Posted on 06/05/2013 2:09:49 PM PDT by naturalman1975
VICTORIA's top firearms owners have collected an average arsenal of 80 weapons each, which has raised concerns among advocates of gun control.
They want restrictions on the number of weapons one person can own.
The 20 biggest gun owners in the state are sitting on 1625 firearms, according to Victoria Police figures.
One owner has been legally approved to hold 131 weapons, including scores of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldsun.com.au ...
It's not their fault they believe it - it's a widely propagated lie which has, at times, convinced generally credible sources that others trust and repeat.
But it isn't true, no matter how much anti-gun groups want it to be true.
That's not to say we don't have some overly restrictive and even downright stupid laws and controls on guns in Australia - we do. But they're a long way from being banned, and we're a long way from being disarmed.
They know how many they have, which is terrible
The idea that there should be limits on the number of guns one owns is absurd. It is extremely unusual for even a gifted gun owner to be able to use 2 guns well at the same time. 3 or more is physically impossible, so it doesn’t matter if you own 2, 10, 50 or 1,000 - you can only use 2 at a time at most, and much more likely 1 at a time.
Quite clearly, gun grabbers don’t know Shiite from Shinola...as they’ve demonstrated repeatedly over the years. Being down under doesn’t help any, either.
The fascists are worried that these collectors will arm their neighbors when the ideological purges start.
The grabbers should be happy to see the guns concentrated in relatively few hands.
I noticed “scores of semi-automatic rifles” mentioned in the source article. Is this more a reference to “occupational shooters” or people who own deactivated firearms of this category?
They should be because that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
Thanks for posting, very interesting.
Funny thing is, much of the younger generation here in Oz believe the same...
I get where you’re coming from, naturalman.
But I still remember a picture of a beautiful old Browning 12 gauge Auto-5 being cut to pieces with a bandsaw down there.
Almost brought a tear to my eye. As recompense, I bought one for myself.
And Imelda Marcos had a battery of shoes ....
Just stupid.
It could be either, or neither.
You have to ‘give a reason’ for owning a semi-automatic, but the police are generally reasonable about that (something the gun control people don’t like) and approve most people without a criminal record on any credible grounds. But I think they might be less so if people want lots of such weapons (I only have one, so I have never dealt with such scrutiny), so it wouldn’t surprise me if these are professional shooters, who do have the easiest time with the laws.
Which is part of the reason the lie gets told. If you can make people think they've lost rights, they won't try and exercise them.
VICTORIA's top firearms owners have collected an average arsenal of [only]80 weapons each...
I guess not.
I read the headline, and I had this image of an old Victorian house, with the latticework below the porch railing used as gun ports for hundreds of rifles sticking out....sort of like a giant, armed, porcupine house..
See my tagline.
I’m not certain how many I have, but I sure as hell don’t want the government to know.
My wife and I have a collection of military uniforms, artifacts, and firearms. We also have nonmilitary firearms. At least half ot them are semi-auto. I am glad that we don't have to justify the possession of any of them. We do have concealed weapons permits but we don't carry guns with us very often. We don't hunt; we do belong to a club, but lately we haven't gotten out to the range very often. I am not sure that I could justify to a government official that we needed any of them.
I enjoy cleaning and tinkering with the guns. I also enjoy loading my own cartridges and experimenting with different combinations of powder and projectiles. I even cast my own bullets. Firearms have always been fascinating to me. My parents didn't own any... my first experiences were at the shooting range at boy scout camp, and we actually had a shooting club at my high school. My how things have changed.
“And Imelda Marcos had a battery of shoes...”
This gives me an idea. What if we collectively start referring to a collection of objects other than guns as an “arsenal”?
“And Imelda Marcos had an arsenal of shoes...”
The idea is that police and governments are in a habit of sensationalizing gun ownership by declaring “an arsenal”, even if that only means three small guns and a pocket knife. They do this precisely because they know that the word arsenal is underdefined, but sounds to the public usually worse than it is.
They do a similar stunt with “bomb making components” like wire, a kitchen timer, electrical tape, and pliers. Things only a bomb maker would have in their home.
In any event, I went to the grocery today and bought an arsenal of bananas, an arsenal of grapes, an arsenal of beer, etc. They had a “street value” of $50,000.
I was thinking that Victorian guns are not as technologically advanced as their modern counterparts, besides who makes ammo for those old calibers anymore?;)
Did anyone give any rational reason to limit the number of firearms owned?
It seems to clearly be a case of “I do not like it, therefore there should be a law against it.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.