8 hours ago, MicroB said:

Americans might be surprised what's on sale at the Bisley gun fair, including the availability of long mags and prices.

 

 

And all strictly controlled with either Shotgun Certificate or Firearms Certificate.

You can't ban guns because you need to protect yourself from others......

 

...with guns.

 

And you can't amend the constitution because guns are protected by...

 

....the 2nd amendment.

 

I think I've got it now. 🙂

 

9 hours ago, TedG said:

I want an Abrams tank.   A friend of mine owns a German Leopard Tank.   I want to one-up him. 

Your friend has the better tank IMO - the Leopard is faster and has better firepower.  You better get in the first hit and not be on open ground.  

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

What did you need the bazookas and RPG's for? Self-defence?

 

How many enemies do you think you have?

I owned them because I could. 

58 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Including suicides, gun-related deaths in Australia are ten times less than in America per 100,000 population. An unfortunate fact, not fantasy.

 

Every time there is a massacre, gun sales go up. Americans can't seem to get their heads around the proposition pouring gasoline on an existing fire does nothing to extinguish it.

 

If I want to have a firearm in Australia, I have to have a gun permit, and a shooter's licence. The applications for each are 30-40 A4 pages, and cost $200 - 400, depending on the state.

 

In the land of freedumb, how much paperwork is involved, and how much does it cost?

You need to have a background check. the paperwork isn't long, but covers all you need. There isn't a cost for the ability to buy a gun. The background check checks all offenses, and you can't buy a gun if you have a domestic violence or felony against you, which makes some sense but doesn't take into the fact that some people with a mental illness, especially that are 18, don't have a record, and that people with a felony aren't necessarily going to commit a gun crime.

 

Many of the offenders have no records at all, and steal or take legitimate guns from legitimate owners. Some are children of these owners who should have locked their guns up, but most people trust their children not to be nutcases who go out and shoot innocents. Most are hunters or target shooters who share that with their children, like i did. I've owned guns since I was 17, and have children who have hunted and shot deer with me, and none of them has ever committed a gun crime.

 

The only things that will curtail this madness are armed guards and metal detectors in all federal places and schools, and a psychological on buyers before purchase, but again, that won't stop al of the possible offenders as there are many policemen that pass those tests and end up shooting people because they have a screw loose and a penchant for power and control. Quite a few from military backgrounds also go off, some from PTSD and some were already unstable before they joined. It isn't legitimate gun owners that are doing these shootings, besides just a very few, as most owners are hunters, target shooters and owners for self defense, which is needed as the police cannot be everywhere and there will always be access to guns, whether stolen or illegal, by gang members or other criminals. They'll never take away the guns from hunters which isn't the problem anyway so they have to figure out how to handle it another way. 

28 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

You can't ban guns because you need to protect yourself from others......

 

...with guns.

 

And you can't amend the constitution because guns are protected by...

 

....the 2nd amendment.

 

I think I've got it now. 🙂

 

Not at all. 
We are afforded the right to Keep and Bear Arms against, wait for it, just wait

 

TYRANNY. 

Nothing else

15 hours ago, NickyLouie said:

Shooter was ANOTHER anti Trump homosexual Democrat, 

 

He seems to have left a tribute to Anders Behring Breivik the famous Norwegian right wing nut who killed 65 mostly socialist kids in Norway, hunting them down on an Island where they had their youth camp. And before that detonated a car bomb in Oslo killing another 8.

 

The right wing nuts trying to blaim the socialist and gays? 

32 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

You can't ban guns because you need to protect yourself from others......

 

...with guns.

 

And you can't amend the constitution because guns are protected by...

 

....the 2nd amendment.

 

I think I've got it now. 🙂

 

It's true, as some will have access to guns so you're having a gun gives you a chance to defend yourself against some criminal that's out to rape, rob or kill you. if it's going to be someone that goes down, it should of course be them, no question. No one has a right to hurt others, and the police aren't in every place at every time, so there is no other recourse besides carrying.

 

The more people carry, the less others are going to try accosting them, thinking they might be armed. People who have carried have saved many lives that wouldn't have been saved otherwise.

 

This is just talking about legal gun ownership and carrying and not legitimate hunting and target shooting. Legitimate gun owners aren't carrying to go out to shoot others. Most take courses and practice shooting for that one possible situation where you have to use it, and most don't want to shoot anyone. If all guns on earth were destroyed, of course there would be less crime, at least with guns. The military and police need them because some criminals attack in gangs and there are terrorists that will make bombs, but if only they have them the criminals will get their hands on the illegal guns and then the population is in more danger.

51 minutes ago, candide said:

Ridiculous LGBT hating post! 

 

There's been around 300 school shootings per year in the US. Your LGBT hating pal cherry picked 5 cases by trans over several years.

Whats your source for the school shootings ?  You made that up.

The last stats are for 2024 and there were only 9 school shootings. 2022 had 5
Heres the link to the info;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2024

The right to bear arms was not explicitly included in the original U.S. Constitution of 1787.

 

"You can't change what's in the Constitution!!!"

 

Yes, you can. It's called an amendment.

24 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

You can't ban guns because you need to protect yourself from others......

 

...with guns.

 

And you can't amend the constitution because guns are protected by...

 

....the 2nd amendment.

 

I think I've got it now. 🙂

 

PLUS - the BIG one - there are already about 500 Million guns in USA and the criminals and illegals and sickos (both right and left) will not hand them in. PLUS there is a ready supply available for more through Mexico. Did you know about Mexico?? They essentially banned guns in 70s and 80s (strict controls on sales and only in homes) and yet the rate of murder from guns is much higher than USA. In fact USA was not in the top 20 in 2020 in murders per 100K population - look it up.      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_homicide_rates

 

You and millions of others have been conned by woke liberal politicians and media into believing that -

1. USA is the gun murder capitol of the world; and

2. Banning guns would solve the problem. 

They are both lies and distortions - it is all about stirring up the woke liberal voters to hate the conservatives.

 

You and millions are being lied to and manipulated - for your votes - same as they let in illegals for their votes.

Did you know some people think coca cola etc. is OK to drink in large quantities and that McDonalds is good food? 

PR and Marketing can make people believe what is just not true.

They aint good to eat or drink - and they aint refugees.

4 minutes ago, Purdey said:

The right to bear arms was not explicitly included in the original U.S. Constitution of 1787.

 

And it referred to "A well regulated Militia" not individual rights. That's a Supreme Court interpretation only.

19 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

Not at all. 
We are afforded the right to Keep and Bear Arms against, wait for it, just wait

 

TYRANNY. 

Nothing else

That's the interpretation but the reality is that none of the mass murders have protected the U.S. from tyranny, least of all the tyranny of the gun.

The left is howling about existing laws being enforced, so they want to make new laws. 

9 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

And it referred to "A well regulated Militia" not individual rights. That's a Supreme Court interpretation only.

What was the definition of a "Milita" at the time ?
Who was considered "Milita" at the time ?

Come on now, you're smarter than that

14 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

PLUS - the BIG one - there are already about 500 Million guns in USA and the criminals and illegals and sickos (both right and left) will not hand them in. PLUS there is a ready supply available for more through Mexico. Did you know about Mexico?? They essentially banned guns in 70s and 80s (strict controls on sales and only in homes) and yet the rate of murder from guns is much higher than USA. In fact USA was not in the top 20 in 2020 in murders per 100K population - look it up.      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_homicide_rates

 

You and millions of others have been conned by woke liberal politicians and media into believing that -

1. USA is the gun murder capitol of the world; and

2. Banning guns would solve the problem. 

They are both lies and distortions - it is all about stirring up the woke liberal voters to hate the conservatives.

 

You and millions are being lied to and manipulated - for your votes - same as they let in illegals for their votes.

Did you know some people think coca cola etc. is OK to drink in large quantities and that McDonalds is good food? 

PR and Marketing can make people believe what is just not true.

They aint good to eat or drink - and they aint refugees.

 

While exact global rankings fluctuate and depend on the year and data source, countries in Central and South America, like Honduras and El Salvador, consistently show the highest firearm homicide rates. 

 

The United States is also noted for high firearm-related deaths, though its rate is lower than these countries but significantly higher than other developed nations. 

 

Here's a breakdown by region and contributing factors:

High-Income Countries:

The United States has a uniquely high rate of firearm homicides compared to other high-income countries. 

Central and South America:

Countries in this region, including Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela, Colombia, and Jamaica, generally experience high rates of violent deaths by firearm. 

Underlying Factors:

Factors contributing to high firearm homicide rates include poverty, weak criminal justice systems, widespread availability of firearms, and lenient gun laws. 

 

highest murder rate by firearms world rankings - Google Search

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Google John Howard.

 

When those laws were brought in, I could still legally own two rifles. My 0.222 could punch through a bulldozer blade.

 

Americans need to grow up. So do you.

 

Oh John Howard, of course I know him. Bush's little poodle.

 

Even the British were confused if he's conservative or labour. He is a member of the Liberal Party, who are not really right wing, they're centre-right, much like CDU is not right  wing in Germany anymore, but a leftist party.

 

It may say "right wing " on the tin, but that's not what's inside with these outfits.

 

John Howard just had a knee-jerk panic reaction to a big massacre in Australia, the usual. He was also trying to push through legislation to make porn illegal in Australia. 

 

Just when did Australia become such a socialist, leftist nanny state, I wonder? 

 

Thank God there are true freedom loving nations like America where people can still enjoy true freedom.

 

As for your nonsense about RPGs, etc, what do you need them for, you really need to grow up. People buy weapons not just for self-defence but also as collector items. They're not always meant to be used.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Purdey said:

The right to bear arms was not explicitly included in the original U.S. Constitution of 1787.

 

"You can't change what's in the Constitution!!!"

 

Yes, you can. It's called an amendment.

 

You probably mean the right to arm bears.

1 minute ago, bannork said:

 

While exact global rankings fluctuate and depend on the year and data source, countries in Central and South America, like Honduras and El Salvador, consistently show the highest firearm homicide rates. 

 

The United States is also noted for high firearm-related deaths, though its rate is lower than these countries but significantly higher than other developed nations. 

 

Here's a breakdown by region and contributing factors:

High-Income Countries:

The United States has a uniquely high rate of firearm homicides compared to other high-income countries. 

Central and South America:

Countries in this region, including Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela, Colombia, and Jamaica, generally experience high rates of violent deaths by firearm. 

Underlying Factors:

Factors contributing to high firearm homicide rates include poverty, weak criminal justice systems, widespread availability of firearms, and lenient gun laws. 

 

highest murder rate by firearms world rankings - Google Search

Yet guns were much easier to obtain 50 years ago than they are now, and as a percentage, more households owned guns 50 years ago than they do now. 

 

But the problem is the guns. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

It's true, as some will have access to guns so you're having a gun gives you a chance to defend yourself against some criminal that's out to rape, rob or kill you. if it's going to be someone that goes down, it should of course be them, no question. No one has a right to hurt others, and the police aren't in every place at every time, so there is no other recourse besides carrying.

 

The more people carry, the less others are going to try accosting them, thinking they might be armed. People who have carried have saved many lives that wouldn't have been saved otherwise.

 

This is just talking about legal gun ownership and carrying and not legitimate hunting and target shooting. Legitimate gun owners aren't carrying to go out to shoot others. Most take courses and practice shooting for that one possible situation where you have to use it, and most don't want to shoot anyone. If all guns on earth were destroyed, of course there would be less crime, at least with guns. The military and police need them because some criminals attack in gangs and there are terrorists that will make bombs, but if only they have them the criminals will get their hands on the illegal guns and then the population is in more danger.

The NRA had the answer (in USA) decades ago. Make it compulsory that before getting a gun that you must join the NRA and undergo their training in how to use guns.  Those nutters will never pass their tests. Either that or pay a fortune for public servants to do the same thing for 10 times the cost.  Criminals will always get access to guns - it is about training the general populace and weeding out the nutters (like this last one). 

 

Baltimore has high rates of gun murders every year - and yet guns are strictly controlled and assault weapons etc are illegal. It is not about Laws - if that was the case then why are so many People killed when murder is illegal??   Likewise Switzerland allows gun ownership and has a higher rate of ownership than USA - it is not about the number of guns.  It is about training and weeding out the nutters. Criminals mainly kill each other, or get killed when committing a crime - they dont kill that many innocents.  The problem is mentally unstable people getting access to guns. As an Australian we all know about Port Arthur - the guy was a nutter and had been for many years - he should have been locked away but the new woke liberal laws brought in the 60s closed most 'nut houses'.  Bring them back - lock more people away. A few people being wrongly forced to take medication/treatment until deemed safe, is better than 5-10 innocent people killed - that is old school logic and it worked. How many mass shootings in the 50s and before then - SFA!! 

 

Check out the stats - look at the sharp increase in mass killings in the 60s when they started closing the nut houses and there was no way to report someone as unstable and get them tested and locked away if deemed dangerous.  Marry that with an increase in the availability to get guns - and there is the disaster that is happening again and again.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

100 people detained and tested with 5 locked away VERSUS a nutter killing lots of innocent people - especially kids. 

It is that simple.  IMO - detain and test 100.

You can monitor and control the 'nut house' system to stop abuse - you cannot monitor or control nutters with a gun. 

 

LUNA - Lock Up Nutters Again.   

The left is afraid of guns, so they want to take them away from everyone. 

 

What they don't want to do, is incarcerate people that break existing gun laws. 

14 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

What was the definition of a "Milita" at the time ?
Who was considered "Milita" at the time ?

Come on now, you're smarter than that

I agree. I'm pretty smart. Smart enough to know they were referencing citizens to be called up to support armed forces, not individuals in their homes.  As I said, that was a later interpretation by the Supreme Court.

• historical

  (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.

   

43 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

I owned them because I could. 

Some men buy big, powerful cars to compensate for having a small penis.

 

I guess it's the same with weapons.

Just now, Lacessit said:

Some men buy big, powerful cars to compensate for having a small penis.

 

I guess it's the same with weapons.

 

What a child. Go play with GI Joe.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Some men buy big, powerful cars to compensate for having a small penis.

 

I guess it's the same with weapons.

And tiny men such as yourself drive small cars because they can’t climb in a large vehicle.

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Some men buy big, powerful cars to compensate for having a small penis.

 

I guess it's the same with weapons.

So you have penis envy and bought a car, I don't blame you

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Some men buy big, powerful cars to compensate for having a small penis.

 

I guess it's the same with weapons.

Weren't you just bragging about your .222 being able to shoot through a dozer blade? 

 

How is one supposed to have a serious discussion about a serious topic when Leftists constantly bring penis size up as a problem?

Just now, Cameroni said:

How is one supposed to have a serious discussion about a serious topic when Leftists constantly bring penis size up as a problem?

 

6 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

I agree. I'm pretty smart. Smart enough to know they were referencing citizens to be called up to support armed forces, not individuals in their homes.  As I said, that was a later interpretation by the Supreme Court.

• historical

  (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.

   

What is a Citizen but a singular individual, is it not ?

So post the rest that goes with what you quoted because you conveniently left it out. Who has the weapon ?  Come on now, I know its a struggle