Yippe-Ki-Ya
New Member
Lovey80 said:
I again see him as simply having an appropriate amount of passion about a topic that is worthy of such passion!
I again see him as simply having an appropriate amount of passion about a topic that is worthy of such passion!
Yippe-Ki-Ya
New Member
Austacker said:
I think your blanket dismissal of why anybody could possibly require a semi-automatic weapon with the matching high capacity magazines is rather short sighted.
I heard a rather compelling story of a man who owes his life (and that of his family) to his ownership of a semi automatic riffle - which enabled him to defend his life and that of his family from a marauding mob of rioters. He placed himself on top of his roof, and the size and capacity of his weapon was COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE for the task of repelling attacks from an enemy where he was vastly outnumbered!
I don't know the full details, so couldn't tell you how many crazed zombies he had to kill, but even if it was 100 i say good on him!! his life and that of his family is infinitely more precious than that of a bunch of armed, marauding, crazy rioters who were out for blood!
Good on him i say!! And good on those in the US who have the backbone to stand up for their rights to self defence!!
More than i can say for the spineless jellyfish in this country....
^ I'm just a bad shot. 
Yippe-Ki-Ya
New Member
Austacker said:
-1
Yippe-Ki-Ya
New Member
Lovey80 said:
yes, and if somebody had been carrying a firearm at the time there is a good chance that the crazed gunman could have been killed/incapacitated sooner - thereby saving lives!
It's a moronic argument to say that banning law abiding citizens from carrying arms and thereby protecting themselves (and others) is the way to go.
But then again, converting moronic ideas into laws that hamstrings/deprives citizens of their God-given rights is something which the Australian government is very adept at ... :lol:
Yippe-Ki-Ya
New Member
Austacker said:
the problem is when you and those like you force your views on other people with a different view ...
Yippe-Ki-Ya
New Member
Austacker said:
Well don't get one then!!
This is the problem though ... you and those like you thinking you have the right to enforce your point of view on others through coercion and violence.
Yippe-Ki-Ya
New Member
Austacker said:
yes it should be!!!
Otherwise you are saying that any human being just has to accept the possibility of being bashed to death by anybody bigger/stronger than they are - whether it be an individual assailant, or (as is usually the case) a group of two or more assailants...
chances are also good that any such assailants would be armed themselves, which makes it even less possible for the victim to protect themselves...
THIS IS THE CURRENT SITUATION IN AUSTRALIA TODAY AND I FIND IT TOTALLY AND UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE!!
and so too should everybody else who values their freedom - of which the right (and therefore means) to defend oneself IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT.
Stripping people of that right is nothing short of tyranny...
here's a more reasonable debate with Piers. Alex was just to excited which distracts from his legitimate points he had to make.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEBy6KPjVw
sorry i don't know how to embed the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEBy6KPjVw
sorry i don't know how to embed the video
Here you go 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEBy6KPjVw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEBy6KPjVw[/youtube]
some people just don't want to understand and others just can't understand why someone would want the right and means to defend themself,
their loved ones, their country. some are all to ready to surrender their rights for so called security offered by governments.
the US 2nd amendment is about defending your rights, your self and loved ones,
if you think about defending your family from harm, it's not a fight you would want to lose or limit your chances of survival, good honest people must prevail.
in Australia we have a limited right to self defence but we are not given the right to have the means to be capable of defending ourselves,
a bit like being able to have a drivers licence but not allowed to have a car.
evil people will do evil things, when a shooting occurs there is normally a reaction by do gooders and also from the anti gun lobby to use emotion
to call to ban or restrict firearms. no one seems care about how much alcohol is sold or prescriptions being written and who is caring for the mentally ill.
it is just easy to point to an inanimate object to blame.
their loved ones, their country. some are all to ready to surrender their rights for so called security offered by governments.
the US 2nd amendment is about defending your rights, your self and loved ones,
if you think about defending your family from harm, it's not a fight you would want to lose or limit your chances of survival, good honest people must prevail.
in Australia we have a limited right to self defence but we are not given the right to have the means to be capable of defending ourselves,
a bit like being able to have a drivers licence but not allowed to have a car.
evil people will do evil things, when a shooting occurs there is normally a reaction by do gooders and also from the anti gun lobby to use emotion
to call to ban or restrict firearms. no one seems care about how much alcohol is sold or prescriptions being written and who is caring for the mentally ill.
it is just easy to point to an inanimate object to blame.
Joshua failed to remind piers in that Interview when talking about handing down the AR15 similarly to a car is that yes there are regulations for handing down a car but you will still be able to do so. Under the proposed laws you will now Not be able to do so with the AR15
shinymetal
Well-Known Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cxHvHi-MdIM << not sure how to put a youtube video on here.. but this is a pretty healthy and entertaining debate on the subject..
^^ Tyrannical dictator that takes power - like Howard :lol:
I like the last couple of lines.
I like the last couple of lines.
Let me get my thoughts straight here:
Aside from my personal beliefs regarding gun ownership,
- 2nd amendment is designed to give the people the ability to defend themselves from tyranny. AFAIK that is not in dispute.
- Interfering with peoples right to bear arms could be seen as an act of tyranny. (ie, one small party dictating to the clear majority)
- Ergo The people have guns to ensure, among other things, that the guns are not taken off of them
- The rights provided in the US constitution no doubt imply there is a responsibility on the people who have the rights, to defend the constitution
so that means
- Obamas stance on gun control is essentially a call to arms for those that choose to defend the constitution.
Why isn't he being tried for treason? What am I missing here?
I think there will be blood spilled if he pursues this idiocy.
Aside from my personal beliefs regarding gun ownership,
- 2nd amendment is designed to give the people the ability to defend themselves from tyranny. AFAIK that is not in dispute.
- Interfering with peoples right to bear arms could be seen as an act of tyranny. (ie, one small party dictating to the clear majority)
- Ergo The people have guns to ensure, among other things, that the guns are not taken off of them
- The rights provided in the US constitution no doubt imply there is a responsibility on the people who have the rights, to defend the constitution
so that means
- Obamas stance on gun control is essentially a call to arms for those that choose to defend the constitution.
Why isn't he being tried for treason? What am I missing here?
I think there will be blood spilled if he pursues this idiocy.
capt.sparrow
New Member
at least they have a Constitution which protects their rights - amongst others the right to defend themselves. unlike a certain nanny state i know