Thread: this would make me very nervous, record gun sales in US

Some Interesting perspectives for what it is worth.

A police officer explains why [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvNeS3KSo2o"]concealed carry is good[/ame].

Bystander fired deadly shot, not officer.

CHL holder in Louisiana saves police officers life.

Ohio CHL holders acting in self defense. A number of anecdotes.

Texas CHL Holder saves stabbing victims life.

Murders so brutal it shocked even South Africans.

South African [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_farm_attacks"]South African farm attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The following reports represent the number of Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders with convictions vs. the entire TX population with convictions.

Guns are Illegal in Mexico

Australian gun statistics. A mixture of true and false information.

You can all draw your own conclusions, but in the interest of providing more insight to both sides of the issue, I provided the links, well worth a look.

It was not pointed out, that the show featuring "preppers" referred to here really point out the most extreme, controversial loons are are not particularly a good example of the average American citizen, or prepper for that matter. Generally, a lot of folks who "prep" or "prepare" factor in many things while preparing. This for example takes into consideration natural disasters which happen, as well as any "eventuality" that they believe may occur.

This may sometimes make good sense, when you consider disasters such as Katrina, in which unprepared morons who failed to heed the warnings and leave, were left stranded with no home, food, fuel and the criminals (both the local government / police and the regular thugs) proceeded to go on a crime spree.

While the Average Aussie may not arm themselves to the teeth, I have to imagine they are "prepped" to the degree they have the stocks, and equipment to live off the "grid" should something happen, and do so frequently. There are few real direct comparisons from an Australian to an American, in as much as the societies are quite different, including huge differences in populations, etc. Most folks have a difficult time understanding the "gun" thing in the US, so do not feel put upon.

The main intent behind the right to keep and bear arms was not necessarily intended as a right to "hunt and protect yourself" although they remain important aspects of responsible gun ownership. These "rights" as many Americans see it are so ingrained into the psyche of most Americans there will be no way the population will be disarmed. For the purposes of this discussion, we are talking handguns, as Australians can own long guns, albeit a big hassle to get the proper paperwork to do so, as I've read on this very forum.

The original poster was perplexed and perhaps concerned with the increase of gun / ammunition sales in the US. The fact is, that guns sales have been skyrocketing since the economy tanked. A lot of folks, some I consider smarter than I think we are a few steps away chaos. After they economy tanked, the bush era of spying on Americans, stealing of additional rights, and more talk and attempts by the UN to impose it's will for gun control and other rights against Americans, things continue to heat up. It almost, but hopefully not becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, as, the more you hear about it, you consider your own stash of guns and ammo, and decide to stock up, you shop and realize the prices have doubled since 2007, and many items are short in the marketplace, so you decide to stock up on more, creating additional demands, and so on.

A bit of insight into the line of thinking in America is our personal freedom. To that end, reading the constitution and the bill of rights will at least be a starting point into the mindset of dedicated "constitutionalists" folks who believe in minimum government and maximum freedom. To that end, the countries founding fathers had a lot to say about distrusting the government, and keeping their power checked. It would also be beneficial to read some of their famous quotes if you are interested.

A few interesting ones are;
Thomas Jefferson:
The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

Benjamin Franklin;
Keep your eyes wide open before marriage, and half-shut afterwards.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame as being unwilling to learn.
Three can keep a secret if two are dead.

John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814
Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.


General Washington
Firearms stand next in importance of the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”


James Madison
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of othe counties whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

No Free Man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.




As far as raw statistics, everyone should consider the vast differences in demographics.


Kind Regards

Originally Posted by PAT303

No one should have firearms for self protection,all it does is put firearms in the hands of gung ho fools. Pat

I agree Pat, I'm sure there would be far less break and enters, harassing of our elderly and crime in general if if all the bad people in the world knew that there was no chance of them getting seriously hurt while they went about their criminal activities because law abiding people were banned from owning firearms.

Sorry, I hate it when my sarcastic side gets the better of my normally polite inner self.

Originally Posted by unseenone

Some Interesting perspectives for what it is worth.

As far as raw statistics, everyone should consider the vast differences in demographics.


Kind Regards

I am the original poster, and nothing in your post
, including your " famous Quotes", convinces me you in the USA have it right. Your sentence about Katrina, and the fact you state "Police & the local thugs" harrased survivers, is just, well, I must be nice. [ notice mods I'm being nice]. Your nation was born for all the right reasons, and should be held up as a beacon for all the oppressed in the World, but somehow, between then & now , you have lost your way. Paranoia seems to rule supreme, and the fact you say you arm yourself in case the Government gets out of control [ perhaps not in those words] Good God man are'nt you a Democracy? Do yourself a favour, come over here and see how a real Democracy works, one of the oldest in the World. We complain about our lot, but you won't find a better place in the World to live. AND our Police protect citizens, especially during disasters. Just don't bring your guns, you dont need them , cheers Bob

My $0.02

Originally Posted by bob10

you have lost your way. Paranoia seems to rule supreme,

Ever been there? Americans generally are no more paranoid than anyone else. You must remember that you get a VERY slanted view from the media here who beat up everything !

If something happens 1 time in a hundred thousand, you only hear about the one time. People therefore wrongly assume that is a "norm"

Good God man are'nt you a Democracy?

Yes, they are - as much as any country is.

Do yourself a favour, come over here and see how a real Democracy works, one of the oldest in the World.

One of the oldest in the world? We were only federated 110 odd years ago so I have no idea where you get that from?

I would hardly espouse Australia's political system as a shining example of democracy. We have a parliament where a minute number of people (The Greens) are setting or disproportionately influencing policy thanks to a Labor party so desperate to hold onto government they will sell their souls to the devil.

At the moment our Democracy is not "working".

our Police protect citizens, especially during disasters. Just don't bring your guns, you dont need them , cheers Bob

To their credit they try. The fact is though there are simply not enough. So often they pursue criminals and investigate crimes afterwards, rather than be in any position to prevent them. That's a fact of life.

Frankly people should be allowed to protect them selves from harm. Whether that be with karate, pepper spray or a gun is immaterial.

Frankly, I'd prefer a gun.

It' would be easy to have rigorous requirements such as marksmanship requirements, zero blood alcohol while carrying, deep background criminal checks etc. It's not a lack of ability to implement a safe effective concealed carry regime that is the problem.

The problem is the lack of political courage to implement it in the face of screams of woe from the far left of politics who would rather you were dead but retained the "high morale ground".

Yep, been there, this says it better than I could, Bob

Australia has one of the world's best models for democracy. Some of the strengths of Australian democracy include:

• the system of responsible government, where ministers who are in charge of certain areas of government have to be elected members of parliament;
• the federal system which shares governing between the national government and smaller State governments;
• the system of two houses of parliament, which means proposed laws are checked and refined;
• compulsory adult voting which makes sure that all Australian voters take part in electing politicians;
• the requirement that any changes to the Constitution be approved by the population through a referendum;
• universal adult suffrage: adult Australian citizens can vote regardless of their race, class, sex or religion, and
• the separation of powers - laws can be tested through a court system which is separate from the government and government departments employ citizens to put the government's laws into action.

All these checks spread power across different groups, preventing one person or group from dominating the nation. Democracy is about power being accessible to as many of a society's people as possible.
Australia has not always been a democratic society. The law has not always given all people in society the same rights and opportunities. Examples of people who have not enjoyed equal opportunities and rights have been the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and women. Today however, all people in Australia are protected by the Australian Constitution, regardless of their gender, race or background.
Development of democracy

Australia's system of government grew over time from single governors representing the British Parliament to the fully elected representative democracy that functions today. Australia has been a leader in many important democratic steps such as granting women the right to vote and introducing the secret ballot.
European settlement

During the first few decades of European settlement in Australia, power lay in the hands of the governors who ruled on behalf of Britain. The early colony of New South Wales did not have its own government and could not make its own laws.
In the early 1820s a council was created which could advise the governor. Its members were appointed by the British Parliament, which had ultimate power over any decisions the council or the governor made. A proper court system was also set up in New South Wales. Similar changes were made a couple of years later in Tasmania (which at the time was called Van Diemen's Land) and Western Australia.
South Australia had a small government from the mid 1830s but its members were chosen by the British Government. The governor could suggest laws for the colony but they had to be approved by Britain.
The development of representative government

Around 1830, people in New South Wales began to push for a representative government, one with members who were elected to represent the people. Finally, in 1843, the people got their chance to vote but only for some members of the new parliament. The other members were chosen by the British. The governor still had most of the power and the only people who could vote were wealthy landowners.
By the mid 1850s New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania had elected governments but it was still only men who owned a lot of property that could vote. Poorer men felt it was unfair that they had no vote - and therefore no say in government - but they still had to pay taxes. This was one of the complaints that led to the Eureka Stockade in Victoria in 1854, where miners rebelled against government authorities. The authorities responded harshly but most people sympathised with the miners. Not long after this event both Victoria and South Australia extended the vote to all men over 21 regardless of how much property they owned.
See image 1
Democratic initiatives

Victoria and South Australia introduced the secret ballot, where people placed their votes in an enclosed box so that no one else knew who they had voted for. This meant that people could not be bullied by others into voting for a particular person. Secret ballots, which were later called Australian ballots in the United States, are now considered to be one of the most important features of true democracy.
See image 12
In the mid 1850s South Australia also brought in the one man, one vote principle, which meant that men could only vote in the area in which they lived. Until then a man who owned property in more than one place could vote for local representatives in each of those places. This meant that wealthier people got to cast more votes than others so they had more of a say in who was elected to parliament. The one man, one vote principle meant that all voters had an equal influence on elections.
Another initiative that came from Australia was payment for members of parliament. Victoria introduced this system in 1870. Because of the time demands involved with being a member of parliament, only rich men had the luxury to stand for election. Payment for members meant that poorer men could afford to give up their jobs to become involved with government. This in turn meant that poor sections of the community could have representatives in parliament who understood their needs.
Federation

When Federation took place on 1 January 1901, the young nation of Australia had a new constitution and a new federal government. These institutions had been created through discussions, conferences, conventions and referenda with the input and consent of people in all the Australian colonies.
See image 3
The Constitution

When drafting the Constitution, Australians used the United States Constitution as one of their models. Unlike the United States' version, Australians did not include a Bill of Rights which would have guaranteed certain rights for Australians. The only right which is clearly stated in the Australian Constitution is freedom regarding religion. The Australian government is not allowed to force people to take up or abandon a religion.
A democratic feature of the Constitution is that it cannot be changed unless Australian voters agree by voting for the change in a referendum.
The federal government

Because the number of members of parliament each State could elect depended on the size of its population, the smaller colonies were concerned there would be more representatives from the more populated States. The smaller colonies worried that decisions could be made favouring the bigger States over the smaller ones. This was one reason why the Senate was created, which has the same number of representatives from each State. The Senate (the upper house) and the House of Representatives (the lower house) have almost the same amount of power. Through this system, a law has to be approved by the majority of representatives (in the lower house) and a majority of States (in the upper house) in order to be passed.
Another democratic feature of the new system was a responsible government, where ministers who are in charge of certain areas (for example defence or transport) have to be members of parliament. This means ministers can be voted out if the population is unhappy with how they do their job. In America, ministers (who are called secretaries in the United States) are chosen by the President, not the people.
Conclusion

The Australian system of government was not entirely democratic in the early years of Federation. Not all sections of the Australian population had a say in how the system was set up. Some people were locked out of government, particularly through not being able to vote. Britain also still had some authoritarian control over aspects of Australian governance. In many ways however, Australia led the modern world in the development of democracy. The structures and processes put in place by Australian colonies made government fairer and more accessible and slowly spread power across society.

Originally Posted by bob10

Yep, been there, this says it better than I could, Bob

The Constitution

When drafting the Constitution, Australians used the United States Constitution as one of their models. Unlike the United States' version, Australians did not include a Bill of Rights which would have guaranteed certain rights for Australians. The only right which is clearly stated in the Australian Constitution is freedom regarding religion. The Australian government is not allowed to force people to take up or abandon a religion.

I did not realize we were having a yours is bigger than mine contest. I thought you were trying to understand the guns issue. Obviously this is not the case. Considering your Constitution was modeled or copied as it were from the US one, it seems totally relevant, what the intention of the original authors was. So, that being said, without an understanding of the reasons and impetus for creation of the document, it would lead to some misunderstanding of their true meaning and intent.

That being said, clearly this is not a thread about understanding the reasons for your being nervous, because it is quite apparent, the reason is a total unwillingness to learn the reasons, and closed minded to any idea, which you do not agree with. So, are you a citizen, or a subject? Enough said, we don't agree and you win!


From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Read an interesting article on the subject here.

Originally Posted by unseenone

I did not realize we were having a yours is bigger than mine contest. I thought you were trying to understand the guns issue. Obviously this is not the case. Considering your Constitution was modeled or copied as it were from the US one, it seems totally relevant, what the intention of the original authors was. ...

Unseenone

Thanks for your view on the US Constitution and the Australian Constitution however the Australian Constitution was no more copied as it were from the US one, than the US Constitution was copied from the Magna Carta. The Australian Constitution did however use as a basis themes from the US Constitution, and the laws of the United Kingdom including the Magna Carta. The main reason that the US Constitution is mentioned at all is the UK does not have a single document which could be called a Constitution. One of the main aspects of the Australian Constitution borrowed from the US was the Senate of elected senators representing the individual states. We also understand that the US Senate was an idea borrowed from ancient Rome so in fact no one is having an upmanship competition.

Onto the issue of gun ownership being included as a right in a Bill of Rights in Australia, the US Civil War was actually in progress concurrent with Australia's colonies moves towards federation and the concern that a right to gun ownership was seen in a negative light.

Originally Posted by unseenone

I did not realize we were having a yours is bigger than mine contest.

Mate , straight to the point, in the Aussie way, you are a gibberer. Lotsa landies explained it very well. I won't waste my breath on you. Bob