Only a couple of aspects of the Australian Model would legitimately outrage a predictable group. The ban would be retroactive. Citizens would then have to specify why they wish to keep or purchase an unbanned gun. Sufficient reasons would include hunting, pest control, and target shooting. Insufficient reasons would include, notably, “self defense.” Anyone with a demented understanding of the Constitution would be outraged by this, and you ought to welcome their outrage. They are a menace.
Douglas Anthony Cooper
December 12, 2012
A Proven Way to End the Gun Slaughter: Will We Fight For it?
[It is critical for the anti-gun people to eliminate the concept of self-defense. It is our strongest point in this battle. Look what we did with the concealed handgun laws in the last 30 years. That was the “tip of the spear” and getting some of our gun rights back.
What is surprising to me is that self-defense, of almost any type, does not resonate with many people from other cultures. Our culture of individualism regards self-defense as self-evident. My communist brother-in-law has flat out told me “the needs of the society outweigh the needs of the individual” and denigrates self-defense and individual rights. Individual rights, to him, hinder “progress” because they inhibit the “advancement” of society as a whole.
My brother-in-law and Douglas Anthony Cooper regard anyone who has a respect for individual rights as a menace to society. Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, and Mao Zedong were in full agreement and demonstrated the “proper” way to deal with such people. It should be no surprise so many of these people want you disarmed. And it should be obvious what they would do if they could acquire the power to deal with you as they wished.—Joe]