The irony is that Britain now only has a symbolic monarchy.
But Obama truly believes he is King.
Posted on 01/18/2013 6:46:02 AM PST by darrellmaurina
SYDNEY, Australia -- It is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject. I can, however, describe what I, as prime minister of Australia, did to curb gun violence following a horrific massacre 17 years ago in the hope that it will contribute constructively to the debate in the United States.
I was elected prime minister in early 1996, leading a center-right coalition. Virtually every nonurban electoral district in the country — where gun ownership was higher than elsewhere — sent a member of my coalition to Parliament.
Six weeks later, on April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania.
After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn’t be easy.
Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I’m sure people will give up firearms worth in the thousands of dollars so the LEO’s can pick the ones they want for their own collection, then give you a voucher worth about $50 at your local Walmart to purchase stuff.
Hey, John.
Kiss off, mate.
We fought two wars to be free of the British. Australians just talk about it.
A whole bunch did not. A mere 680,000 firearms were turned in out of an estimated 2.8 million that authorities expected would fall under Australia's ban.
Yep.
Before people disparage the Aussies too much, they should know that compliance to Howard's gun grab was less than 25%.
>>The truth is, Australians don’t know real freedom. You are all just a Hitler away from marching to the same tune.<<
The truth is so are we. I wouldn’t expect that there’s currently more than 1% who would fight to their death for freedom today.
The irony is that Britain now only has a symbolic monarchy.
But Obama truly believes he is King.
>>Self-defense that ends in the death or serious incapacitation of the assailant should NEVER be considered to be a crime in the eyes of the law. It should not be that hard, in most instances, to determine if the person who fired the weapon that resulted in death was the perpetrator or the victim.<<
BS! Knock on my door, I say,”Who is it?” You say, “Your neighbor from down the street, Fred” I say, “Come in”. Fred comes in and tries to hand me the garden knife that I left on the front porch.
How do you prove I murdered Fred? After all he was found on the floor with two holes in his head and a knife in his hands.
Pssst....hey mister “former prime minister”...
We ain’t “Aussies”, mate...
Now go drink a Foster’s and “bugger off” into obscurity.
I understand that some people truly plundered the Australian turn-in program.
Once I heard a story that the government offered “bounties” for guns and accessories (such as magazines) turned in...and listed a payment of $2 apiece for ten-round SKS stripper clips. Somebody promptly showed up with two oil drums full of empty SKS stripper clips...that the government had to pay for, every one.
How about gun related crime (not murders)? Did it increase or decrease? And how about crime generally, especially the kind that might have been deterred had people possessed the banned guns?
Gun-related suicides fell but what about other kinds of suicides? Did they increase as people found other ways of killing themselves?
“...One word. Constitution. We have one that guarantees our right to arms....”
Actually, the ONLY thing that “guarantees our right to arms” is the fact the we ALREADY HAVE THEM, and in vast quantities.
Nothing except the will to fight to retain them “guarantees” it.
If we turn them over meekly and pee on our bellies like scared puppies, then it’s just words on paper. The Constitution is a contract, ink, and parchment, nothing more, unless we as a people have the will to fight to uphold, protect, and defend it.
The disdain and disregard of this admin towards that document shows that pretty clearly, I’d say.
Capisce?
Some Aussies say it all at about 1:35 (not for the easily offended):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCLzHvPdSrE
PRACTICE FOR HERE.
Personally, I have NOTHING against the Aussies. I worked with a bunch of them many years ago, a couple of whom were former SAS guys.
Toughest SOBs I ever met. And man, could those guys drink.
Guarantee THEY never turned in their weapons.
Like everywhere else, socialists get control of governments, and the people either go along with it, or they don’t. Same result everywhere - these people get control and F*** up everything they touch.
It is, and always has been, a world-wide conspiracy, and that hasn’t changed. We just joined the ranks, that’s all.
Disagree of course, but look at the second part of his statement. He has an interesting point. Our Bill of Rights effectively takes our rights out of the legislative realm and into the judicial realm. Which has the effect of subjecting our rights the whims of a few individuals in black robes. This is okay as long as they interpret the BOR according to the original intent, but you get a few Obama appointees in there and all bets are off. This is the tradeoff that comes with having a Bill of Rights.
HAHA!!! Best response ever!!!
Thanks for sending!!! Love it!!!
Yep! If you look closely at this 1996 photo originally printed in the New York Times, you'll see many of the weapons turned in at this buy-back location in New South Wales consist of rusty bolt actions and single-shot shotguns --weapons that weren't even banned to begin with.
Not a whole lot of "assault weapons" in that photo, is there? I see one SKS in the upper right.
So of the 680,000 firearms turned in, how many of those were actually banned versus how many were just people taking the opportunity to get good cash for old junk? In light of this, compliance was probably far, far less than the 25% I posted earlier.
but he didnt call himself obama back then?
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.