Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Food for thought

The Australia data is a tad dated [things are probably worse now!] but I though I'ld pass this on.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
--------------------------------------------------------
Defenseless people exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year statistics are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.

Good post, RAM. Everyone who advocates more gun control should be required to post a sign on their homes designating them "Gun Free Zones." Wherever there is a known gun free zone, that's where violent crime is high. All these Shall Issue laws are great, but in those states that adopt Shall Issue, violent crime goes down significantly, but the only exceptions to that rule are all the various locations that those states designate as "Gun Free Zones." When a violent criminal finds a gun free zone, that's where he feels safest to practice his trade. When an entire nation is designated a gun free zone, that's when tyrants feel safest in imposing tyranny.

What those who advocate them never seem to understand is that "Gun Free Zones" are really self defense free zones. When ever a law creating one is passed it should include a clause stating that " the owners and management of the afore mentioned "Gun Free Zone" are completely and solely responsible for the safety of anyone entering it without a gun." One of the quickest ways to make those who support such things run is to make them responsible for their acts.

Excellent idea. If every time someone on their premises is victimized by crime the owner is held completely liable, then they will think twice, but some designated gun free zones are legislated such, e.g., stadiums, banks, Post Offices. Do they really think that someone contemplating robbing a bank will obey the restriction against carrying concealed into a bank? That's really laughable. Only those will be deterred by that law who might actually be able to deter a crime if they were allowed to enter a bank with a CCW. Criminals, I'm sure, are grateful to see laws that keep CCW out of banks and such. I wish some legislators would interject some common sense into some of their laws.

I like this one:

Common sense has never had anything what so ever to do with legislation. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



The flip side is that unfortunately you can't legislate common sense. If you could I'm sure that we could convince enough people that "its for the children" to get a bill passed requiring the use of it.

I like this picture! We here in Liberal Land, ( I mean Minnesota)
are celebrating one year of "shall issue permit to carry". I guess that means almost anyone who is sane and not a known felon can carry, after taking a course and paying $100.00 for the permit. Lots of people are very upset about this as if law abiding people with permits are going to be a big problem?
Anyhow the thought came to me if the Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".
Should we even be required to pay $100.00 for a permit in the first place? Is that infringing on my rights? What do you fellows think? By the way, Yes I took the class and paid the fee.
Great White North

Of course it is! But we have to work with the tools we are given now days.

What T Lee said. Yes, anything that you have to do before government "lets" you exercise your right is an infringement, and is unconstitutional. But the only alternative is to risk being put in jail, unjust though that might be. There are some brave souls out there, by the way, who refuse to even apply for a permit to do what is their right to do, and more power to them. They have more guts than I do.

Yup, it's an infringement. But the key is that it is less of an infringement than getting arrested for concealed carry.

Rights are commonly lost through incrementalism. In this case, we are regaining them the same way. Shall issue laws are a step in the right direction (I love it when we can use the anti-gunner's terms against them!). Now you get the chance to prove to your contemporaries that it won't be a problem. If we can ever manage to convince the majority of folks to stand up (and vote) for their rights, the stats will already be in on the wisdom of allowing citizens their full 2A rights. It's a good thing.

Wasn't it New Hampshire that was looking at removing the license requirement recently?

-FreeMe

Well said ... and remember, if concealed carry saves just one life ...

BTW -- yes, NH is considering an Alaska-type carry system, i.e., no permit required but you can still get one in case you want it for out-of-state reciprocity, or to be exempt from NICS checks.

I love that. Can I use it? It's brilliant.

Actually, we're shooting for (pun intended) a Vermont style process. Nothing at all. You lawfully can own? Then you can carry. Period.

Not familiar with Alaska's process but am aware they recently changed to "permitless".

Also not aware of the still needing a card for reciprosity you eluded too <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Haven't heard of it, and it defies logic. A card that says you don't need a card ? Sounds like a government idea <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> But I don't think its true.

Also, getting a card to avoid NICS ??? We've got cards now and you can't avoid NICS. Got to have an FFL/CR to avoid NICS not a State issued card. No matter what the Socialist say, there are NO LOOPHOLES!

The bill has passed the Senate and it will probably be April 30th before there is any news outta the House. If House passes, Governor is expected to sign.

RAM, my Florida CWP came with a notice of all the states that recognize my CWP, and although Vermont was one (naturually), it clearly stated that since Vermont has no CWP, Florida will not recognized the right of Vermonters to carry concealed in the state of Florida. Seems to me that the fair thing to do would be to require Vermonters to show a drivers license, or some other proof of Vermont residency, and that's it.

Also, in NY, if you have a CCW Permit, you are exempt from NICS. If you want to buy a rifle, shotgun or handgun, they will ask you if you have a NY Pistol Permit, and if you do, they skip the NICS check. It's a huge convenience.

On the Fla. thing, I agree. That would seem fair. But since when does fairness and government go hand in hand ? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The N.Y. exemption surprizes me. I would assume that their CCP's are computerized "State issued" in an instant access data base ??? N.H. are not. They are State Permits, (paper) issued at the whim and by the local P.D.

Since they are often overlooked or not confiscated when a individule breaks a law or violates a DRI they can not be relied upon as proof of "having a clean record" at point of purchase; just as to "having a clean record" at the time the permit was issued. Our current permits run 4 years between renewals.
Actually it might be 5 years now the DL's went to 5 years also.

Ram,



Holding a CCW exempts you from NICS in many states just as many of the states do their own background check and don't use NICS. The Brady Law recognises state's rights to the extent that individual states can opt out as long as they have a standard equal to or more stringent than the Brady Law at the time of an individual's application.



As far as you state goes, I just looked at my New Hampshire Pistol/Revolver License. Strangely enough, it states that it is a license, not a permit, and was issued by the State Police Permits and Licensing Unit, Pistol and Revolver Licensing. They must have had a pretty strong whim as I've never set foot in New Hampshire.



Most states that have provisions for CCW don't recognise Vermont since Vermont doesn't issue licenses/permits. That's one of the reasons that Alaska still issues their CCW for those that want to carry out of state. It also makes you exempt from NICS in Alaska. The reason the exemption lasts as long as the license is that if you aquire a conviction that keeps you from buying a firearm during the term of the license you'll also most likely have surrendered your license at time of conviction, along with your freedom.



As far as drivers licenses go, it takes me less time to run an out of state drivers license or vehicle license plate than it does to run a NICS check. The same holds true for running your full name and DOB through NCIC to see if you've got convictions or outstanding warrants.

Anyways, thanx for the imput.

FWIW- From Black's 6th. License- def 2- "A permit, granted by an appropriate govenmental body, generally for consideration to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under the police power. A license is not a contract between the state and the licensee, but is a mere personal permit"

Don't intend to lecture you about your state. Just telling you what it says on the license and how it was issued. As for the why, because I travel and because there are states that recognize my NH and Florida licenses that don't recognize my WA license. Wyoming is a case in point. They don't recognize my WA license because even though its a state license its issued by the local chief of police or sheriff but they do recognise my non-resident NH license because its issued by the state but they wouldn't recognize your resident license because its issued by the locals.

You're quite welcome for the imput. [color:"blue"] [/color] [color:"blue"] [/color]