# Gun Ban in Australia



## Slot Pursuit (Oct 22, 2007)

All Gun Owners Need to Watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA


----------



## jackedup (Jan 17, 2008)

This is really misleading. I want to make it clear I in no way support a total firearm ban, but I don't think that banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines to the average owner is a bad idea at all, and support a licensing program for those. There has not been a mass shooting in Australia since the ban and Australians never had the type of ownerships rights or percentages of this country ever. Read this entire article if you want to make a informed decision on the real situation is Aus. www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp


----------



## romadfishrman (Jan 23, 2009)

jackedup said:


> but I don't think that banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines to the average owner is a bad idea at all, and support a licensing program for those. www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp


Right cause that doesn't infringe on my right. Who gets to approve who's allowed to get an "assault" weapon? What's an "assault weapon? Anything can become an assault weapon. I assault you with my car keys and now I have assault keys???? Can you define high capacity? Or are high capacity magazines just some arbitrary number because you think or feel that's all a person needs to defend him/her self or family. Take your emotions out of school shootings and look at facts. Law abiding citizens aren't the enemy, criminals are, so focus on the people breaking the law, not the tools that they use to perform their crimes. They'll just find another tool.


----------



## Randy M (Jul 8, 2012)

My .22 Remington 552 semi-auto rifle will hold 20 rounds in a tubular magazine. Is that considered a "high capacity assault" rifle?


----------



## on the rocks (Oct 1, 2007)




----------



## Slot Pursuit (Oct 22, 2007)

on the rocks said:


> View attachment 70822


 You forgot the airplane. I did not see a ban on airplanes when some sick person use it to kill many many people. It is not the weapon that kills it is the people operating it. If you or your family member was being attack I bet you would hope to have an assalt weapon, but until that happens you will be the sheep and go the way you are directed. The Goverment knows if you do not have guns they can do to you what ever they want. Just like Hittler did it. The assalt weapon are just the beging. WAKE UP AMERICA


----------



## on the rocks (Oct 1, 2007)

Slot Pursuit said:


> You forgot the airplane. I did not see a ban on airplanes when some sick person use it to kill many many people. It is not the weapon that kills it is the people operating it. If you or your family member was being attack I bet you would hope to have an assalt weapon, but until that happens you will be the sheep and go the way you are directed. The Goverment knows if you do not have guns they can do to you what ever they want. Just like Hittler did it. The assalt weapon are just the beging. WAKE UP AMERICA


You are right the airplane was not on the quiz...neither was the slice of bacon that could lead to a heart attack.


----------



## Collard (Oct 23, 2007)

Wirelessly posted (Not the droid youre lookin for)

The 2nfto amendment is for our defense against a tyrannical government. Disallowing us access to the same arms as the government has will be the beginning of the end


----------



## sureicanfish (Sep 30, 2007)

Collard said:


> The 2nfto amendment is for our defense against a tyrannical government. Disallowing us access to the same arms as the government has will be the beginning of the end





Roger That! :thumbsup:


----------



## K-Bill (May 14, 2009)

Collard said:


> Wirelessly posted (Not the droid youre lookin for)
> 
> The 2nfto amendment is for our defense against a tyrannical government. Disallowing us access to the same arms as the government has will be the beginning of the end


completely agree with the first statement. but does anyone have realistic expectations to have access to the same arms the gov't has? i love and value my 2nd admnt rights and oppose any weapons ban or gun/ammo control of any kind. the more rebuttal i have to whack jobs and liberals the better. help me out here.


----------



## romadfishrman (Jan 23, 2009)

You can't have a logical debate with anybody that starts a conversation with, "well the government has nukes so we should then right?" Really?!? :wacko: not logical. RPG's, grenade launchers, mortars,??? I say let people have it but sure regulate it, like if you purchase a bunch of Sudafed, fertilizer, at one time or multiple times you know something suspicious. Realize that if their is a war these items aren't that hard to get. What a majority of the debate should be is guns!! Having weapons that the soldier carries allows people to fight their government. AND all you have to say is "LOOK at Afghanistan!" These people live like they are in the stone age but time traveled and brought back automatic rifles. They are some of the most elusive SOB's and have made it improbable for ANY government to come in and establish themselves. That's the power of arming the people of ANY country. I don't want the government to know how many and what type of guns I own. I pass a background check and am a law abiding citizen, DON'T TREAD ON ME! Mandatory registration is the jumping off point for taking weapons. What works better, an undercover officer or a suit? You have no reason to fear good people with guns, unless you have intentions to do ill will towards them. Then you should be afraid! :gunsmilie:


----------



## Slot Pursuit (Oct 22, 2007)

Very well put.


----------



## Emerald Ghost (Mar 11, 2008)

K-Bill said:


> completely agree with the first statement. but does anyone have realistic expectations to have access to the same arms the gov't has? i love and value my 2nd admnt rights and oppose any weapons ban or gun/ammo control of any kind. the more rebuttal i have to whack jobs and liberals the better. help me out here.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
K-Bill,
I would approach them this way:
How many times in recent history have governments turned on the population when their guns were turned in ? ( a bill was just introduced to eliminate term limits for Obama) 
Secondly, would those wack jobs want to go into a gun fight with a knife ? Because having to defend yourself with a 10 round clip vs a high cap weapon puts you at a disadvantage.
If they can't understand that, then they have OD'd on Koolaid.


----------



## romadfishrman (Jan 23, 2009)

I've also heard that term limit bill was proposed under Clinton and Bush as well. Haven't followed up on it but don't agree that that would be cool. Why not a bill to limit the other public office position terms. That would never happen because they wouldn't vote themselves out of job. No matter how much sense it makes.


----------



## Q2arrowhunter (Mar 17, 2008)

K-Bill said:


> completely agree with the first statement. but does anyone have realistic expectations to have access to the same arms the gov't has? i love and value my 2nd admnt rights and oppose any weapons ban or gun/ammo control of any kind. the more rebuttal i have to whack jobs and liberals the better. help me out here.


http://www.gunbanfacts.com/Get_the_Facts/Ban_Supporters_Wrong.aspx

Try this link.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

I usually have a question for the gun control crowd that usually stops the bickering. I ask what new law could be passed that would have prevented Columbine, Aurora, Ft. Hood, Newtown or any mass murder? The answer is NONE. I keep hearing about this "Gun Show Loophole"... There's a gun show going on nationwide every day of the year via forums like the Gulf Coast Gun Forum. Guns are sold every day to law abiding citizens by law abiding citizens. I'm tired of hearing from these weenies. We don't need gun control we need idiot control.


----------

