this came in....


We are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few.



Quote:

These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our governments and our culture:- 1. We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners and bikers by the actions of a few.  And here's another one worth considering. 2. Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about illegal immigration support running out of money? What's interesting is that the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't. Think about it.

If you ask the anti-gun mob, greggy et al. then treating all gun owners by the actions of the very, very few  has brought safety and security of Australia. Then let us do the same for all threats, perceived or otherwise.



If all gun owners are potential mass murderers, then how come not all muslims are not considered as potential terrorists?

---

How many gun-related mass murders have occurred in Australia since the Port Arthur gun buy back?   How many "massacres"?    QED.   "Social-Engineering" as you term it has not resulted in the mass disarmament of Australian citizens.   It has not resulted in the streets running with blood.   It has resulted in a safer Australian society.     ::)

Yadda wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:

... we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about illegal immigration support running out of money? What's interesting is that the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't. Think about it.

You are at liberty to start a campaign among your friends to gift extra money to the government to cover the OAP deficit.

Give till it hurts.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

How many gun-related mass murders have occurred in Australia since the Port Arthur gun buy back?   How many "massacres"?    QED.   "Social-Engineering" as you term it has not resulted in the mass disarmament of Australian citizens.   It has not resulted in the streets running with blood.   It has resulted in a safer Australian society.     ::)

Which is why we should do the same to the mussie population immediately. If it good enough for one it is good enough for all.

I want personal safety enhanced the same way yours was.  :) :)



BTW there are as many firearms in the hands of gun owners now as there ever was before that nazi prick howard go going. So gun ownership is maybe not as important as the anti-gun mob are making out.


But I accept your premise and we should enact it immediately on our muslim population.

I got paid by the Fed govt to use guns, sub machine guns and automatic rifles

The govt wanted me to kill people

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

I got paid by the Fed govt to use guns, sub machine guns and automatic rifles The govt wanted me to kill people

I was in the same boat.  People can enlist if they want access to fully-automatic firearms.   Not sure why Bigol64 wants access to them.  Does he want to kill people?  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 4:46pm: How many gun-related mass murders have occurred in Australia since the Port Arthur gun buy back?   How many "massacres"?    QED.   "Social-Engineering" as you term it has not resulted in the mass disarmament of Australian citizens.   It has not resulted in the streets running with blood.   It has resulted in a safer Australian society.     ::) Which is why we should do the same to the mussie population immediately. If it good enough for one it is good enough for all. I want personal safety enhanced the same way yours was.  :) :) BTW there are as many firearms in the hands of gun owners now as there ever was before that nazi prick howard go going. So gun ownership is maybe not as important as the anti-gun mob are making out. But I accept your premise and we should enact it immediately on our muslim population.

Muslims have committed no crimes.  Neither have gun owners.   Your point is pointless.  Gun owners have merely had their privilege of gun ownership altered by Government regulation.  Muslims are being persecuted by non-Muslims for the crimes of a small minority.  Gun owners can still own a gun.   There is a difference, Bigol64.   Do you enjoy persecuting people for exercising the same rights that you appear to have reserved for yourself?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

I hear gun shots at night out here in the bush. I cant tell if they're guns or those devices that farmers set up on their land to scare wild animals away 

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 4:46pm: How many gun-related mass murders have occurred in Australia since the Port Arthur gun buy back?   How many "massacres"?    QED.   "Social-Engineering" as you term it has not resulted in the mass disarmament of Australian citizens.   It has not resulted in the streets running with blood.   It has resulted in a safer Australian society.     ::) Which is why we should do the same to the mussie population immediately. If it good enough for one it is good enough for all. I want personal safety enhanced the same way yours was.  :) :) BTW there are as many firearms in the hands of gun owners now as there ever was before that nazi prick howard go going. So gun ownership is maybe not as important as the anti-gun mob are making out. But I accept your premise and we should enact it immediately on our muslim population. Muslims have committed no crimes.  Neither have gun owners.   Your point is pointless.  Gun owners have merely had their privilege of gun ownership altered by Government regulation.  Muslims are being persecuted by non-Muslims for the crimes of a small minority.  Gun owners can still own a gun.   There is a difference, Bigol64.   Do you enjoy persecuting people for exercising the same rights that you appear to have reserved for yourself?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

We are just going to have their privilege of muslim worship altered a little

They can still be muslims, they just need to be registered with the police. The police can enter their home to check things out, without a warrant. They're to be treated with suspicion by ignorant fkkwits as normal and they are to have no recourse political or other-wise;

I hate persecuting people who have done no wrong, but that is not how we do things in Australia and it works a treat and we should extend that to muslims.  :) :)



Because, security.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 6:31pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:14pm: I got paid by the Fed govt to use guns, sub machine guns and automatic rifles The govt wanted me to kill people I was in the same boat.  People can enlist if they want access to fully-automatic firearms.   Not sure why Bigol64 wants access to them.  Does he want to kill people?  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

I never said anything of the sort; please refrain from being a lying piece of sh1t.


Get a child to explain what I wrote if your comprehension skills are that limited.

We are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by....

I see no encouragement to consider gun owners in any way at all.

Muslims with legal guns ownership for hunting say, can turn radical, green on blue civilian attack

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 6:53pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:31pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:14pm: I got paid by the Fed govt to use guns, sub machine guns and automatic rifles The govt wanted me to kill people I was in the same boat.  People can enlist if they want access to fully-automatic firearms.   Not sure why Bigol64 wants access to them.  Does he want to kill people?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) I never said anything of the sort; please refrain from being a lying piece of sh1t.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  You do know what a question mark signifies at the end of the sentence, don't you?  It means I'm asking a question.  Do you want to kill people?   You've answer in the negative, so excellent.  So why do you want semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearms, Bigol64?


Quote:

Get a child to explain what I wrote if your comprehension skills are that limited.

So, why the desire for weapons which are banned, Bigol64?  Do you feel inadequate without one in your hands?    ::) ::)

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 6:50pm:

We are just going to have their privilege of muslim worship altered a little

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution prevents that, Bigol64.  Are you suggesting that the Australian Government should knowingly break the Constitution?  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 6:55pm:

Muslims with legal guns ownership for hunting say, can turn radical, green on blue civilian attack

So can non-Muslims...   ::) ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 7:02pm:

So can non-Muslims...

No, that's blue on blue attack

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 7:02pm: So can non-Muslims... No, that's blue on blue attack

Still can all too often result in death.   Doesn't matter who's finger pulls the trigger...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 6:31pm:

I was in the same boat.

I stated you were a new chum muslim boat person, you lied and attempted to deny it.

You are not to be trusted.

QED!

                                              

kemal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 8:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:31pm: I was in the same boat.  I stated you were a new chum muslim boat person, you lied and attempted to deny it. You are not to be trusted. QED!

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

"We are advised NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners and bikers by the actions of a few."


It's Govt policy, isn't it?

Re: We are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by...



we have a law in this country that allows EVERYONE the freedom to follow whatever religion they choose. We have no such law about guns.

Now that I've answered your question can you stop making a jackass of yourself.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 7:01pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:50pm: We are just going to have their privilege of muslim worship altered a little Section 116 of the Australian Constitution prevents that, Bigol64.  Are you suggesting that the Australian Government should knowingly break the Constitution?  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Yeah, for security.

They can practice their religion, not their terrorism. The law will reflect that issue.

It worked great with gun owners, it will work a treat for mussies.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15^th, 2017 at 6:59pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:53pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:31pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:14pm: I got paid by the Fed govt to use guns, sub machine guns and automatic rifles The govt wanted me to kill people I was in the same boat.  People can enlist if they want access to fully-automatic firearms.   Not sure why Bigol64 wants access to them.  Does he want to kill people?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) I never said anything of the sort; please refrain from being a lying piece of sh1t. Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  You do know what a question mark signifies at the end of the sentence, don't you?  It means I'm asking a question.  Do you want to kill people?   You've answer in the negative, so excellent.  So why do you want semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearms, Bigol64? Quote: Get a child to explain what I wrote if your comprehension skills are that limited. So, why the desire for weapons which are banned, Bigol64?  Do you feel inadequate without one in your hands?    ::) ::)

That is why you are a lying peice of sh1t, I never made any such statement or request.


What a poor argument you must have if you need to resort to lies to give it some focus.


I want the same wonderful and excellent gun law that protect you from law abiding gun owners to protect me from law abiding mussies.

For safety.


Now stop being a lying scumbag and stick to what people write.  :)

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 16^th, 2017 at 5:19am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 7:01pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:50pm: We are just going to have their privilege of muslim worship altered a little Section 116 of the Australian Constitution prevents that, Bigol64.  Are you suggesting that the Australian Government should knowingly break the Constitution?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Yeah, for security. They can practice their religion, not their terrorism. The law will reflect that issue. It worked great with gun owners, it will work a treat for mussies.

Muslims like all other Australians are covered by the various Counter-Terrorism and Crimes Acts already, Bigol64.   They do not require special consideration as their religion teaches that they should obey the laws of the land in which they are resident.   Some Islamists have decided to ignore that instruction.   Should all Muslims be singled out for a law which is illegal under Section 116 of the Australian Constitution?   Tsk, tsk, tsk...    ::)

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 16^th, 2017 at 5:23am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:59pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:53pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:31pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:14pm: I got paid by the Fed govt to use guns, sub machine guns and automatic rifles The govt wanted me to kill people I was in the same boat.  People can enlist if they want access to fully-automatic firearms.   Not sure why Bigol64 wants access to them.  Does he want to kill people?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) I never said anything of the sort; please refrain from being a lying piece of sh1t. Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  You do know what a question mark signifies at the end of the sentence, don't you?  It means I'm asking a question.  Do you want to kill people?   You've answer in the negative, so excellent.  So why do you want semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearms, Bigol64? Quote: Get a child to explain what I wrote if your comprehension skills are that limited. So, why the desire for weapons which are banned, Bigol64?  Do you feel inadequate without one in your hands?    ::) ::) That is why you are a lying peice of sh1t, I never made any such statement or request.

How is asking a question, "lying", Bigol64?  Mmmm?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16^th, 2017 at 1:59pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 16th, 2017 at 5:23am: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:59pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:53pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:31pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:14pm: I got paid by the Fed govt to use guns, sub machine guns and automatic rifles The govt wanted me to kill people I was in the same boat.  People can enlist if they want access to fully-automatic firearms.   Not sure why Bigol64 wants access to them.  Does he want to kill people?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) I never said anything of the sort; please refrain from being a lying piece of sh1t. Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  You do know what a question mark signifies at the end of the sentence, don't you?  It means I'm asking a question.  Do you want to kill people?   You've answer in the negative, so excellent.  So why do you want semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearms, Bigol64? Quote: Get a child to explain what I wrote if your comprehension skills are that limited. So, why the desire for weapons which are banned, Bigol64?  Do you feel inadequate without one in your hands?    ::) ::) That is why you are a lying peice of sh1t, I never made any such statement or request. How is asking a question, "lying", Bigol64?  Mmmm?   ::)

Learn basic english champ, that wasn't a question that was a statement

So at no time did I state I wanted access to semi autos, you made a false statement.

How is this not sinking in?


Lying doesn't work for that idiot greggy, and it won't work for you. Try arguing what I actually say.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16^th, 2017 at 1:58pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 16th, 2017 at 5:19am: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 7:01pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:50pm: We are just going to have their privilege of muslim worship altered a little Section 116 of the Australian Constitution prevents that, Bigol64.  Are you suggesting that the Australian Government should knowingly break the Constitution?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Yeah, for security. They can practice their religion, not their terrorism. The law will reflect that issue. It worked great with gun owners, it will work a treat for mussies. Muslims like all other Australians are covered by the various Counter-Terrorism and Crimes Acts already, Bigol64.   They do not require special consideration as their religion teaches that they should obey the laws of the land in which they are resident.   Some Islamists have decided to ignore that instruction.   Should all Muslims be singled out for a law which is illegal under Section 116 of the Australian Constitution?   Tsk, tsk, tsk...    ::)

Because there is a minor chance they will commit a terrorist act. Australia demands lunatic legislation to make us feel safe.

So long as the legislation does not impinge on their bullsh1t worship and only targets them as potential terrorist, why the fkk not. If any are found to be of less that perfect character we can make their life a little extra sh1tty. Just so they know they are being treated differently that everyone else who is a law abiding citizen.


It worked a treat for gun owners it will work a treat for the mussies.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 16^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2017 at 1:58pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 16th, 2017 at 5:19am: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 7:01pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:50pm: We are just going to have their privilege of muslim worship altered a little Section 116 of the Australian Constitution prevents that, Bigol64.  Are you suggesting that the Australian Government should knowingly break the Constitution?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) Yeah, for security. They can practice their religion, not their terrorism. The law will reflect that issue. It worked great with gun owners, it will work a treat for mussies. Muslims like all other Australians are covered by the various Counter-Terrorism and Crimes Acts already, Bigol64.   They do not require special consideration as their religion teaches that they should obey the laws of the land in which they are resident.   Some Islamists have decided to ignore that instruction.   Should all Muslims be singled out for a law which is illegal under Section 116 of the Australian Constitution?   Tsk, tsk, tsk...    ::) Because there is a minor chance they will commit a terrorist act. Australia demands lunatic legislation to make us feel safe. So long as the legislation does not impinge on their bullsh1t worship and only targets them as potential terrorist, why the fkk not. If any are found to be of less that perfect character we can make their life a little extra sh1tty. Just so they know they are being treated differently that everyone else who is a law abiding citizen. It worked a treat for gun owners it will work a treat for the mussies.

Quote:

Section 116 states:     The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.[1]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia]Source[/url]

Your proposal is covered by that Section, Bigol64.   Perhaps you should establish a Gun-Owning Religion for Gun Nuts to adhere to?    ::)

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 16^th, 2017 at 2:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2017 at 1:59pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 16th, 2017 at 5:23am: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:59pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:53pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:31pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:14pm: I got paid by the Fed govt to use guns, sub machine guns and automatic rifles The govt wanted me to kill people I was in the same boat.  People can enlist if they want access to fully-automatic firearms.   Not sure why Bigol64 wants access to them.  Does he want to kill people?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) I never said anything of the sort; please refrain from being a lying piece of sh1t. Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  You do know what a question mark signifies at the end of the sentence, don't you?  It means I'm asking a question.  Do you want to kill people?   You've answer in the negative, so excellent.  So why do you want semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearms, Bigol64? Quote: Get a child to explain what I wrote if your comprehension skills are that limited. So, why the desire for weapons which are banned, Bigol64?  Do you feel inadequate without one in your hands?    ::) ::) That is why you are a lying peice of sh1t, I never made any such statement or request. How is asking a question, "lying", Bigol64?  Mmmm?   ::) Learn basic english champ, that wasn't a question that was a statement

Take another look, Bighole.

"So, why the desire for weapons which are banned, Bigol64?  Do you feel inadequate without one in your hands?"

Do you know what those things I've highlighted are?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16^th, 2017 at 3:16pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 16th, 2017 at 2:05pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16th, 2017 at 1:59pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 16th, 2017 at 5:23am: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:59pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:53pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:31pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 15th, 2017 at 6:14pm: I got paid by the Fed govt to use guns, sub machine guns and automatic rifles The govt wanted me to kill people I was in the same boat.  People can enlist if they want access to fully-automatic firearms.   Not sure why Bigol64 wants access to them.  Does he want to kill people?  Tsk, tsk.   ::) I never said anything of the sort; please refrain from being a lying piece of sh1t. Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  You do know what a question mark signifies at the end of the sentence, don't you?  It means I'm asking a question.  Do you want to kill people?   You've answer in the negative, so excellent.  So why do you want semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearms, Bigol64? Quote: Get a child to explain what I wrote if your comprehension skills are that limited. So, why the desire for weapons which are banned, Bigol64?  Do you feel inadequate without one in your hands?    ::) ::) That is why you are a lying peice of sh1t, I never made any such statement or request. How is asking a question, "lying", Bigol64?  Mmmm?   ::) Learn basic english champ, that wasn't a question that was a statement Take another look, Bighole. "So, why the desire for weapons which are banned, Bigol64?  Do you feel inadequate without one in your hands?" Do you know what those things I've highlighted are?

Goodbye greg, many thanks f V cking off.

Quote:

We are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by....

There would be a nice irony in sentencing them to a firing squad, possibly a tad harsh though.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 16^th, 2017 at 1:58pm:

Muslims like all other Australians are covered by the various Counter-Terrorism and Crimes Acts already, Bigol64.   They do not require special consideration           as their religion teaches that they should obey the laws of the land in which they are resident.         Some Islamists have decided to ignore that instruction.   Should all Muslims be singled out for a law which is illegal under Section 116 of the Australian Constitution?   Tsk, tsk, tsk...    ::)

Moslems say those words.

But those words are a complete lie.

Chase that concept up, on ISLAMIC www sites.


They state [as advice to the moslem, living within a secular jurisdiction] that the moslem,
1/ "should obey the laws of the land in which they are resident"
.....[with the proviso, which is the religious 'get out', of moslem obedience to secular law]
2/ whenever the local secular laws do not clash with Allah's law.


i.e.
The full advice is;
"1/ The moslem should obey the laws of the land in which they are resident,
2/ whenever the local secular laws do not clash with Allah's law."

Moslems speak the 1st,      ....and omit the 2nd.

Its called sophistry.

All gun owners have been judged to be mass murdering terrorists because of 1 person, that is why they cannot own certain types of firearms.

I dont judge gun owners by the actions of say a Martin Bryant, I judge them by the words of say a Panther or Baron

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

All gun owners have been judged to be mass murdering terrorists because of 1 person, that is why they cannot own certain types of firearms.

Have they?  Your evidence for that?   You mean you had your gun owning privilege changed with new rules introduced to prove that you were capable of owning a firearm which was suitable to the purposes that most gun owners claimed they owned them for?  Tsk, tsk, don't you like being held accountable like that?  I suppose, you could have just continued lying, now couldn't you, Baron?   ::)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:44am:

I dont judge gun owners by the actions of say a Martin Bryant, I judge them by the words of say a Panther or Baron

You would be one of a very few, including that piece of sh1t now ex-prime minister of Australia.

All gun laws since 1996 are premised on that very concept. To say different is a lie.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2017 at 2:39pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20th, 2017 at 11:44am: I dont judge gun owners by the actions of say a Martin Bryant, I judge them by the words of say a Panther or Baron You would be one of a very few, including that piece of sh1t now ex-prime minister of Australia. All gun laws since 1996 are premised on that very concept. To say different is a lie.

You have evidence of this "lie", Bigol64?   I seem to remember John Winston Howard always spoke of the cumulative effect of Hoddle Street, Strathfield, etc.  Not just Port Arthur but that was the straw that broke the camel's back, without a doubt.  Just too many lies told by too many gun nuts who didn't understand that their gun ownership was a privilege, not a right, under Australian law.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 26^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 2:39pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20th, 2017 at 11:44am: I dont judge gun owners by the actions of say a Martin Bryant, I judge them by the words of say a Panther or Baron You would be one of a very few, including that piece of sh1t now ex-prime minister of Australia. All gun laws since 1996 are premised on that very concept. To say different is a lie. You have evidence of this "lie", Bigol64?   I seem to remember John Winston Howard always spoke of the cumulative effect of Hoddle Street, Strathfield, etc.  Not just Port Arthur but that was the straw that broke the camel's back, without a doubt.  Just too many lies told by too many gun nuts who didn't understand that their gun ownership was a privilege, not a right, under Australian law.    ::)

So when it's Muslims - it's only a minority .

But when it's guns your minority argument doesn't apply??????? :-/

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 26^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 2:39pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20th, 2017 at 11:44am: I dont judge gun owners by the actions of say a Martin Bryant, I judge them by the words of say a Panther or Baron You would be one of a very few, including that piece of sh1t now ex-prime minister of Australia. All gun laws since 1996 are premised on that very concept. To say different is a lie. You have evidence of this "lie", Bigol64?   I seem to remember John Winston Howard always spoke of the cumulative effect of Hoddle Street, Strathfield, etc.  Not just Port Arthur but that was the straw that broke the camel's back, without a doubt.  Just too many lies told by too many gun nuts who didn't understand that their gun ownership was a privilege, not a right, under Australian law.    ::)

Never said it was a right, liar, not a good start there brian if you need to lie to support your feeble argument.



Everything I sated is in fact very true; howard is a piece of sh1t there is no doubting that by anyone.

Every gun law is based on the premise that gun owners are to be considered as potential mass murderers. Howard made sure of that at very opportunity and it continues today.


BTW Im NOT a gun owner, I just hate lying pieces of sh1t.

---

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 18^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:

All gun owners have been judged to be mass murdering terrorists because of 1 person, that is why they cannot own certain types of firearms.

You make them sound just like Muslims ?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20^th, 2017 at 11:44am:

I dont judge gun owners by the actions of say a Martin Bryant, I judge them by the words of say a Panther or Baron

I have no criminal record never had any mental illness, my last fine was a parking ticket 17 years ago.

The only 3 times I have been to court has been as a witness for the police.

The hoplophobes claim all law abiding firearm owners are mass murdering terrorists that is why we cannot have semi auto rifles or shotguns.

For some reason the dopey hoplophobes who praise our laws think pump action rifles with 10 round magazines and 10 times the effective range of a pump action shotgun are not scary and allowed to be owned yet they crap their pants at the thought of people owning pump action shotguns or even lever action shotguns that hold more than 5 rounds.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2017 at 6:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 6:13pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 2:39pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20th, 2017 at 11:44am: I dont judge gun owners by the actions of say a Martin Bryant, I judge them by the words of say a Panther or Baron You would be one of a very few, including that piece of sh1t now ex-prime minister of Australia. All gun laws since 1996 are premised on that very concept. To say different is a lie. You have evidence of this "lie", Bigol64?   I seem to remember John Winston Howard always spoke of the cumulative effect of Hoddle Street, Strathfield, etc.  Not just Port Arthur but that was the straw that broke the camel's back, without a doubt.  Just too many lies told by too many gun nuts who didn't understand that their gun ownership was a privilege, not a right, under Australian law.    ::) Never said it was a right, liar, not a good start there brian if you need to lie to support your feeble argument.

Where did I claim YOU had, "lied", Bigol64?  That is unless you admit to being a "gun nut"?   ::)


Quote:

Everything I sated is in fact very true; howard is a piece of sh1t there is no doubting that by anyone.

On many things yes, I agree, he is a piece of poo but on gun control?  Nope, he saw it and he called it and the overwhelming majority of Australian voters supported him.  Gun control has never been an election issue 1996.   Even the supposedly "pro-gun" politicians have not attempted to make it one.


Quote:

Every gun law is based on the premise that gun owners are to be considered as potential mass murderers. Howard made sure of that at very opportunity and it continues today.

No, gun laws are based on the idea that you need to demonstrate your need to own a gun, Bigol64.  There is no pre-determined guilt nor any claims that all gun owners are "mass murderers".   Indeed, considering that there are now more guns owned than were before Port Arthur, you'd have to question your attitude towards the gun laws.  It seems most Australians don't agree with you.


Quote:

BTW Im NOT a gun owner, I just hate lying pieces of sh1t.

That is your option, Bigol64 just don't assume that the majority of Australians agree with your view WRT to firearms ownership.   John Howard lifted the circuit breaker and Australia has changed as a consequence.   

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 26^th, 2017 at 6:25pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 6:13pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 2:39pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20th, 2017 at 11:44am: I dont judge gun owners by the actions of say a Martin Bryant, I judge them by the words of say a Panther or Baron You would be one of a very few, including that piece of sh1t now ex-prime minister of Australia. All gun laws since 1996 are premised on that very concept. To say different is a lie. You have evidence of this "lie", Bigol64?   I seem to remember John Winston Howard always spoke of the cumulative effect of Hoddle Street, Strathfield, etc.  Not just Port Arthur but that was the straw that broke the camel's back, without a doubt.  Just too many lies told by too many gun nuts who didn't understand that their gun ownership was a privilege, not a right, under Australian law.    ::) So when it's Muslims - it's only a minority . But when it's guns your minority argument doesn't apply??????? :-/

Gun owners reacted badly when their gun owning privileges were changed.   I have a single word for them.  It's "tough".   Get used to it.  Gun ownership under Australian law is not a right and never has been, it has always been a privilege.   Time the gun nuts woke up to just how unpopular their viewpoint on gun ownership is in Australian society.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 26^th, 2017 at 9:00pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 6:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 6:13pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 2:39pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20th, 2017 at 11:44am: I dont judge gun owners by the actions of say a Martin Bryant, I judge them by the words of say a Panther or Baron You would be one of a very few, including that piece of sh1t now ex-prime minister of Australia. All gun laws since 1996 are premised on that very concept. To say different is a lie. You have evidence of this "lie", Bigol64?   I seem to remember John Winston Howard always spoke of the cumulative effect of Hoddle Street, Strathfield, etc.  Not just Port Arthur but that was the straw that broke the camel's back, without a doubt.  Just too many lies told by too many gun nuts who didn't understand that their gun ownership was a privilege, not a right, under Australian law.    ::) So when it's Muslims - it's only a minority . But when it's guns your minority argument doesn't apply??????? :-/ Gun owners reacted badly when their gun owning privileges were changed.   I have a single word for them.  It's "tough".   Get used to it.  Gun ownership under Australian law is not a right and never has been, it has always been a privilege.   Time the gun nuts woke up to just how unpopular their viewpoint on gun ownership is in Australian society.    ::)

But Brian , only a minority are irresponsible. Don't judge them all the same. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 26^th, 2017 at 9:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 9:00pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 6:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 6:13pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 2:39pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20th, 2017 at 11:44am: I dont judge gun owners by the actions of say a Martin Bryant, I judge them by the words of say a Panther or Baron You would be one of a very few, including that piece of sh1t now ex-prime minister of Australia. All gun laws since 1996 are premised on that very concept. To say different is a lie. You have evidence of this "lie", Bigol64?   I seem to remember John Winston Howard always spoke of the cumulative effect of Hoddle Street, Strathfield, etc.  Not just Port Arthur but that was the straw that broke the camel's back, without a doubt.  Just too many lies told by too many gun nuts who didn't understand that their gun ownership was a privilege, not a right, under Australian law.    ::) So when it's Muslims - it's only a minority . But when it's guns your minority argument doesn't apply??????? :-/ Gun owners reacted badly when their gun owning privileges were changed.   I have a single word for them.  It's "tough".   Get used to it.  Gun ownership under Australian law is not a right and never has been, it has always been a privilege.   Time the gun nuts woke up to just how unpopular their viewpoint on gun ownership is in Australian society.    ::) But Brian , only a minority are irresponsible. Don't judge them all the same. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Who said I did, Hammer?   Tsk, tsk.   There are "gun nuts" and their are law abiding gun owners.  Guess which the Baron is?    ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 26^th, 2017 at 7:45pm:

I have no criminal record never had any mental illness, my last fine was a parking ticket 17 years ago.

Boring is a mental illness.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 27^th, 2017 at 9:15am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 7:45pm: I have no criminal record never had any mental illness, my last fine was a parking ticket 17 years ago. Boring is a mental illness.

Irrelevance is not an argument.

I gave up on a sport I really liked because of laws brought about by nut jobs and hand wringers. I doubt you'd find any health professionals that would consider me unfit to hold a license.

edit: And I've not had a demerit point on my drivers or a parking ticket in over 30 years.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 26^th, 2017 at 9:47pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 9:02pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 9:00pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 6:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 6:13pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 26th, 2017 at 2:39pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 20th, 2017 at 11:44am: I dont judge gun owners by the actions of say a Martin Bryant, I judge them by the words of say a Panther or Baron You would be one of a very few, including that piece of sh1t now ex-prime minister of Australia. All gun laws since 1996 are premised on that very concept. To say different is a lie. You have evidence of this "lie", Bigol64?   I seem to remember John Winston Howard always spoke of the cumulative effect of Hoddle Street, Strathfield, etc.  Not just Port Arthur but that was the straw that broke the camel's back, without a doubt.  Just too many lies told by too many gun nuts who didn't understand that their gun ownership was a privilege, not a right, under Australian law.    ::) So when it's Muslims - it's only a minority . But when it's guns your minority argument doesn't apply??????? :-/ Gun owners reacted badly when their gun owning privileges were changed.   I have a single word for them.  It's "tough".   Get used to it.  Gun ownership under Australian law is not a right and never has been, it has always been a privilege.   Time the gun nuts woke up to just how unpopular their viewpoint on gun ownership is in Australian society.    ::) But Brian , only a minority are irresponsible. Don't judge them all the same. ;D ;D ;D ;D Who said I did, Hammer?   Tsk, tsk.   There are "gun nuts" and their are law abiding gun owners.  Guess which the Baron is?    ::)

You can't be a "nut" and own a gun, that's the law numpty.


You can be a crazed lunatic muslim and have the full support of the lefty soft cocks right up until you 'pull the trigger'.


If all gun owners can be judged by the actions of the one; Im more than happy to judge all muslims by the actions of the hundreds.


Allah akbar muther fkkers.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 5:30am:

You can't be a "nut" and own a gun, that's the law numpty.

Really?  Yet the Baron claims to, Bigol64...

I suggest you take the matter up with the Police if you believe that the Baron is illegally owning a gun, 'cause he definitely is a "gun nut", IMHO.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 5:30am: You can't be a "nut" and own a gun, that's the law numpty. Really?  Yet the Baron claims to, Bigol64... I suggest you take the matter up with the Police if you believe that the Baron is illegally owning a gun, 'cause he definitely is a "gun nut", IMHO.    ::)

Plenty of abos own guns. Are you happy with that?

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 3:57pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 3:51pm: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 5:30am: You can't be a "nut" and own a gun, that's the law numpty. Really?  Yet the Baron claims to, Bigol64... I suggest you take the matter up with the Police if you believe that the Baron is illegally owning a gun, 'cause he definitely is a "gun nut", IMHO.    ::) Plenty of abos own guns. Are you happy with that?

Who owns guns?    ::) ::) ::)

I am not happy with anybody owning firearms.  They are dangerous tools and should be guarded and only issued to those with a demonstrable need for them and the training to use them appropriately and are licensed to do so.   Doesn't matter who has them, if they have no need for them.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 5:30am: You can't be a "nut" and own a gun, that's the law numpty. Really?  Yet the Baron claims to, Bigol64... I suggest you take the matter up with the Police if you believe that the Baron is illegally owning a gun, 'cause he definitely is a "gun nut", IMHO.    ::)

Bwian calls all gun owners gun nuts then says we should not judge all muslims by the devout ones doing Jihad.

I see why bwians forum only has him posting there he is a munafiq (hypocrite). ::) ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 3:51pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 5:30am: You can't be a "nut" and own a gun, that's the law numpty. Really?  Yet the Baron claims to, Bigol64... I suggest you take the matter up with the Police if you believe that the Baron is illegally owning a gun, 'cause he definitely is a "gun nut", IMHO.    ::)

No dickhead YOU are the one claiming baron is owning a gun illegally, because your a fkken hysterical anti-gun clown.


My statement stands, don't dump a bucket of stupid on it and claim it still valid.

BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 6:05pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 3:51pm: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 5:30am: You can't be a "nut" and own a gun, that's the law numpty. Really?  Yet the Baron claims to, Bigol64... I suggest you take the matter up with the Police if you believe that the Baron is illegally owning a gun, 'cause he definitely is a "gun nut", IMHO.    ::) No dickhead YOU are the one claiming baron is owning a gun illegally, because your a fkken hysterical anti-gun clown.

Why thank'ee, Bigol64.  Lowering myself to your schoolyard level is not something I enjoy doing so I won't take your invite.   ::)

I will note that you're the one that claimed "gun nuts" cannot legally own a gun, not me...   ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 13^th, 2017 at 5:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 3:51pm: BigOl64 wrote on Feb 13th, 2017 at 5:30am: You can't be a "nut" and own a gun, that's the law numpty. Really?  Yet the Baron claims to, Bigol64... I suggest you take the matter up with the Police if you believe that the Baron is illegally owning a gun, 'cause he definitely is a "gun nut", IMHO.    ::) Bwian calls all gun owners gun nuts

You have evidence of that, Baron?   ::) ::)

Let me guess. Brian Ross doesn't want to see Australians armed and in a position to defend themselves.
Now what's driving Brian's agenda here???

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2017 at 6:06am:

Let me guess. Brian Ross doesn't want to see Australians armed and in a position to defend themselves. Now what's driving Brian's agenda here???

Whom are they meant to be defending themselves from?  Muslims? Indigenous Australians?  Immigrants?  Asylum Seekers?  Your latest hate group de jour, Bogarde?

My agenda is to prevent lunatics from getting a hold of the weapons which they will use to hurt innocent people.  Doesn't matter if the lunatics are black, blue or Muslims as far as I am concerned.   They are lunatics.

Guess what gun control has done for Australian society?  Made it safer.  When was the last large scale longarm gun massacre downunder, Bogarde?  1996.  Over 20 years ago.   Pretty good going IMHO.   ::)

You can judge many gun owners by the brave actions of this young man with an AR-15.



Update: Woman arrested after Broken Arrow-area man fatally shoots three intruders

Posted: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:00 am

By Kyle Hinchey Tulsa World And Josh Allen Wagoner County American-Tribune | 128 comments

BROKEN ARROW — The son of a Broken Arrow-area homeowner fatally shot three masked intruders, two of whom were juveniles, during a home invasion Monday, authorities said.

Police later arrested an Oologah woman who is believed to be the getaway driver on three complaints of first-degree murder and three complaints of first-degree burglary.

The home invasion and shootings in the 9100 block of Clearview Drive were reported around 12:30 p.m. When Wagoner County sheriff’s deputies arrived, they found one person lying in the driveway and two others lying in the house. All three were dead.

Two of the deceased were 16 or 17 years old, and the third was 18 or 19, Deputy Nick Mahoney said. Their names had not been released by Monday evening.

Mahoney said the homeowner’s 23-year-old son shot the man and two boys with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle after they broke into the house, which is about two-thirds of a mile east of the Broken Arrow city limits in Wagoner County. The property is just south of 91st Street and west of 241st East Avenue.

The three intruders were wearing all-black clothing, masks and gloves, Mahoney said. They forced their way into the home through a glass door in the back, he said.

The son, who lives at the residence, told deputies he was sleeping when he was awakened by “loud bangs” coming from the back door. He armed himself with the rifle and opened fire when the intruders came inside and he encountered them in the hallway, he told the deputies. Two of the intruders died in the kitchen, while the third made his way outside and succumbed to his injuries in the driveway.

Investigators found a knife on one of the deceased in the kitchen and brass knuckles on the other, Mahoney said.

Later that afternoon, 21-year-old Elizabeth Marie Rodriguez of Oologah turned herself in at the Broken Arrow Police Department after seeing media reports about the shootings, Mahoney said.

She reportedly indicated to police that she had driven the three burglars to the house and was supposed to have picked them up after the burglary.

She was booked into the Wagoner County Jail on three complaints each of first-degree murder and first-degree burglary. A person who is committing a felony when a death occurs can be charged with felony murder.

The homeowner and the son, who reportedly did not know the intruders, went to the Wagoner County Sheriff’s Office to submit formal statements. Mahoney said the shootings appear to have been in self-defense, but he clarified that the case will remain under investigation for some time.

The fatal shootings could be viewed by prosecutors as falling under Oklahoma’s “Make My Day” law, which says a resident has the right to use deadly force if an intruder has entered or is in the process of entering the resident’s home.

A neighbor who lives two houses down from the crime scene said she heard the shots from inside her home.

“The shots were so loud — loud enough that I ran to the window to see what had happened,” said the neighbor, who declined to give her name.

“Something in me knew it was gunshots, but I didn’t know what had happened until I went to leave my house and saw all the police officers.”

She said she didn’t remember seeing anything suspicious before the shooting.

However, a neighbor who lives across the street said she saw a suspicious black truck in the neighborhood, close to the house where the intruders were shot, in the hours leading up to the break-in. She said she would pass that information along to investigators.

Mahoney said the events were surprising, considering Wagoner County’s relatively low crime rate.

“This is very, very unusual for us. It’s not something we’re used to,” he said.

“It’s not something we normally have.”

Nevertheless, he said the Sheriff’s Office investigators, who are working in conjunction with Broken Arrow police, are well trained.

“We have some of the best investigators in the state,” he said.

Kyle Hinchey

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/three-dead-after-broken-arrow-area-homeowner-s-son-shoots/article_64c15c80-0019-56d6-9322-c1b93c0ff5d0.html

Australia is not America, Mort.  Just in case you missed that part of the Geography lesson.   ::)

I believe you missed the point, honest people everywhere deserve all the tools needed to survive. An honest persons life is  more valuable than a criminals.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 4:43am:

I believe you missed the point, honest people everywhere deserve all the tools needed to survive. An honest persons life is  more valuable than a criminals.

According to whom?  You and your Wild West mentality?  Sorry, Mort, you have no idea whether that "criminal" you're about to shoot and kill might not be the next Einstein or Pasteur who has been driven to crime by desperation.   Why not simply capture them and hand them over to the Police for the judicial system to judge them?    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 2:41pm:

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 4:43am: I believe you missed the point, honest people everywhere deserve all the tools needed to survive. An honest persons life is  more valuable than a criminals. According to whom?  You and your Wild West mentality?  Sorry, Mort, you have no idea whether that "criminal" you're about to shoot and kill might not be the next Einstein or Pasteur who has been driven to crime by desperation.   Why not simply capture them and hand them over to the Police for the judicial system to judge them?    ::)

That jeezus done rotted your brain.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Not one bit of what you wrote is even remotely worth trying to counter with a decent cogent reply.

---

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 2:41pm:

According to whom?  You and your Wild West mentality?  Sorry, Mort, you have no idea whether that "criminal" you're about to shoot.....

The retarded hoplophobe showing his idiocy again, must be another slow day in your forum bwian.

The Homicide rate was lower in the Wild West days. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

http://www.i.imgur.com/Ayj53JB.jpg

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 4:29pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 2:41pm: According to whom?  You and your Wild West mentality?  Sorry, Mort, you have no idea whether that "criminal" you're about to shoot..... The retarded hoplophobe showing his idiocy again, must be another slow day in your forum bwian. The Homicide rate was lower in the Wild West days. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D http://www.i.imgur.com/Ayj53JB.jpg

Lower population suggest a lower chance to kill people, Baron.  I wonder how the Native Americans seemed to end up considerably reduced in their population?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 6:27pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 4:29pm: Brian Ross wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 2:41pm: According to whom?  You and your Wild West mentality?  Sorry, Mort, you have no idea whether that "criminal" you're about to shoot..... The retarded hoplophobe showing his idiocy again, must be another slow day in your forum bwian. The Homicide rate was lower in the Wild West days. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D http://www.i.imgur.com/Ayj53JB.jpg Lower population suggest a lower chance to kill people, Baron.  I wonder how the Native Americans seemed to end up considerably reduced in their population?   ::)

Why dont you run off and find out why for your ignorant self!

I already know why.

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 2:41pm:

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 4:43am: I believe you missed the point, honest people everywhere deserve all the tools needed to survive. An honest persons life is  more valuable than a criminals. According to whom?  You and your Wild West mentality?  Sorry, Mort, you have no idea whether that "criminal" you're about to shoot and kill might not be the next Einstein or Pasteur who has been driven to crime by desperation.   Why not simply capture them and hand them over to the Police for the judicial system to judge them?    ::)

I am open to any information you can furnish. When has a thief and murderer ever turned his life around and become the "next Einstein or Pasteur".  People don't turn to crime out of desperation, honest labor just doesn't produce the rush or income they seek.

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:14pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 2:41pm: Mortdooley wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 4:43am: I believe you missed the point, honest people everywhere deserve all the tools needed to survive. An honest persons life is  more valuable than a criminals. According to whom?  You and your Wild West mentality?  Sorry, Mort, you have no idea whether that "criminal" you're about to shoot and kill might not be the next Einstein or Pasteur who has been driven to crime by desperation.   Why not simply capture them and hand them over to the Police for the judicial system to judge them?    ::) I am open to any information you can furnish. When has a thief and murderer ever turned his life around and become the "next Einstein or Pasteur".  People don't turn to crime out of desperation, honest labor just doesn't produce the rush or income they seek.

I come from a nation which disproves your point, Mort. Australia was founded on the basis of the possibility of reforming criminals and it basically worked.   Try again.   ::)

That one is easy, England had debtors prison. If you owe money and can't pay off to jail you went. If you were caught killing wild game to eat you were sent to prison because the King owned all the wild animals in the Kingdom. I would imagine the majority of convicts sent to Australia were good people who were poor, the Crown dealt with their poor by exporting them! 

Mortdooley wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:44pm:

That one is easy, England had debtors prison. If you owe money and can't pay off to jail you went. If you were caught killing wild game to eat you were sent to prison because the King owned all the wild animals in the Kingdom. I would imagine the majority of convicts sent to Australia were good people who were poor, the Crown dealt with their poor by exporting them!

Ah, you're such a romantic, Mort.   ::)

In reality the overwhelming majority of Convicts transported to Australia were recidivists.   As the main punishments were either death, confinement to the Hulks or transportation, I rather think that most of the Convicts came off pretty well, being sent to here, Mort.   As a friend who had recently migrated to Oz from Ireland at the height of the GFC said, he now realised why so few people ever went back from downunder.   The climate, the people, the food, the booze, all wonders of delight.   Australia is the best example of reform that I know of, Mort.  Crime is low, the living is easy and we have the best beaches in the world.   Admittedly, you need to get used to the wildlife.    ;)

---