Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

The Gun Grab Begins

371 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RavenHawk
20 minutes ago, DingoLingo said:

no.. actually it was logic.. 

 

Jim Jerries sums up the aussie attitude to our gun buy back started 
 

 

He does make good points and they support gun ownership out of his naivety.  His first joke was flat out ominous.  When he stated that his government said "That's it, no more guns!"  One cringes as imagining 18 million surrendering their GOD given rights and just became slaves of the government.  Scary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
9 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

He does make good points and they support gun ownership out of his naivety.  His first joke was flat out ominous.  When he stated that his government said "That's it, no more guns!"  One cringes as imagining 18 million surrendering their GOD given rights and just became slaves of the government.  Scary.

No matter how often you repeat the statement of Australians being slaves under a tyranus government, it will not become true.

It is not like the ruby slippers Ravenhawk.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
17 minutes ago, Kismit said:

No matter how often you repeat the statement of Australians being slaves under a tyranus government, it will not become true.

It is not like the ruby slippers Ravenhawk.

That’s a statement of someone in denial.  I don’t have to repeat it because it is already true.  By definition, a people that does not enjoy the full complement of rights is an enslaved or kept people.  One in a gilded cage rarely is aware of it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
Just now, RavenHawk said:

That’s a statement of someone in denial.  I don’t have to repeat it because it is already true.  By definition, a people that does not enjoy the full complement of rights is an enslaved or kept people.  One in a gilded cage rarely is aware of it. 

 

We are all(even you) viewing life from the inside of that gilded cage. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, DingoLingo said:

That is the funny thing about the american revolution.. if King George was not so much of an ass.. you would still be a constitutional Monarchy.. and probably be over my part of the world competing in the commonwealth games.. 

But unfortunately he was.. and your not.. *shrugs* 

It’s interesting because there were all sorts of events that occurred that led to the Revolutionary War.  And if any one of these events did not happen could have thwarted Independence.  It seems that if we didn’t win our Independence in 1783, would events continue to occur that would have allowed it to still happen at some point?  It is almost as if our Independence was divinely ordained.  And we are continually being tested in the crucible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

we are all salves to money, to banking system. thou it is not traditional way of slavery like in usa 250 years ago, or ancient rome., but still banks have all the power over you.  gvmnt is not far behind, any gvmnt, just think, if you do not pay property tax gvmnt can either put you in jail or take your property, why do few people (gvmnt is people) make you pay them for your own land,

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
8 minutes ago, Kismit said:

We are all(even you) viewing life from the inside of that gilded cage. 

 

Maybe so, but at least I am aware of it.  Every generation must fight to be free.  There is give and take.  At least I know where I am lacking and I know where I want to be.  And the government has a minor role in that place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Maybe so, but at least I am aware of it.  Every generation must fight to be free.  There is give and take.  At least I know where I am lacking and I know where I want to be.  And the government has a minor role in that place.

 

If you say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

The very first gun control laws in the USA were racist laws limiting a black person's ability to defend himself.  The message is clear, free people can own guns, slaves cannot.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
2 hours ago, DingoLingo said:

and that is why your country will never actually be free.. 

 

because you let fear rule your lives.. 

I think you mean legitimate concern. It’s not impossible and with an ally like US your government wouldn’t likely consider it. Disarm US and we can no longer control our government. The world benefits from an armed American population. We keep our government from going too far astray and we are at least 300m private arms strong on top of our elite military that keeps other nations out. We fall, everybody falls.

 

1 hour ago, aztek said:

you really should not be posting that, in your country arms like that are considered deadly weapon,  lol true story

 

Judge rules martial arts fighter's hands and feet are 'deadly weapons' in road rage attack

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111617/Fernando-Rodrigues-jailed-Judge-rules-martial-arts-fighters-hands-feet-deadly-weapons.html#ixzz5Boz8cIu4 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I’ve long thought that in America a martial artists hands are legally considered deadly weapons. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kismit
8 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The very first gun control laws in the USA were racist laws limiting a black person's ability to defend himself.  The message is clear, free people can own guns, slaves cannot.

That is terrible. Someone thought that they had the right to control a group of people using intimidation of violence. By empowering one group above another.

The same thing can be achieved using reward and disciplines of many varieties.

Say, only people with blue eyes can have cafeteria access, that does not mean people without cafeterias are slaves.

It is just another argument against gun control. The people of Australia are allowed guns, if they proove themselves to be mentally sound, have no criminal convictions, no political extremism and a verified reason for ownership.

Anyone has the right to apply and they can not be refused for the colour of thier skin or religion.

They are not gunless slaves.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, F3SS said:

 

i’ve long thought that in America a martial artists hands are legally considered deadly weapons. 

is it? we had few cases of ma arrested for domestic violence, battery, assault, aggravated assault.. but never seen assault with a deadly weapon charge, unless they used actual weapon. 

btw,my post was a joke, 

 

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
2 hours ago, DingoLingo said:

22 years.. and we are still not a dictatorship..

 

just saying.. 

How would you know?  Have you had any serious need to stand up against a decision of your government yet?  What happens when you do?  Or are you content that such an event could never happen?   I'm saying this respectfully.  It may be that you are correct but I don't understand how you could know it before the crunch came.  just sayin'

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoLingo
1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

He does make good points and they support gun ownership out of his naivety.  His first joke was flat out ominous.  When he stated that his government said "That's it, no more guns!"  One cringes as imagining 18 million surrendering their GOD given rights and just became slaves of the government.  Scary.

heh.. God given right.. its not a god given right to own a gun my friend.. 

we did not give up all guns.. they banned certain classes of guns.. and we agreed.. you know there is a small push to lift those restrictions.. but over all.. australians do not want those bans lifted.. we are happy that we do not have massacres anymore.. we are not afraid to send our kids to school because we do not have to worry about some student going nuts and taking a array of weapons to school to kill his/her class mates.. we can walk the streets and not worried about some random decide to go on a shooting spree.. 

so hey.. keep your guns.. it is your right.. live with the thought that it may be your kid/nephew/neice etc that could get gunned down while attending their class.. 

but should that day come.. and I pray to the gods it never does.. just remember.. that it was your choice not to make a change..  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Just now, Kismit said:

That is terrible. Someone thought that they had the right to control a group of people using intimidation of violence. By empowering one group above another.

The same thing can be achieved using reward and disciplines of many varieties.

Say, only people with blue eyes can have cafeteria access, that does not mean people without cafeterias are slaves.

It is just another argument against gun control. The people of Australia are allowed guns, if they proove themselves to be mentally sound, have no criminal convictions, no political extremism and a verified reason for ownership.

Anyone has the right to apply and they can not be refused for the colour of thier skin or religion.

They are not gunless slaves.

and what exactly  is political extremism?  are alex jones, and david hogg political extremists? should they be banned from having guns?

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoLingo
4 minutes ago, and then said:

How would you know?  Have you had any serious need to stand up against a decision of your government yet?  What happens when you do?  Or are you content that such an event could never happen?   I'm saying this respectfully.  It may be that you are correct but I don't understand how you could know it before the crunch came.  just sayin'

actually.. yes.. there are more legitimate gun owners in australia then there is military personal

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
17 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I’ve long thought that in America a martial artists hands are legally considered deadly weapons. 

That's a myth.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

yes, we got it, gun control works in Australia (as much as kangaroo control works in usa) , but this is not about Australia.  nor we Americans see Australia as an example to follow. we are happy that you like your  gvmnt and trust it blindly,  but we do not like or trust ours, and there is nothing  you can say that will change our opinion. 

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
14 minutes ago, Kismit said:

That is terrible. Someone thought that they had the right to control a group of people using intimidation of violence. By empowering one group above another.

The same thing can be achieved using reward and disciplines of many varieties.

Say, only people with blue eyes can have cafeteria access, that does not mean people without cafeterias are slaves.

It is just another argument against gun control. The people of Australia are allowed guns, if they proove themselves to be mentally sound, have no criminal convictions, no political extremism and a verified reason for ownership.

Anyone has the right to apply and they can not be refused for the colour of thier skin or religion.

They are not gunless slaves.

Yes I know, you can have a gun if you can prove you need it.  Who decides if your reason is good enough?  How many licenses are issued and where?  Probably not where there is much crime I'll wager.  Probably very far from cities where you may need one to defend yourself and certainly the only legitimate reason will be hunting far, far from others.  That whole cafeteria argument Kismit is.....meh.  Ask yourself, in Australia who has guns?  The people in charge, that's who, but not you.  It's fine if you don't mind it though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

in Germany people "allowed"to have guns, but not at home, they are stored in a shooting club (that i'm sure you have to be a member of) , and they call it "we can have guns", lol we have very different understanding of what "having" a gun means

Edited by aztek
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
23 minutes ago, DingoLingo said:

heh.. God given right.. its not a god given right to own a gun my friend..

The right to defend yourself is, and in the USA that means you have the right to a weapon, since there is a chance that the person you may need to defend yourself from might have a gun then you have the right to a gun.  In the USA, unlike you, we believe that our rights are natural rights granted by the creator not allowed us by a government so it is anathema to us that we allow a government to curtail our natural rights.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawken

Deerfield is a suburb of Chicago. I wonder if the street gangs will turn in their guns?...:w00t:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
Quote

heh.. God given right.. its not a god given right to own a gun my friend.

It is so a natural right to be able do defend yourself by equal or greater means than the aggressor. That don’t mean you have to, want to, will or will be compelled to but why on earth shouldn’t you be able to?

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

That's a myth.

Really what I was thinking is that if you are a high ranking martial artist, boxer, pro-fighter that if you are intentionally causing physical harm to someone that you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
7 minutes ago, F3SS said:

It is so a natural right to be able do defend yourself by equal or greater means than the aggressor. That don’t mean you have to, want to, will or will be compelled to but why on earth shouldn’t you be able to?

Really what I was thinking is that if you are a high ranking martial artist, boxer, pro-fighter that if you are intentionally causing physical harm to someone that you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. 

If that were true my boss would have to register his breath.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
3 hours ago, Kismit said:

That is interesting. I see it as ingenuity. But that is in the concept I saw it in.

When my eldest child lost his first tooth, he took his $2 from the tooth fairy, went to the shop, brought some candy teeth and stuck them in a glass of water beside the bed. He saw a potential to make money and he marketed it. This was how I viewed the fake gun.

 

Cool story about your son. ;)

About the fake gun, I saw it as fraud. I guess we should allow counterfeiters to pass phony money too. That's ingenuity.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.