Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: We are fighting back and the message is getting through.

  1. #1
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    We are fighting back and the message is getting through.

    We Law abiding Citizens are finally getting the message out there in Australia. We must fight back regardless of what laws the government introduces.

    Here is an on gowing result of a Poll being run by a prominent Newspaper today!

    Haz.

    Poll in Daily Telegraph. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1226143059065

    Results: Today's poll
    Thanks for voting!

    Should homeowners be entitled to defend their homes from intruders?
    Yes
    99.09% (3801 votes)
    No
    0.91% (35 votes) Total votes: 3836

    Says it all.
    Haz.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    That's great news Haz. Now hopefully you all can turn those positive poll results into positive action. I wonder why there is not more push back by citizens over self-defense especially when the percentage of those who believe in it is so high.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    That's great news Haz. Now hopefully you all can turn those positive poll results into positive action. I wonder why there is not more push back by citizens over self-defense especially when the percentage of those who believe in it is so high.
    Hi mate,

    Were working on them. Never let up. The anties chickens have finally came home to roost!

    So far only about 1% of the total in favour. I reckon its the lawyers voting to retain their need to represent. Feel free to click on the link and vote.

    Haz.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  4. #4
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by poll
    Should homeowners be entitled to defend their homes from intruders?
    Yes 99.09% (3801 votes)
    No 0.91% (35 votes)
    Total votes: 3836
    It scares me that anyone would vote no.
    Perhaps they were confusing defending property with defending themselves in that property when someone violently & illegally tries to enter it?

    And even the wording rankles... "should they be entitled"?
    How about "do they have the right".
    A change in mindset is needed.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Over five thousand voting "yes". I guess it's because I'm an old dumb South Alabama Redneck, but I always thought that defending one's life, family, and property was a right and sacred duty. I can't wrap my old, tired brain around not being "allowed" to defend self, family, or property.

    Granted, I would not take someone's life over property, but this gentleman was in a definite self-defense situation. The stun gun in the thief's hand changed the dynamics to where the homeowner had little choice.

    Haz, you guys keep hammering your politicians. It'll be a long, hard, and probably bloody fight, but you can win it. As an amateur military historian, I know entirely too much about the fighting quality of Australians to believe otherwise. You folks are not ones to just give up in a fight.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Over five thousand voting "yes". I guess it's because I'm an old dumb South Alabama Redneck, but I always thought that defending one's life, family, and property was a right and sacred duty. I can't wrap my old, tired brain around not being "allowed" to defend self, family, or property.

    Granted, I would not take someone's life over property, but this gentleman was in a definite self-defense situation. The stun gun in the thief's hand changed the dynamics to where the homeowner had little choice.

    Haz, you guys keep hammering your politicians. It'll be a long, hard, and probably bloody fight, but you can win it. As an amateur military historian, I know entirely too much about the fighting quality of Australians to believe otherwise. You folks are not ones to just give up in a fight.
    Hi SFC, Thanks for your support which encourages me to keep up with our struggle.

    I just checked to see how the poll was running. Here is the latest, which I think may be the last poll count at 3:12pm this afternoon. Poll could be closed soon?

    Results: Today's poll
    Thanks for voting!

    Should homeowners be entitled to defend their homes from intruders?

    Yes. 98.85% (8137 votes)

    No. 1.15% (95 votes) Total votes: 8232


    Just shows how people are beginning to react to our governments stupid anti firearms, and armed self defence is illegal laws. People are beginning to realise that the firearms ban is a failure and has enabled armed criminals. The stun gun used by this perp is a prohibited weapon in Australia, so as far as I am conserned the victim was entitled to use as much force as possible to defend himself. A neighbour has come forward and made a statement to police that she heard the victim call the perp back saying he was injured and would seek help for him? The perp fled to a waiting car driven by an accomplice and they both fled. Also it has now been released that the perp was known to police and was due to appear in court tomorrow on other criminal charges.

    How the hell can police even considder charging the victim with murder????????????????????????????
    Last edited by Haz.; 09-22-2011 at 02:23 AM.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Results: Today's poll, Daily telegraph:

    Results: Today's poll, Daily telegraph:
    Should homeowners be entitled to defend their homes from intruders?

    Thanks for voting!

    Yes, 98.82% (10798 votes)

    No, 1.18% (129 votes)

    Total votes: 10927.
    ************************************************** ****************
    Richard, remember the saying; "Every village has its idiot?"

    This poll result proves beyond doubt that the majority of people are in favour of armed self defence at least in the home, and that a village of 10927 sane law abiding citizens has at least 129 idiots! Just enough to require the building of a small mental assylum by the river.

    Regards, Haz.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Dial 000 twice and wait, and wait, and wait, for, sorry too late.

    Check this out guys! Our life saving system's nothing to get excited about is it?

    Our over worked and understaffed police officers, under the order of our government now can do nothing more than advise people not to take matters in their own hands and risk injury if and when attacked by anyone. They advise Law abiding citizens who have been dissarmed to dial 000 which is the main emergency number, or Crime Stoppers after the event. Below is an example of how the system works, or should I say doesnt work? Haz.
    ************************************************** 8



    Penelope 'Penny' Pratt's 000 call fell on deaf ears.

    Mark Dunn, Jessica Craven
    From: Herald Sun
    September 24, 2011 12:00AM
    Penelope "Penny" Pratt, 27, was shot three times after an argument over a $160 drug debt on November 28 last year. Source: Supplied
    TWO frantic 000 calls by a woman who was murdered minutes later went unheeded after an emergency operator was unable to obtain precise information and did not pass the request for attendance to police. Pratt, 27, who was shot three times after an argument over a $160 drug debt on November 28 last year.



    Read More: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mor...-1226144956177
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  9. #9
    Regular Member PDinDetroit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,336
    The point to make is that Every Person has a Right To Life and therefore a Right and a Duty to Protect that Life.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by PDinDetroit View Post
    The point to make is that Every Person has a Right To Life and therefore a Right and a Duty to Protect that Life.
    Contrarily, the same could be said of criminals, so who are we to blow them away?

    The only salient argument is that rights under the law can be forfeited by activity contrary to the law. Therefore, if a criminal attempts to unlawfully (without legal cause) deprive me of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he has forfeited his own rights and I may lawfully blow him away.

    Er., I may lawfully defend myself against him up to and including whatever force is necessary to stop his unlawful deprivation of my own rights.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Contrarily, the same could be said of criminals, so who are we to blow them away?

    The only salient argument is that rights under the law can be forfeited by activity contrary to the law. Therefore, if a criminal attempts to unlawfully (without legal cause) deprive me of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he has forfeited his own rights and I may lawfully blow him away.

    Er., I may lawfully defend myself against him up to and including whatever force is necessary to stop his unlawful deprivation of my own rights.
    We aspire to inspire before we expire dont we!
    Cheers haz.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Indeedy. Cheers!
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •