Minimalist

Practice Squad
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
I had seen this before. Watching it looks like something that could only come out of a movie.
 

Iamtdg

2
Messages
5,614
Reaction score
0
Yeah, banning guns is the answer. This is proof that the libs have no clue what they're talking about, and would only further put as at danger under the guise of trying to protect us.
 

Iamtdg

2
Messages
5,614
Reaction score
0
That's only the first step.

That's only the first step.

That's only the first step.

That's only the first step.
 

MetalHead

In the Rotation
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Liberal hypocrisy:
Parading the parents of Sandy Hook Elementary victims while completely ignoring the doings of abortionist Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia.
Like that Shit Whore Pelosi would say,"We must protect the cheedren"...
 

MetalHead

In the Rotation
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Even Pravda is warning the US...but Americans grew too stupid to see it.

Americans never give up your guns (Pravda: "socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA")
Pravda ^ | Stanislav Mishin

Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:52:00 PM by dead

These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor.

This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers.

To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.

Read more here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2976860/posts
 
Last edited:

Hoofbite

Draft Pick
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
0
What year is that video from?

Looks a decent bit old. Be interesting to see how it's shaken out since that rise.
 

VTA

UDFA
Messages
2,504
Reaction score
334
I can't tell the date on the vid, but the law went into effect in 96. As recent as 2009, from what I can find, it hasn't stemmed violent crime...

Link
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.

Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

It's pretty much a simple concept. An unarmed people are a less secure people and the laws only serve to disarm the non-criminal element. Any idea's other wise are just foolish.
 

Iamtdg

2
Messages
5,614
Reaction score
0
If we lose our guns we will never get them back. It's a treacherous road to even start down by allowing them to take high capacity magazines. The road will not end there. If they are able to take that, they will move on to rifles, then to shotguns, then to pistols. No way they stop at just magazines. If they get away with one thing, it will only embolden them to move forward.
 

MetalHead

In the Rotation
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
If we lose our guns we will never get them back. It's a treacherous road to even start down by allowing them to take high capacity magazines. The road will not end there. If they are able to take that, they will move on to rifles, then to shotguns, then to pistols. No way they stop at just magazines. If they get away with one thing, it will only embolden them to move forward.

Correct.
 

NoDak

UDFA
Messages
2,633
Reaction score
0
The appropriate response would have been I agree.

It's an opinion and no more correct than anyone else's.

:lol

When did you become so pretentious?

You're out of you element, Donny... Tell us some more stories about shitting sideways.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
Australia's gun rates are interesting, but there is no consensus on the numbers and what they mean. One consensus that can be made is that they are certainly not a "big bag of fail" LOL LOL LOL

Gun violence and suicide was on the decrease before the enacted the law, and it continued to decline at an even faster rate in many cases after the law went into effect.

So what is particularly interesting about Australia's gun ban? Particularly as it pertains to the gun debate in America?

Other researchers have focused on mass shootings: there were 11 in Australia in the decade before 1996, and there have been none since.
 

Bluenoser

In the Rotation
Messages
1,203
Reaction score
0
Other researchers have focused on mass shootings: there were 11 in Australia in the decade before 1996, and there have been none since.
That seems to be the point of limiting assault weapons in the US. It's not about the murder rate as much as the mass shooting.
 
Top Bottom