Taking a swipe at the "anti's"
 

Below is a "rant" I have just submitted to the Australian Firearms Discussion Forum, thought I'd put it here as well.

I think it demonstrates that "collectable" firearms are as threatened by this anti-gun mentality as any other firearm.

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

Mentioning the historical value and significance of arms destroyed at various gun buybacks is, I believe a very worthwhile way of rubbing the anti's noses in it. It allows you to portray the champions of such schemes as cultural vandals intent on destroying historically signicant artifacts to further a political ideal.

Why don't we start working on a list of historically significant arms destroyed (and therefore lost to future generations) by these cultural criminals?

I'll start it off:

1 x 1917 DWM 9mm "Artillery" Luger with Australian Army property markings (D^D).
How many Arty Lugers do you think the Australian Army ever issued? I don't know but I do know Mr Howard's war on privately owned firearms denied this piece of Australian military history to future generations.

1 x 1935 Enfield Mk1 revolver marked to the 8th Battalion of the Royal Tank Corps and formerly the property of Sub-Inspector G. Leane of the Royal Malaya Police.

Anyone else with suggestions?
-------------------------------------------------
Take some advice friends, any person holding both anti-gun sentiments and any public office is a threat to your very way of life and must be removed from that public office. I don't care if he's the Council dog catcher, vote the b------ out!

We feel your frustration John-M... Don't let your furor die a death of indifference that placed you and your countrymen in this position.

Work unceasingly to change the law...ANY law can be changed, but history can't be undone... Your right to own firearms CAN be restored, but you must justify it with VOTES.

I don't understand this convoluted mentality. Do these people beat their children. When their neighbors child breaks a window? If someone drives through a red light. Do they revoke everyones drivers license? What a bunch S--T Heads!! The next time someone gets beat to death with a golf club. Lets ban golf. Bet that would'nt happen.
Ron

I think I understand them. Its my theory of the great leveling of a society. No one person or group may posess power over the others unless it is granted by the whole. The government may posess firearms because their use is granted to protect society as a whole. Individuals may not because the individual would have the same power as the government and therefore power over individuals that was not granted by those individuals. Everyone should be equally protected or equally unprotected. No one has an advantage. They choose not to own a firearm so they cannot allow anyone else to have one because it would put them at a disadvantage.
Problem is the theory will not work because some won't go along with it and won't play by the rules. Can't protect your self? Good. I'll take your stuff, rape your wife/daughter/mother/dog
and you can whine for help. But that is allowable because society is safe and the criminal just needs to be understood. These folks can't help it. Try to take my stuff - I'll stop you. Keep on and I'll blow your ass away. But to them this puts society as a whole at risk because I have power to protect myself and they can't allow it.

rk

My thoughts on this topic are as follows.

One group grew up in households with guns. Their friends, neighbors and relatives tended to have guns and no one was committing crimes. Life experience has shown this group that owning guns and committing crimes are unrelated.

Another group grew up in housholds without guns. Friends, neighbors, and relatives did not have guns. The only guns they heard about or came into contact with were in the hands of criminals. Life experience taught them that only criminals have guns.

Our problem is how do we convince the second group that they are wrong? We do need to put forth the effort or the other side will be the majority and outvote us.

Here in Oregon, I very seldom see any African-Americans at the gun shows. We are losing a large block of people if this is the case in states that have a larger black population. I see many more Hispanics even though they are a smaller percentage of the population. This is not being said to promote racism or to be derogatory to any group so please do not jump on me for making a racist remark. I am just counting heads. If this degenerates into racist scree, I will pull my post and ask the moderator of this section to take action.

Steve, One of the reasons, I believe, is that the anti-gun crowd has promoted gun owners and collectors as being predominantly a bunch of racist militia types. As discribed in an editorial by a U of O proffessor in our local paper as, "knuckle dragging cavemen".
In my opinion, every time I see some "Dude" walking around in a gunshow wearing full camo. It promotes their assertion. And lends credence to it.
Bill Jordan , one of the greatest shooting sports Icons who ever lived, once wrote an article about the public perception of assault rifles.It was called "The Black Gun". He said that just the sight of an "assault rifle"is alarming to some unknowledgable people. Due to the evil context attributed to it by the rabid anti-gun crowd. His message was, own it if you want to, shoot it and enjoy it, but don't flaunt it. When you transport it. Don't drive around with it in your pick up gun rack .It sends the wrong message. Could you imagine driving around downtown Portland with a dead Deer drapped over the fender of your car? The Animal rights gang would have a field day. Basicly the same reaction.
Anyway, my point being that, what ignorant(as in uninformed. Not stupid.) people hear, is reinforced by what they see. The anti-gun agenda is to promote us as a bunch of Bubba, racist, militia, redneck morons. And we don't need to give the impression that they are right. Unfortunately, that element , can't quite get the idea. Don't show up dressed like you're prepared for Armageden. It validates their agenda.
Ron
BTW, Dillon of Dillon reloading equipment, viciously attacked Bill Jordan over this article. And accused him of being anti-gun. Bill Jordan? Anti-gun!? That's "tin foil in your hat" material.

Steve, et all, no "action" required at this point... all seems "civilized" to me, but I will keep a watchful eye on things...

The Cheek of Some People!

As some of you may have heard, we're having a Federal Election down here. Some local clown from the "I hate guns party" actually had the cheek to stick some Liberal Party advertising material in my letterbox!

I truely wish these so-and-so's would print their rubbish on softer and more absorbent paper so it could be put to a suitable use!

Reproduced below is my reply:
-------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Curtis,

I thank you for the recent arrival of Liberal Party advertising material in my letterbox, but feel the need to inform you it is a waste of your resources.

Whilst I was once a Liberal voter, those days are long gone. You see, I am also a licenced law-abiding recreational firearm owner who is heartily sick and tired of Mr Howard's repeated attacks and vilification of me and people like me.

Since 1996, the Howard Liberal Government has spent over 1 billion dollars in a campaign to, as Mr Fischer once put it, to "drain the suburbs of Sydney and Melboune of firearms". This campaign has seen hundreds of thousand of law-abiding Australians face vilification and the arbitary confiscation of their property and destruction of sporting interests built and cherished over many years. This campaign has seen no definable decrease in the criminal misuse of firearms.

I wonder how many lives could have been saved it that 1 bilion dollars had instead been spent on health services infrastructure?

Whilst I congratulate you in your selection as a Liberal Party candidate, I do not wish you or your party well in the upcoming election.

As a member of Mr Howard's "Team", could you pass on a message to that man for me. He can take his "social engineering" practices and stick them where, as our American counsins say "the sun don't shine".

Regards
-------------------------------------------------
Thanks for listening to my rant everyone, soap-box mode now off!

John, That is excellent. It gets the point across, quite well. And in a very intelligent manner. It has been my experience that most ultra liberals fancy themselves, the intellectual elite. We need to pose arguments to them in a like manner.With unarguable and unanswerable statements. Rather than posing arguments. Let them trip themselves up, with their own rational. Give them the rope to hang themselves with.

Ron

I don't know what to do about it. On one hand, the media and local, has people being saved by local and gov't rescue. And the people believe it will be their fate. Then there are the others with SECURITY PATROLS and such. We realist know what happens there. You can't pay a guy seven bucks an hour and expect him to do anything except to call the police. And then the only obligation of the police is to write a report. Lets face it , most of the calls are reactive not proactive.I am a firm supporter of Law enforcement.
Then there is the the 2nd ammendment. I know they meant people killing guns. Do some people think we were protected for bunny hunting?. An American Rant. Thanks for listening.

G.W.,
Here's my rant I posted on the P38 forum a little while ago:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Most cops (in New York) are anti's. They say things like, "Yeah, everybody should have guns... flintlocks, like they had when they wrote the 2nd ammendment... nothing else." "There's no need for that kind of weaponry, it's for nuts and killers." I give them the crash course in constitutionalism (original intent of the 2nd Amm't, equality of citizenry with government), and they have absolutely no response. The smarter ones will concede that I've made a "clever" argument. I'm not sure when honest truth became merely clever, but I just shake my head and they maintain their ignorance (spewing it about amongst the public who highly respects their opinion because they're gun carrying officers).

It's a chicken/egg conundrum. Which came first:

A) The masses of urbanized humanity who not begrudgingly, but WILLINGLY surrender to the will of the government. They DESIRE to be told what to do. They want NO PART of solving their own problems (that would be a defacto admission of bringing about certain conditions upon themselves).

or...

B) The democratic party politicians who band together, promoting the notion that people are NOT better off left to their own devices... that too much freedom is dangerous... that salvation ultimately lies in bigger and more restrictive government.

At the end of the day, which came first is of no consequence. The present day reality is that these two forces have swirled together for so long, they have become self perpetuating... like the winds of an enormous forest fire.

All we can do is sprinkle the perimeter of this fire with the seeds of self-determination. By increasing peoples' estimations of themselves, we may be able to prevent them from getting sucked into the fire. Maybe in a hundred years we can bring it under control. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">In most American cities, if you call 911 with a life threatening emergency, you will have a police response in 6-10 minutes (often sooner). In the very rural areas, it could take 30-40 minutes or more. With respect to protecting one's own life and property, restrictive gun laws are relatively more unfair/punitive to rural residents. Problem is, rural residents have only a fraction of the voting power and can do little to stop the steamroller driven by the anti-gun/big city politicians. The next civil-war is going to be the "inside" vs. the "outside"

The United States has a mechanism to deal with this... "State's Rights". Any state can pass restrictive gun laws (and Lord knows they do!). The bottom line is that gun control should not be a Federal issue (beyond their mandated recognition of the second ammendment and the undisputed original intent of that ammendment). I say, "Let the States handle their own affairs."

Jack

Good'aye Jack.
Reference the concept that the 2nd Amendment should only apply to flintlocks, I encountered that arguement a little while ago. my reply was a little different (and perhaps more confronting) to yours and is reproduced below if anyone's interested

--------------------------------------------------
Meg, interesting concept, let's restrict rights only to those areas or articles that were available when those rights were granted. The right to keep and bear arms therefore would only apply to flintlock muzzleloaders.

The right to freedom of speech would only apply to verbal or written communications, no freedom of speech to any communication diseminated on any electronic medium ('cos these things weren't around in 1776)

The right to freedom of religion would only apply to those religions which were "around" in America in 1776. Therefore freedom of religion doesn't apply to Muslims or Hindus. The Salvation Army originated in the 1870's so I guess the poor old Salvo mises out too.

Freedom of association is also important, but only if the association you're associating with, was "around" in 1776. Ooops, there goes the trade union movement, not to mention a bucketload of charity organisations.

Of course, the "Emancipation Proclaimation" didn't appear until the 1860's, so I guess Slavery's OK with you too.......

I don't think I like the kind of world you want to live in Meg, sorry but it ain't for me.
-----------------------------------------------

Thanks John-M... great analogy for anti-gunners with that attitude about our RIGHTS. :)

Ditto John Sabato,
I shall quiver that arrow for future use. Thanks John-M.

Jack

Gentlemen, (( John-Melb,Thanks for starting this thread))(Jack Lawman, Your response is extraoridinarory!) Road Kill, Steve Richards, Ron Smith, John Sabato & Tacfoly,
Informing and venting is healthy for ourselves and our societies. Myself, I need a post like this occasionally. It is nice to know experienced law enforcement and the populace of regions universal are "corresponding". I got that word out of the Thesaurus. We feel kind of the same, don't we?. I Think it's healthy we continue the rant.

I have had several people who know that I am a "Gun Nut", ask my opinion of the ban expiring. They ask , "How do you feel about Assault Rifles being made available again. One person, anti-gun type, ask if I was happy that I could own machine guns again. I had to enlighten this Sh**head. He now fully understands what is required to own a "machine gun", and what an assault rifle is. I also told him that the ban was not on sale and ownship, but on magazine capacity, flashhiders and bayonet lugs. I told how dim witted and convoluted this crap is.I also explained that if given the choice. I would rather take my chances with a round from an AK 47, than load of 0000 buck from a 12 gauge. The LA police chief was on some news interview the other day. He actually kept using the big bank robbery shoot out as an example, against the ban ending. Wayne LaPierre was there, and did'nt once mention that these were illegally obtained, and unlicensed full auto weapons. Most uneducated people, I have found, think that these are what the ban is all about.

Ron

Roadkill, I must fully agree with you sir! And just remember, if they could take the second amendment away from us, it is easy to take the rest of them! I own an AK-47 semi Auto, I never even really wanted one until folks started telling me you cant hunt with one, heck I did!! Most free Americans DONT like others to tell them what to do especially if we are good citizens (except being gun owners of course). We teach morality to our children, we pay our taxes, we vote, we try to live upstanding lives! But we own guns so can protect ourselves when there are not enough policemen to do it. It is a physical impossibly to be totally protected by the police so we must pick up slack. This is a subject I am extremely passionate about. When I have a criminal the size of an NFL linebacker taking my two young girls out the window of my house, one under each arm, and I have a way to stop him, I am not calling the police until it is over! I dont plan to have anyone take that right away from me. Like a scene from an old cop show with William Holden playing BUMPER the beat cop looking on after a crime was committed where a person was stabbed to death with a screw driver, he said with a sarcastic voice while looking at the murder weapon (the screw driver) "They ought to outlaw those things"
"From my cold dead hands!!!"

Ted,

I understand your AK-47 purchase. Back in the '80s I looked at the AR-15 and decided I didn't want such an ugly black rifle. Then, when the anti's claimed they were evil and we shouldn't be allowed to have them, I thought maybe I was overlooking something. I looked again and bought one. Later I traded for a new one. Great rifles in my opinion. Got some 30 round mags also and lots of cheap ammo.

AK's and such are fun. I really like taking out the weed stalks and lilly pads. I also like target practice at 3/4 of a mile. I think we could need these weapons. As the Constitution implies (with the 2nd). We the People need to make sure our armed Local, State and Fed. Gov't don't go "Concord" again. The Soldiers facing our Minutemen were the Gov't and Civil law at the time. The aggressors were armed with the the most powerful "people" killing guns and they knew what was best for us. Or really themselves. They thought. They were the "nice and good people"
These troops were sent to Concord with the order to secure the powder and stores of the people. They were turned like a kid that struck a hornets nest. It SHOULD always be the same. We don't need FICTION MOVIES to know what could happen if "people" killing weapons were not there to stop them. We need the populace to have the power to collectively stop, reverse, change....the Gov't. Bad guy's also...

G.W.,
My sentiments exactly!!!

Even though your last post perfectly outlines the intended purpose of the second ammendment, it is not often you hear this line of reasoning put forth publicly by pro-gun groups. Of course, when they're preaching to the choir (their own membership), it's all "Fear the government that doesn't fear its people". But when targeting anti-gun groups, the message is watered down to, "Sportsmen are free to enjoy all manner of semi-auto firearm"... "I hunt with my AK"... and the like.

I'm not saying that this is a good or bad strategy, just making an observation. My point is that the self-evident truths of the second ammendment kind are a little scary for some, really scary for most.

I often tell people that they should not promote new and stricter gun laws, but they should instead work to repeal the second ammendment at a constitutional level. As opposed as I am to this idea, it's the only position that makes reasonable sense. In order to restrict gun ownwership, you must believe that the second ammendment has outlived its usefelness, the U.S. government is incapable of tyranny, and that all self-evident rights have become self-preserving as well. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am regularly dismissed as a gun-nut.

I also tell the antis that while they are working to repeal the second ammendment, they should be steadfast in their resolve to prosecute firearms related offenses to the full extent of the law. It escapes me how liberal judges who hate legal firearms ownership, are the first ones to throw out the aggravating factor of a crime (use of a firearm) to get a plea deal in the interest of "justice". If guns are so terrible, why not go full bore after the people that use them in crime? It's freaking AMAZING!!!

Just for the record, I'm a life member of the NRA, volunteer employee, and support their work whole-heartedly.

Jack

Jack, IMO the second amendment is the only constituional insurance that the citizens of this country have to guarantee that we can keep the rest of the bill of rights from being taken away from us. It is indispensable...

The sunset of the 1994 weapons ban is hopefully an indicator that the American people are waking up... it is unfortunate that it was necessary that they experience a horrible act of terrorism as their wakeup call...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by John Sabato:
<strong>Jack, IMO the second amendment is the only constituional insurance that the citizens of this country have to guarantee that we can keep the rest of the bill of rights from being taken away from us. It is indispensable...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">This is the point I am trying to make. Sorry I didn't make myself more clear. Believing "that the second ammendment has outlived its usefelness, the U.S. government is incapable of tyranny, and that all self-evident rights have become self-preserving as well" is all part of the mindset of the urban masses I made reference to in my first post post on this thread.

People are free to believe it if they so choose (this is America), no matter how nonsensical the notion may be. If you oppose the second ammendment, you must oppose it in its entirity, stand against its original intent, and act to have it repealed. If the Congress can ever muster enough votes for the repeal, the battle will have long been over.

Have I totally confused everyone yet? All I know is that it makes sense to me :confused: <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ...sort of <img border="0" alt="[soapbox]" title="" src="graemlins/soapbox.gif" />

Jack

Post deleted. Thanks for letting me rant. Happy Hour lasted way tooooo long last night. G. W. Gill

Hi folks, below is reproduced from the Australian Firearms Discussion Forum how the anti-gun mind-set is engineered in the masses.
--------------------------------------------------
Attn all Firearm Owners....incl SSAA management !

Be Alert be ALARMED ! We are now being targetted as terrorists. FACT.

I advise one and all to get a hold of the Sydney Daily Telegraph page 26. It
may be in each state rags too. The FULL PAGE ad is titled "HELP PROTECT
AUSTRALIA FROM TERRORISM". If SSAA management can get onto it, all well and
good.

In this new ad for phone number 1800 123 400, there is a montage map of
Australia, with things to be alert and alarmed about.

Look at the map around Adelaide.

The is a torso, wearing jeans, a shirt or jacket, and carrying a SPORTING
FIREARM or SHOTTIE. Cant tell for sure what firearm it is.

The torso, IS NOT carrying an AK47, an RPG, a decapitated head, or dressed
like Osama Bin Loader. He or she is carrying a SPORTING FIREARM.

I think we should all get on board and either
(a) get the SSAA to change or PULL the ad
(b) do (a) and get a full page apology in the same paper.
(c) let the AFP know that they have just slandered the SSAA membership, and
we p*ssed off.

-----------------------------------------------
According to the Australian Federal Police, people concerned about terrorists in this country should be on the look-out for people wearing jeans and carrying sporting firearms!

Note the mental link being suggested - gun=bad
guy

Apparently the Sporting Shooter's Association of Australia are aware of this ad and are jumping up and down about it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by John -Melb:
<strong>
The is a torso, wearing jeans, a shirt or jacket, and carrying a SPORTING FIREARM or SHOTTIE. Cant tell for sure what firearm it is.

The torso, IS NOT carrying an AK47, an RPG, a decapitated head, or dressed like Osama Bin Loader. He or she is carrying a SPORTING FIREARM.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">At the risk of becoming an annoyance (and PLEASE let me know if this is how I am being perceived), this comment strikes at the heart of MY argument. SPORTING ARMS have very little to do with the second ammendment. The ORIGINAL INTENT of the second ammendment is NOT to ensure the legality of sporting firearms and the enjoyment of hunting for future generations. The ORIGINAL INTENT is to ensure an equality between the citizens and their government.

Trust me, you would not want to face today's modern SWAT teams with an over/under and a Remington Model 700. If you are defending the second ammendment, you cause as much harm as good by differentiating between SPORTING and PERSONAL DEFENSE firearms. PERSONAL DEFENSE firearms are the ones most connected to and protected by our second ammendment. Like I stated on a previous post on this thread, "self-evident truths of the second ammendment kind are a little scary for some, really scary for most." A classic "anti" tactic is to espouse affection for SPORTING FIREARMS. You play into their hands by bolstering this distinction. It then becomes easier to "ban" the "bad ones", the ones which stand ready to resist tyranny.

Problem with my argument is that it becomes SO EASY for the antis to paint you as one who wishes to overthrow the government. In my case, this couldn't be further from the truth. I wish Americans remain faithful to the second ammendment so that I DON'T EVER have to work to overthow the government.

Jack

P.S. John-Melb,
I am aware that Australia does not operate under the auspices of the U.S. Constitution (in particular our Bill of Rights). I am using your post to illustrate what I believe is an attitude indicative of a losing long-term strategy often employed by well intentioned defenders of our second ammendment.

Bravo Jack Lawman... very eloquently said...