IF WE HAD A 2ND AMENDMENT, WE’D STILL HAVE ABBOTT
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
The undemocratic removal of an elected PM only to replace him with a government of diametrically opposed philosophy would ensure any country was up in arms… and unfortunately we would also have had Whitlam for bit longer, but another politician took all our arms away.
The US founding fathers foresaw these possibilities and gave the people arms to protect themselves from tyrannical politicians. Okay so the arms have become a little more sophisticated than the Blunderbusses of the time.
You had plenty of time to reconsider what you were doing when it took a good two minutes to reload.
If a few thousand people rocked up to Capitol Hill with loaded guns, politicians would be scattering across the aisle like frightened mice in a wheat silo. The founding fathers knew that power corrupts and only the people's guns would convince politicians to carry out their duties judiciously or piss off.
A million children world-wide protested US gun laws this week and their protests will not make an ort of difference because those children were not carrying guns, they were carrying bloody placards, with which they could only threaten you with a decent headache.
It they had used the 2nd amendment and rocked up to the White House with an AK-47 each you can bet the West Wing would be in an apoplectic panic, because their lives, and not the children’s, would be at stake this time.
So school shootings will continue.
There will be a Constitutional change to the 2nd Amendment (which is part of the Bill of Rights) but it will only be a minor change.
The Yanks have been through a war with the British and a civil war so it’s fresh in their minds what can happen… things like Whitlam and Abbott can, and do, still happen in countries without a 2nd Amendment.
The problem with banning guns is that then only the bad blokes and the government will have them but the bad blokes and the government don’t really care about Amendments or Bills of Rights anyway. The good blokes, their families, and other countries are then exposed.
Yes, Howard took our guns away, but he didn’t take our knives away, or stop us making bombs or stop us driving vehicles into crowds. There will always be bad blokes and we should have a right to protect ourselves from those bastards. At the moment the Government wants us to have a nice piece of varnished 4 by 2 pine for protection.
There are more guns than people in the US and the Howard solution is past being possible.
In Switzerland gun crime is almost non-existent despite virtually every home having a military weapon.
Our gun crimes have dropped in number, knives are now the weapon of choice for crims, jihadists aren't affected because they can’t decapitate you with a gun anyway and suicides are by hanging and texting while driving.
Guns are only one of a dozen ways to kill someone but the only and best form of protection.
The ideological, lunatic Left in the US puts signage on schools saying they are “gun free” zones. So when some mentally disturbed bum wants to shoot some schoolkids and he’s faced with a sign saying a school is “gun free” and another sign saying a school is “weapon protected”, which school do you want your kid attending?
Here’s the conundrum, Americans who want guns outlawed need guns to change the Constitution, so that then only they can have the guns to control the population and obliterate countries like Iraq. Hmmm.