Tel-Chai Nation

I found this old message board no longer in use, where a most truly repellent man from Perth, Australia, whom I'd once known from a different message board, said the following about gun control on January 25, 2006:

Nothing?

People can still own guns, just the high-powered ones after the Port Arthur Massacre were 'bought' back by the government. I should know, because my old man still has his gun in the shed that he uses as a farmer to shoot birds, rabbits, et al from eating the produce.

Did a quick google search and found this article. From my experience, it seems to sum it up well and reflect the actual situation, without the rhetoric/bias. www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

He relied on one of the most pretentious sites formed by leftists, Snopes, I notice. Of course, this same moonbat, alluded to here, was also a Fox News-hater, so it's no shock he'd be such a favoratist for Snopes.

When somebody replied to him:

I read the article...interesting....so who is right..??..I don't know either author, but will accept the article at face value...

I did not know that Aussies do not have a constitutional right to own guns...who would have thunk it...

Still doesn't explain why they want everything gone apparently but shotguns and single shot pistols...if they are not worried about crime...what triggered (no pun intended) the buy back????

I still bet that nary a criminal sold back their guns..

So he said:

Well the reason for the buyback of automatic was pretty much solely due to the Port Arthur massacre 10 years ago where 35 people were killed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre

I obviously don't think that restricting people's access to guns is a bad thing. My dad had to give back a shotgun he had for farming activities (shooting rabbits, birds from attacking the produce) and to tell you the truth, the air-rifle he has now does the same job, and is much less of a danger in the wrong hands, and for mind that's a better result. The criminals probably did not all give up their weapons, but if they were licensed for the particular guns being bought back, the government was enforcing the buy-back scheme pretty persistently, so the only 'banned' guns in circulation would presumably be the ones that were unlicensed and underground, so to speak.

The guns for protection thing I don't much buy anyway. If someone's breaking into my house, give me an aluminum baseball bat over a gun anyday. Fists, forearms and elbows too.

Hmm, how strange. This decidedly contradicts what the creep was saying earlier about his dad still having a gun around he'd used for shooing off wildlife from the produce fields. (And his citation of Wikipedia, a site anybody can edit, is disgraceful.) That aside, what's disgraceful is that the man upholds the gun control belief the far-left is pushing in the USA as well. And if that's what this bigoted would-be Australian resident believes, it's a forgone conclusion he was unconcerned about the situation in New South Wales in the mid-2000s, when Islamofascists were committing violence in the Cronulla area, both physical and sexual, and women were otherwise defenseless, all because of these slapdash policies enforced by the government Down Under.

And if there's firearms being sold on the black market, well, isn't that the reason why law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry guns? You can't solely rely on the police for everything, and a woman's physical strength, usually being less than that of a man, doesn't guarantee they'll be able to defend themselves at ease.

The man who posted that pathetic contradictory info was one pure moonbat, and should be ostracized by more sensible society. In fact, he should practically be kicked out of Australia - and New Zealand - altogether.

Labels: Australia, communications, dhimmitude, islam, jihad, Moonbattery, political corruption, sexual violence, terrorism