Posted on 09/08/2004 10:55:20 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
Oct 9th, exactly 30 days from now.
Not to be sarcastic, but what makes you think that? After all we were attacked multiple times under Clinton and he just called them Police Actions (or tried to hide the fact they were terrorist attacks --aka Oklahoma City.
Note hips and bra strap. She is not a man.
The Aussie surfers ride some of the largest waves ever seen. I'm sure you don't mean to call these cats pantywaists. They do not know fear.
Thanks!
Many varmints have been elimated with them, including the two-legged variety.
I have known of whitetail deer taken with the .22 also. Shot placement is the key.
Replace the word "owning" with "carrying" and it sounds just like Jersey! County sheriffs issue carry permits, but just try getting one.
Thanks, that's what I thought. They (Al Qaeda) are following a set pattern now, which may, or may not, bode well for us come October 2nd... if we put everyone on alert; would they still ignore it???
It's complicated.
Basically, if you have the right permits, you can own just about anything. But very few people bother to get the higher level permits and while most people (unless they have a criminal conviction or similar) could get one, you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get a high level permit.
Getting a permit to own Category E firearms - machine guns, tear gas weapons, short barreled shotguns and rifles - is pretty difficult. It can be done, but you really need to go through so much that very few people would bother.
Category C and D - semi-automatic weapons (I'm generalising) isn't that hard - there are hoops to jump through. I found it easier to hire a lawyer to handle that for me - but most people, provided they have no criminal convictions, and provided they are willing to install decent safes, etc, could get a C/D licence.
Category A and B - the most common licence, that just about anyone can get really only allows single action long arms. That's straightforward to get.
Handguns are handled under a separate system - getting a handgun permit is about as hard as a C/D permit.
Really, just about any law-abiding person can fairly easily get a shooters licence to own single-action long arms. Semi-automatic weapons - most people can get the permit, but it's a fair bit of work. Machine guns and the like - possible, but very few people would bother going through the bureaucracy to do it.
Australian interests are attacked by terrorists and you take that as an opportunity to insult Australians.
Get stuffed!
Permit me tocontrast your laws with those in North Dakota. (note that laws in the US may vary from state to state) Long guns: Anything not subject to National Firearms Act rules (Machine guns, short barrels, silencers) can be purchased over the counter with no special permits, only an 'instant' background check for disqualifying behaviour. This includes semi-automatic rifles and shotguns as well. Ditto handguns.
Concealed carry permits are issued upon completion of fingerprinting, a background check and demonstration of knowledge of the pertinent statutes and reasonable ability to handle the firearm safely and shoot accurately at combat ranges (dinner plate sized target at 7 yards). $75 USD fee.
Machine guns and other Class III weapons require jumping through Federal hoops, but it can be done, and after finding the appropriate firearm, tack another $500 on the purchase price for a tax stamp on the transfer.
For the most part, most firearms are obtainable by simply filling out a form, showing ID, waiting for the background check OK, and writing a check.
Private sales of non-Class III weapons do not require any government intervention/documentation at this time.
Yeah, I know laws across much of the US are easier to deal with than ours (and just as a matter of record, our rules also differ somewhat from state to state).
Like I say, I don't like the rules here. They are overly restrictive, and they don't really accomplish much. Paradoxically, I'd have more respect for them if they actually did restrict ownership more - while I am glad they don't, on some levels I find it somewhat annoying that having created all this new bureaucracy, they didn't actually accomplish much.
But even though I don't like the rules - we're a long way from being disarmed. A really long way.
Click Above:
It bears repeating.
The show contained repeated images of huge piles of guns being prepared for destruction, a man using a large circular saw to remove gun barrels, and interviews with Australians saying, "Don't let what happened to us happen to you."
For a time, the NRA was producing material that gave a false impression about what had happened in Australia. However, as I understand it, they corrected that when they found out - they weren't deliberately misleading from what I've heard - rather they trusted someone elses information in good faith, and it wasn't accurate. I've never checked but I've been told they took their name off material when they were told it was wrong.
Now, the images you saw were probably from Australia but they are somewhat misleading - back in 1997, following the Port Arthur massacre, the Australian government took two approaches to removing weapons from the community. Some guns - a fairly small proportion of firearms - were either banned, or made significantly more difficult to own. These had to be surrendered if a person wasn't willing or able to get the necessary permits.
But at the same time, a buyback was instituted by which the Australian government would pay the commercial value for any weapon voluntarily surrendered - in many cases, they'd pay more than you'd be able to get from a second hand dealer. The idea behind this was to remove unused weapons from the community - because these were the weapons most likely to wind up in criminal hands - people tend to take care of the weapons they are using so they're not often stolen - the guns that tended to get stolen or otherwise mislaid tended to be those older weapons lying around the garage. Basically, a lot of weapons - generally excess weapons, though some people did choose to get rid of everything - were voluntarily surrendered in exchange for cash.
Most of the weapons - the vast majority - seen in those piles for destruction were weapons like this - weapons that were voluntarily sold to the government. There would certainly have been some that were required to be surrendered in the piles - but not that many. And those weapons were, nearly always, destroyed.
So the images were probably real enough - they just didn't quite show all that was going on.
"Get stuffed!"
I think you guys are having your leftist problems; not as bad as we are, though.
Best I can see from history, whenever the bullets start flying, Australia shows up.
Not too many Americans know that the Japanese bombed Australia in WWII, or how bad things looked for a Japanese invasion early in the war--while America, which had been held in check by the America First movement, got its butt in gear and got moving.
This American wishes to stand with you, and if we go down, let it be with empty magazines and bloody bayonets.
"Get stuffed!"
I think you guys are having your leftist problems; not as bad as we are, though.
Best I can see from history, whenever the bullets start flying, Australia shows up.
Not too many Americans know that the Japanese bombed Australia in WWII, or how bad things looked for a Japanese invasion early in the war--while America, which had been held in check by the America First movement, got its butt in gear and got moving.
This American wishes to stand with you, and if we go down, let it be with empty magazines and bloody bayonets.
Thanks for clearing that up, naturalman1975. I've been hearing that crap in various US MSM, for years. That's what FR is for.
Perhaps you could do an article and post it for everyone, to clear the air?
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.