Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

Just Another Reason I Like Aussie's

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • About 4 or 5 of those weapons I can legally buy here.
      I am actually planning on buying a rifle shortly. Last had one about 15 years ago.
      To buy a 22 magnum rimfire I have to get a letter from a landowner with more than 1000 acres to say that I can hunt on their property, do a safety test, buy a steel cabinet (about $300) and bolt it to a solid wall in the house, fill in an application specifying why I want it and pay around $300 in fees. Then after at least 6 weeks of processing and police checking of me I can pay $525 and get a Savage bolt action.
      About 5 minutes and $200 in Walmart for you?
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.
    • OzJacko wrote:

      About 4 or 5 of those weapons I can legally buy here.
      I am actually planning on buying a rifle shortly. Last had one about 15 years ago.
      To buy a 22 magnum rimfire I have to get a letter from a landowner with more than 1000 acres to say that I can hunt on their property, do a safety test, buy a steel cabinet (about $300) and bolt it to a solid wall in the house, fill in an application specifying why I want it and pay around $300 in fees. Then after at least 6 weeks of processing and police checking of me I can pay $525 and get a Savage bolt action.
      About 5 minutes and $200 in Walmart for you?
      For a few hundred more, most of us can purchase a fully auto firearm.

      Lest we forget.....



      SSgt Ray Rangel - USAF
      SrA Elizabeth Loncki - USAF
      PFC Adam Harris - USA
      MSgt Eden Pearl - USMC
    • OzJacko wrote:

      About 4 or 5 of those weapons I can legally buy here.
      I am actually planning on buying a rifle shortly. Last had one about 15 years ago.
      To buy a 22 magnum rimfire I have to get a letter from a landowner with more than 1000 acres to say that I can hunt on their property, do a safety test, buy a steel cabinet (about $300) and bolt it to a solid wall in the house, fill in an application specifying why I want it and pay around $300 in fees. Then after at least 6 weeks of processing and police checking of me I can pay $525 and get a Savage bolt action.
      About 5 minutes and $200 in Walmart for you?

      Hmmmmm... Now I see where our gub'ment has been getting their bad ideas from. A few more people have their way up here and it'll soon be easier for you than us. 8| Of course, the harder they make it on us will also equal the more they have to hide their illegal "strategic" gun sales to Mexican drug cartels, etc., etc.
      *

      For once I'd just like to hear myself say, "Great job, self! Why don't you just take the day off."
    • When purchasing a gun most Americans will say it's for protection.
      When purchasing a gun here if you say you want it for protection you will be refused a gun license. We have a police force for protection and you will be considered psychologically unsuitable for a gun license.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.
    • OzJacko wrote:

      About 4 or 5 of those weapons I can legally buy here.
      I am actually planning on buying a rifle shortly. Last had one about 15 years ago.
      To buy a 22 magnum rimfire I have to get a letter from a landowner with more than 1000 acres to say that I can hunt on their property, do a safety test, buy a steel cabinet (about $300) and bolt it to a solid wall in the house, fill in an application specifying why I want it and pay around $300 in fees. Then after at least 6 weeks of processing and police checking of me I can pay $525 and get a Savage bolt action.
      About 5 minutes and $200 in Walmart for you?
      Give or take a hundred bucks depending on model. Ruger 10/22's are very popular because of tactical options.
      Changes Daily→ ♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫ ♪♫♪♫♪♫ ← Don't blame me. It's That Lonesome Guitar.
    • A few years ago I went out with my father in law on his farm to get some roos for dog food. 22 Hornet rifle.
      He had 9 bullets.
      I used 2 to check scope settings, got 3 roos and gave him 3 bullets back.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.
    • OzJacko wrote:

      We have a police force for protection
      Yeah, we don't have that problem. Our illustrious courts have ruled time and again that the police have no duty to protect any of us up here (and often won't in some of the bigger cities I've lived in.)

      The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm
      nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politic…y-to-protect-someone.html

      held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

      Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
      gunssavelives.net/blog/supreme…otect-the-general-public/

      These are just a couple of quick search engine snippets. But there are an endless list of cases and examples where we are more and more being left to our own resources. Many smaller and more rural areas around the country seem to still have LEO's that care about their community. But many of the larger cities and metro areas have building a big blue wall that disconnects them from their neighbors, local shop owners, etc., for some time now. Add to that two decades of police militarization and us citizens are getting left to fend for ourselves more and more every day.

      I'm glad their still out there scraping scum off the sidewalk most days (I can't imagine how thankless of a job it is to deal with some of the idiots they have to deal with sometimes) and when there's gun fire in public most of them are running towards instead of away from it - noble, indeed.

      However, barring some large scale incident or the ability to wait 20 minutes for them to show up, most citizens are pretty much on their own.

      Though, on the flipside of that, I did get the biggest laugh of my life when I seen one of the local suburban PD's up here (with far too much money in their budget, apparently) doing traffic stops in a freakin armored vehicle! That little dog and pony show had me laughing for a week straight.
      *

      For once I'd just like to hear myself say, "Great job, self! Why don't you just take the day off."
    • OzJacko wrote:

      We have a police force for protection and you will be considered psychologically unsuitable for a gun license.
      the same attitude European countries have towards weapons ownership,

      However a couple of Americans were recently honoured by the French for taking matters into their hands and subduing a terrorist on a train.

      Lest we forget.....



      SSgt Ray Rangel - USAF
      SrA Elizabeth Loncki - USAF
      PFC Adam Harris - USA
      MSgt Eden Pearl - USMC
    • g00gle wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      We have a police force for protection

      Though, on the flipside of that, I did get the biggest laugh of my life when I seen one of the local suburban PD's up here (with far too much money in their budget, apparently) doing traffic stops in a freakin armored vehicle! That little dog and pony show had me laughing for a week straight.
      I find this incident as described not funny, but an extremely sad commentary on this department's view of the community supposedly served.

      Lest we forget.....



      SSgt Ray Rangel - USAF
      SrA Elizabeth Loncki - USAF
      PFC Adam Harris - USA
      MSgt Eden Pearl - USMC
    • Dan76 wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      We have a police force for protection and you will be considered psychologically unsuitable for a gun license.
      the same attitude European countries have towards weapons ownership,
      However a couple of Americans were recently honoured by the French for taking matters into their hands and subduing a terrorist on a train.
      Yes but they did it without guns.
      ;)
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.
    • OzJacko wrote:

      Dan76 wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      We have a police force for protection and you will be considered psychologically unsuitable for a gun license.
      the same attitude European countries have towards weapons ownership,However a couple of Americans were recently honoured by the French for taking matters into their hands and subduing a terrorist on a train.
      Yes but they did it without guns.;)
      True...but they didn't wait for the gendarmes to show.

      Lest we forget.....



      SSgt Ray Rangel - USAF
      SrA Elizabeth Loncki - USAF
      PFC Adam Harris - USA
      MSgt Eden Pearl - USMC
    • Dan76 wrote:

      I find this incident as described not funny, but an extremely sad commentary on this department's view of the community supposedly served.

      Brother, if you find that disturbing, then just don't leave the house. I don't mean to sound like a smartass by that. But a bunch of the stuff (Humvee, MRAP, etc.) that has rolled back from Iraq and A-stan has been getting bought up by local departments all over the country for quite a few years now. Combine that with all of the surplus and aftermarket tactical gear and weapons that even traffic stop cops are sporting these days and you start to form some grim prospects.

      How about the damper that got put on my day when my wife and I were trekking through one of our local parks a few months back and we crossed paths with a local park ranger wearing black BDU's bloused in to his boots and a (frighteningly overloaded) black tac vest. I couldn't tell if we should ask about trail conditions or compliment him on shooting Bin Laden. (These guys used to wear green outfits with tan shirts and answer questions about local plant life. Now they strut around wearing class III plate carriers and looking at park visitors like we're all trespassing.)

      To be blunt, the Oathkeepers may be the only thing left standing between our great republic and an all out police state.
      *

      For once I'd just like to hear myself say, "Great job, self! Why don't you just take the day off."
    • Dan76 wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      Neither would the average Aussie.
      How true...Especially the ones I know.

      Yup! I'm no language expert, but I do know that the common Aussie verbiage has been formed through years and years of cultural influence. And while most of their modern language still seems based on the same English system that spread around the globe over the last 500 years, some damn fool forgot to add the word fear to the Australian lexicon. Poor folks been running around for a few hundred years missing out on being afraid. 8)
      *

      For once I'd just like to hear myself say, "Great job, self! Why don't you just take the day off."
    • milkman wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      About 4 or 5 of those weapons I can legally buy here.
      I am actually planning on buying a rifle shortly. Last had one about 15 years ago.
      To buy a 22 magnum rimfire I have to get a letter from a landowner with more than 1000 acres to say that I can hunt on their property, do a safety test, buy a steel cabinet (about $300) and bolt it to a solid wall in the house, fill in an application specifying why I want it and pay around $300 in fees. Then after at least 6 weeks of processing and police checking of me I can pay $525 and get a Savage bolt action.
      About 5 minutes and $200 in Walmart for you?
      Give or take a hundred bucks depending on model. Ruger 10/22's are very popular because of tactical options.
      My neighbor has one, kept the action and threw everything else away and replaced it, 24X scope, could shoot the eyes out of a squirrel at 100 yds, I'm looking for one of their break down models to use backpacking/hunting.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.
    • Dan76 wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      We have a police force for protection and you will be considered psychologically unsuitable for a gun license.
      the same attitude European countries have towards weapons ownership,
      However a couple of Americans were recently honoured by the French for taking matters into their hands and subduing a terrorist on a train.
      I was a little disappointed they didn't kill the terrorist, then I heard one of them interviewed, he took his pistol and tried to shot him but it didn't work, then tried to shoot him with his rifle, it didn't work....at least he pistol whipped the hell out of him.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.
    • g00gle wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      We have a police force for protection
      Yeah, we don't have that problem. Our illustrious courts have ruled time and again that the police have no duty to protect any of us up here (and often won't in some of the bigger cities I've lived in.)
      The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm
      nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politic…y-to-protect-someone.html

      held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

      Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
      gunssavelives.net/blog/supreme…otect-the-general-public/

      These are just a couple of quick search engine snippets. But there are an endless list of cases and examples where we are more and more being left to our own resources. Many smaller and more rural areas around the country seem to still have LEO's that care about their community. But many of the larger cities and metro areas have building a big blue wall that disconnects them from their neighbors, local shop owners, etc., for some time now. Add to that two decades of police militarization and us citizens are getting left to fend for ourselves more and more every day.

      I'm glad their still out there scraping scum off the sidewalk most days (I can't imagine how thankless of a job it is to deal with some of the idiots they have to deal with sometimes) and when there's gun fire in public most of them are running towards instead of away from it - noble, indeed.

      However, barring some large scale incident or the ability to wait 20 minutes for them to show up, most citizens are pretty much on their own.

      Though, on the flipside of that, I did get the biggest laugh of my life when I seen one of the local suburban PD's up here (with far too much money in their budget, apparently) doing traffic stops in a freakin armored vehicle! That little dog and pony show had me laughing for a week straight.

      Yup, I've heard and read about this.

      But people think some odd things about court orders.

      One of my relatives works in family issues and drug rehab and has appeared in court speaking as a defendant representative.

      Court orders to block some one, like an ex-spouse, coming onto your property doesn't stop them from coming onto the property. It just gives the police reason to arrest them if they do come onto the property. Its doesn't block anything. Then you might see people being upset on television claiming a court order should have blocked someone.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.
    • Several times over the past 20 years peple tell me gun laws will protect us all.

      I then point out that since criminals don't obey the laws, why do they think more gun laws will do anything but harm law abiding citizens ?

      They then claim I'm an NRA member. I point out I'm not. I don't get the connection between what I said and what they said... unless they've been told that pointing out the reason criminals are criminals is they don't obey the law is something only NRA members can realize. The people who argue with me evidently have no idea criminals don't obey laws.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.
    • I have said before, our gun laws won't work for you.
      You would have had to adopt them 100 years ago.
      You have had Pandora open the box. You already have the guns and a huge number of gun owners who won't give them up.
      Hopefully you can find a solution but I can't think of one.
      Despite the expense and hoops I have to jump through I will have no trouble getting a gun. But if I had a violent record etc I wouldn't. I also can buy a gun suited for hunting game. A gun designed primarily to kill people is a different matter. Perhaps that is one area that you can get change. Have a bolt action to hunt deer but why an ak47 with full metal jacket ammo.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.
    • JimBlue wrote:

      Several times over the past 20 years peple tell me gun laws will protect us all.

      I then point out that since criminals don't obey the laws, why do they think more gun laws will do anything but harm law abiding citizens ?

      They then claim I'm an NRA member. I point out I'm not. I don't get the connection between what I said and what they said... unless they've been told that pointing out the reason criminals are criminals is they don't obey the law is something only NRA members can realize. The people who argue with me evidently have no idea criminals don't obey laws.
      although i support the second amendment, and i dont believe any new laws are necessary, except for instant background checks, as well s eliminating the gun show exemption, somehow we do need to address an unacceptable level of gun violence in our country.
      its all good
    • I support our 2nd admendment & gun ownership. I also support background checks. I also support some common sense laws like limiting the number you can buy at one time. It was a problem in New England when gangs were getting relatives or other residendents down south to legally purchase 6 handguns at a time & then ship them up north to sell on the street. Just common sense to me that something is suspcious. I also believe there should be some basic training or test should be required. You need it to drive a car. Isn't owning a firearm as or more potentially dangerous in an untrained hand. Just common sense to me & not unreasonable.
    • g00gle wrote:

      Dan76 wrote:

      I find this incident as described not funny, but an extremely sad commentary on this department's view of the community supposedly served.
      the Oathkeepers
      :thumbup:

      OzJacko wrote:

      I have said before, our gun laws won't work for you.
      You would have had to adopt them 100 years ago.
      You have had Pandora open the box. You already have the guns and a huge number of gun owners who won't give them up.
      Hopefully you can find a solution but I can't think of one.
      Despite the expense and hoops I have to jump through I will have no trouble getting a gun. But if I had a violent record etc I wouldn't. I also can buy a gun suited for hunting game. A gun designed primarily to kill people is a different matter. Perhaps that is one area that you can get change. Have a bolt action to hunt deer but why an ak47 with full metal jacket ammo.
      I have a solution...start punishing criminals instead of sending them to a country club, our justice system has become an incentive for crime, if a person intentionally kills someone they die, within 3 months, a person goes to jail they do hard labor and eat crap, no TV, no gym, no nothing but misery so they don't want to come back...second offenders I'd treat badly...pisses me off that we're more concerned about the rights of criminals than the victims, as far as I'm concerned you forfeit your rights when you commit a crime...we need to focus on eliminating crime more so than punishing...if the punishment is bad enough few will commit the crime.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.
    • hikerboy wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      Several times over the past 20 years peple tell me gun laws will protect us all.

      I then point out that since criminals don't obey the laws, why do they think more gun laws will do anything but harm law abiding citizens ?

      They then claim I'm an NRA member. I point out I'm not. I don't get the connection between what I said and what they said... unless they've been told that pointing out the reason criminals are criminals is they don't obey the law is something only NRA members can realize. The people who argue with me evidently have no idea criminals don't obey laws.
      although i support the second amendment, and i dont believe any new laws are necessary, except for instant background checks, as well s eliminating the gun show exemption, somehow we do need to address an unacceptable level of gun violence in our country.
      Hikerboy, I almost agree with "somehow we do need to address an unacceptable level of gun violence in our country". I would reword it to say "somehow we do need to address an unacceptable level of violence in our country" Without the word "gun" maybe we can address the real problem - violence.
    • OzJacko wrote:

      I have said before, our gun laws won't work for you.
      You would have had to adopt them 100 years ago.
      You have had Pandora open the box. You already have the guns and a huge number of gun owners who won't give them up.
      Hopefully you can find a solution but I can't think of one.
      Despite the expense and hoops I have to jump through I will have no trouble getting a gun. But if I had a violent record etc I wouldn't. I also can buy a gun suited for hunting game. A gun designed primarily to kill people is a different matter. Perhaps that is one area that you can get change. Have a bolt action to hunt deer but why an ak47 with full metal jacket ammo.

      There is no such thing as a gun/rifle only suitable for hunting food/game.

      The laws in the US that banned assault rifles went for cosmetic differences. The law didn't ban actual assault rifles.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.
    • chief wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      JimBlue wrote:

      Several times over the past 20 years peple tell me gun laws will protect us all.

      I then point out that since criminals don't obey the laws, why do they think more gun laws will do anything but harm law abiding citizens ?

      They then claim I'm an NRA member. I point out I'm not. I don't get the connection between what I said and what they said... unless they've been told that pointing out the reason criminals are criminals is they don't obey the law is something only NRA members can realize. The people who argue with me evidently have no idea criminals don't obey laws.
      although i support the second amendment, and i dont believe any new laws are necessary, except for instant background checks, as well s eliminating the gun show exemption, somehow we do need to address an unacceptable level of gun violence in our country.
      Hikerboy, I almost agree with "somehow we do need to address an unacceptable level of gun violence in our country". I would reword it to say "somehow we do need to address an unacceptable level of violence in our country" Without the word "gun" maybe we can address the real problem - violence.
      both need to be addressed. criminals still have too easy a time of it to get guns.in addition. gun safety course should be required for ownership.
      its all good