A Dim Bulb

The front page of the NRA’s magazine “America’s First Freedom” shows John Hunt the Coward as a dim bulb.

NRA Magazine

It seems we are not the only ones who think that our country’s leader is less than admirable. We now have a national idiot ambassador and are showing the western world how badly things can go for shooters.

Advertisements

9 Responses to A Dim Bulb

  1. fishfinger says:

    I have no sympathy for all those who are now screaming about the “lies” Howard has told and is still telling: Children overboard, WMDs in Iraq and so on.
    They are the same people who were prepared to believe every word he said in 1996 when he forced his buy back scheme on us promising it would make Australia safer.
    I don’t know about all his other “lies” but I certainly know about this one and I’ll bet you do too.

  2. Michael Sutcliffe says:

    Labour would be no better. You are better off hoping for a Liberal prime minister that doesn’t have such a bad bias. Out of the mainstream parties that is the best your going to get. Firearm ownership is on the edge in this country, and will slip into oblivion soon if a non-mainstream course of political action is not successful.

  3. john luvaro says:

    Im a US citizen who has worked in Australia and the UK since the ban on hand guns went into effect in these countries. Im aware that as result of these gun bans, the rate of violent crime has increased significantly in both countries. Due to the nature of my occupation, I’m able to bring into these countries personal belongings with “Minimal” customs scrutiny. Therefore, despite the law, I brought my Glock .45 and carried when ever I left my home in Melbourne or London. Fortunately, despite the high rates of street crime and home invasions, I never had to use my gun; but I acknowledge the “legal consequences” had I done so. We have a saying in the US: “Better to be judged by 12 than buried by 6”. But what I fail to understand, and perhaps some “former” gun owner in Australia can answer, is this: Why did Australians behave like “Sheeple” and voluntarily turn in their guns, thereby giving up an ABSOLUTE AND MOST BASIC RIGHT OF SELF DEFENCE?

    (Note). If such a law were enforced in the US, this much I can guarantee; the streets would be littered with bodies. And many of them would be in Blue Uniforms.

    John Luvaro. “AN ARMED CITIZEN WHO INTENDS TO REMAIN SO”.

  4. John,

    Australia has quite a different sense of history from the US. We were a peacefully settled colony that gained self-government without conflict. It’s an important distinction.

    Australians have never had an unqualified right to own guns for self defence. It was always a grey area. Hunting and target shooting were seen as the legitimate reasons, while self defence was the unspoken reason. The 1996 laws made it quite clear that self defence is not accepted by the government, but this was not a major change for many shooters.

    It continues to rankle with a lot of people nonetheless. I also don’t believe the general public appreciates the fact that they are not allowed to own any weapon, firearm or baseball bat, solely for the purpose of self defence. Sooner or later this will become a serious political issue. I hope I can hasten that.

    As for being ‘sheeple’, you are right up to a point. There were huge rallies and demonstrations around the country and vast numbers of guns were hidden rather than surrendered, but no open defiance. Apart from the left wing rent-a-crowds, it’s not the Australian way. I often wish it was.

  5. Josh says:

    John

    I really take my hat off to you mate. I’m going to Camp Perry this year and all of my mates that have gone in the past don’t want to come back. I wasn’t a shooter at the time the legislation was introduced in 1996 and have never fired a semi-auto rifle. I will more than make up for that this year.

    In Australia, we have way too many people that don’t believe in shooting and self defence, beacause as David said, we have never had to. I love Australia, but have huge difficulty understanding the fact that we let our politicians control every aspect of our lives and that we don’t stand up and demand rights that all people should have.

    I’ve got a feeling that I might be moving stateside because I can’t see an end to this issue in Australia that I could conscionably tolerate.

    Good on you mate.

    Josh

  6. Michael says:

    John

    Australia and the US do seem to differ considerably on the issue of firearms and self defence. To me it is unbelievable, preposturous even, that a govt will let a farmer protect his stock with say a pump action shotgun, but not let you defend yourself with well, anything. Are sheep worth more than me?

    John Howard has much to answer for, but so do our media, which for the most part is saturated with loopy left wing scribes only to keen to further their dream of a socialist utopia in which guns and citizens are kept well apart.

    The Australian public seem happy to accept that gun ownership is a priviledge and not a right, a mindset that is difficult, and may be impossible, to change. If only we had a solid platform like your 2nd amendment, from which to take a stand.

    Rest assured that as David said, there’s plently of buried or hidden guns around Australia – we have even less reason to trust our govt than you do yours.

    Fire a few off for me

    Michael.

  7. john luvaro says:

    From the positive responses to my original comment, perhaps there’s a chance that Australians may regain their most basic right to self defense, even if it’s not a part of your Constitution, as is in my country. The year I spent working in Australia was one of the best years of my life. Id still be in living in Melbourne as a permanent resident were it not for your gun laws. But I know that eventually Id land in jail for defying them.

  8. Robbity Bob The Nob says:

    At least in NSW due to SP/Tingle efforts, the onus is now right back on the “castle ” attacker to prove the attcked was NOT in fear of his life.
    This complicates the police preference for charging the user of any weapon for using “excessive force”.
    This has reduced crime and has seen self-defence in the home and workplace strenghened after a few decades when the punishment meted out to the victim exceeded the attcker/home invader. Then he/she could be sued in civil court by the attacker for damages with a good chance of success. No more!

    ‘An armed society is a polite society’ as they say in some US States….

  9. Roughneck Jase says:

    Michael Sutcliffe,

    In regards to you post, I disagree with you in a very big way because of the fact that the majority of the Liberals and the Nationals are strongly anti-gun and are supporitve of Howard’s gun bans. Waiting for a pro-gun Liberal to take the helm of the Liberal Party is like waiting for Hell to freeze over.

    At least Rudd and the ALP are more open and supporitve of our side than the Liberals and the Nationals will ever be. Besides, the majority of Australia’s gun owners will never vote for the Liberals and the Nationals ever again after what these two parties did to gun owners in 1996 and 2002.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: