? Or does it have to be something more high powered? Semi-automatic? Will the NRA let me know?


Hmm. Maybe President Obama should buy a .22 and end all the speculation.

#60

Jon,
good to have you as an honory neighbour. Have you checked to see if the land is still in your name? A lot of land near Alice Springs found its way back into the ownership of the Aboriginals.