Re: OZ gun-grab fails to "save" society...


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:n80ap295asrdvt34fjh90p9gpkj0ee9kdn@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:24:58 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u3t8p2dojduo2ukk74m3ep78snta26of7i@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 07:28:14 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ose6p2l9m6n94b697nq9l6jnf3r9727q5p@xxxxxxxxxx
On 27 Dec 2006 00:20:11 -0800, "Phil Smythe" <smytph@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Cardigan wrote:
Phil Smythe wrote:
Cardigan wrote:
You're wrong, the 1996 gun buy-back was NOT directed at
addressing
the
issue of mass-murders with guns, it was all about the fact that
the
Prime Minister "hates guns" and hates the thought of the public
being
in possession of arms


"..it was all about draining the suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney
of
firearms."
Tim Fischer - Deputy Prime Minister letter to SSAA Member 9/9/97
on
the
gun buyback

Well, that is a very impressive piece of evidence, NOT!

So the supposed tail end of a sentence which could have saying
anything, supposedly sent to an unnamed SSSA member is supposed to
be
proof that the 1996 gun laws weren't put into place specifically
in
response to firearm mass murders? Pull the other one!


"Now I don't pretend for a moment ladies and gentlemen that the
decision that we have taken is going to guarantee that in the future
there won't be other mass murders. I don't pretend that for a
moment."
PM John Howard Sale Rally 16/6/96

Thanks for helping to prove my point. The PM acknowledges the obvious
fact that there are no 100% guarantees in life. So far however there
have been no firearm mass murders since 1996, a fact that strangely
seems to unduly disturb a number of pro-gun types.

Nope, not upset - just pointing out that severley curtailing
Australians freedom to defend themselves has not reduced violent crime
in Australia.

**Nonsense. Australians have never had a 'right' to own guns. Not ever.

I have challenged you several times on this, trevoreurotrash, and you
refuse to respond. Coward.

Of course they had the right.

**Then cite which part of the Australian Constitution which specifically
states that Australians may own firearms. It's in none of the books of
Australian Constitutional Law I own.

As I have asked you before: What about one day before the gun laws
were enacted?

**Lack of cite duly noted.

And an unchanged one now and before the gun control laws.

**Which gun control laws? There are several and they have been progressively
enacted over the last 100 years or so.


Looks like ignorance on your part.




And in other places the gun control laws have effectively disarmed the
good citizen.

**Non-sequitur. Irrelevant. Wrong.

Completely right and you know it.

**Non-sequitur. Irrelevant. Wrong.




Your statement assumes the following:

* That not allowing citizens to carry guns, makes them defenceless.

Nope, you are making the assumption. I have stated several times that
the laws deprive the good citizen of one of the very best self defense
tools.

**Non-sequitur. Irrelevant. Wrong.



* That carrying guns is a useful measure for self defence.


It is indeed, one of the very best.

**Non-sequitur. Irrelevant. Wrong.




Neither statement is necessarily correct.


Wrong, absolutley correct.

**Non-sequitur. Irrelevant. Wrong.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.