The Forum > Article Comments > Disarming the good guys will not prevent massacres > Comments
Disarming the good guys will not prevent massacres : Comments
By David Leyonhjelm, published 18/12/2012Gun control laws could not have prevented the latest massacre in America. The problem is disarming the good guys.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
-
- All
Hasbeen, you lack credibility. "It also makes us much less capable of forming a credible militia, in time of emergency, similar to the one that saved us on the Kokoda track in WW11." Wrong on both counts - not a militia, and didn't 'save us' as the Japanese weren't, at that point. planning to invade Australia. Which is not to belittle in any way the valour and sacrifice of those involved.
Posted by Candide, Monday, 24 December 2012 7:32:13 AM
| |
Candide,
Perhaps the Australian War Memorial can settle it without further bloodshed. http://www.kokodatreks.com/history/newguineaforces/australianmilitia.cfm Regarding the argument that Japan didn't plan 'at that stage' to invade Australia, that was because Japan believed that Australia would immediately capitulate to Japanese rule if the shipping link with the US was broken. As well, Australians were very fortunate that Japan's generals believed Australia had a substantial trained professional force in reserve. Who would ever believe that our feckless government didn't? Our governments of either persuasion still over-commit out forces overseas, showing a cavalier regard for home defence. But even in spite of that the generals were firmly convinced that Australians were weak willed and had no 'bottle' for the casualties of invasion, so a later invasion was on the cards. The Midway mistake if not made, could have spelled a quick occupation. The Battle of the Coral Sea - thanks to those young Americans who never returned home and many more who would never be the same again - stopped Japan's hopes. That is why countries like Switzerland maintain a trained civilian military force. It is quite a deterrent that a large, committed force that is trained and ready within hours. But the 'committed' civilian population means a lot too, to a potential invader. Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 24 December 2012 9:06:32 AM
| |
On The Beach,
The militia was part of the army. They did not exist as an independent spontaneous uprising of citizens. They were trained (very badly) and equipped by the govt as part of the military forces of Australia. This was part of a deliberate policy of having a "two tier army" made up of AIF and militia. As to Japanese intent, that is irrelevant because those fighting on the Kokoda Track were not to know that the Japanese did not intend to invade. The efforts of the 39th Battalion on the track demonstrated that with leadership and training militia units could perform as well as the AIF. " the 'committed' civilian population". By this i assume you mean industrial quantities of Rambos. This argument is perpetrated as part of a fantasy land populated by paranoid "heroes" who will rise up to overthrow the tyrant world government-inspired Washington/Canberra bureaucrats out to take our liberties from us. It is laughable. Unfortunately the deaths caused as a result of this kind of puerile fixation are not. Posted by Shalmaneser, Monday, 24 December 2012 9:49:28 AM
| |
Shalmaneser, "By this i assume you mean industrial quantities of Rambos"
No, I don't mean that at all. It is your imagination. I will not bother with the rest as I have already posted the information from the Australian War Memorial. Anyone interested can do more research from that reliable source. Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 24 December 2012 9:11:04 PM
|