Confiscation has begun

[Brains]

There was no internet back in 1776, only smart men who passed along copies of writs or charters between monarchs and commoners ... as Ben Franklin stated....

B.S. How else did Ben Franklin text George Washington about how worried he was about Abraham Lincoln freeing his slaves? He even used the 'mad' emoji to drive home the point. I just wish he wasn't driving down the freeway while he wrote it.

 

[easy rider]

Funny you should say that, for they had to shut down one of those along hwy 16 near Bremerton. Not because it was unlawful, but because it caused too many accidents on the highway.

 

[343Gatter]

This country is neither a former penal colony, nor one with servile citizens weaned on the class distinctions of European monarchy, whom we have already had to bail out in two world wars.

Well to be honest man I was really enjoying this thread, however when I see blatantly incorrect cheap shots like this I have to say something.

Your country had many penal colonies which were dumping grounds for the British. Along with hefty portions of your caucasian population were also slaves (the Irish slave trade) who were valued less and treated worse than your African and other ethnic slaves. This was not uncommon at the time, no need to pretend your country was the exception and has some pure untainted lineage or something.

Showing up in the last 6 months of WW1 (when the majority of German forces remaining on the Western front were poorly trained barely out of school boys by that time) and assisting the fight in a tiny portion of a global war (hence the name, WW1), hardly counts as "bailing them out".

No one discounts the efforts and sacrifices every soldier makes for their country and the countries of others, no matter whether they fought 1 day or 1000 days. But don't sit here and turn it up like that.

 

[Younggun]

Well to be honest man I was really enjoying this thread, however when I see blatantly incorrect cheap shots like this I have to say something.

Your country had many penal colonies which were dumping grounds for the British. Along with hefty portions of your caucasian population were also slaves (the Irish slave trade) who were valued less and treated worse than your African and other ethnic slaves. This was not uncommon at the time, no need to pretend your country was the exception and has some pure untainted lineage or something.

Showing up in the last 6 months of WW1 (when the majority of German forces remaining on the Western front were poorly trained barely out of school boys by that time) and assisting the fight in a tiny portion of a global war (hence the name, WW1), hardly counts as "bailing them out".

No one discounts the efforts and sacrifices every soldier makes for their country and the countries of others, no matter whether they fought 1 day or 1000 days. But don't sit here and turn it up like that.

As to penal colonies, it's inportant to realize the reason those being sent found themselves in such positions. Also to the degree in which they were sent versus other colonies in areas such as Australia. Although Australia has had ample time to move on from such past events just as the African American populations in the US. We choose what we learn from our past, and how we should move forward with that knowledge. I don't believe Australias past is as much a factor as the European influence since.


Aside from funding Britain during the first years of the war...
You are grossly understating both the German troops (recently reinforced due to the treaty with Russia) and the American presence (over 2 million troops by the end of the war) which arrived just as Germany was driving in to the heart of allied territory with a massive offense. They were in one area because in that area the war was on the verge of being lost.

I think you should do more research on the American influence as it relates to WW1.

 

[AustinN4]

Your country had many penal colonies which were dumping grounds for the British.

Your country? Where the hell are you?

 

[easy rider]

First of all, Welcome!

What penal colonies were these? I know there were many that left England due to political reasons and probably some unwanteds sent here, but I'm not aware of the penal colonies.

 

[gringogigante]

THis is a false story - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seattle-police-confiscate-mans-guns-without-warrant/

 

[AustinN4]

Fake news? Who would'a thought?

 

[Davetex]

I think I remember learning that the area of Georgia was an English penal colony pre USA, but my memory is foggy.

 

[benenglish]

THis is a false story

The most interesting thing about that link is that the ACLU (at least one chapter) is, in principle, on the side of the gun owners in these actions.

Now, that's funny.

 

[easy rider]

THis is a false story - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seattle-police-confiscate-mans-guns-without-warrant/

I pretty much figured that out when I heard open carry. That would be reason for getting arrested and gun confiscated in Seattle.

 

[karlac]

Well to be honest man I was really enjoying this thread, however when I see blatantly incorrect cheap shots like this I have to say something.

So which country failed to teach you any history?

 

[CptnRn]

First of all, Welcome!

What penal colonies were these? I know there were many that left England due to political reasons and probably some unwanteds sent here, but I'm not aware of the penal colonies.

I think I remember learning that the area of Georgia was an penal colony pre USA, but my memory is foggy.

Curious about this I searched Wikipedia and found the following. The penal colonies were a British creation.

British Empire
Penal colony in the Andaman Islands (c. 1895)
The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auction them off (for example) to plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America and the majority landed in the Chesapeake colonies of Maryland and Virginia. Transported convicts represented perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century.[1] The State of Georgia, for example, was first founded by James Edward Oglethorpe who originally intended to use prisoners taken largely from debtors' prison, creating a "Debtor's Colony," where the prisoners could learn trades and work off their debts. Even though this largely failed, the idea that the state began as a penal colony has persisted, both in popular history and local lore.[2] The British would often ship Irish, Scots, and The Welsh to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland, Wales or Scotland, but these were sent mostly to Maryland and Virginia, not Georgia.[3]

1. Ekirch, A. Roger (1987), Bound For America: The Transportation of British Convicts to the Colonies, 1718–1775, Oxford University Press.
2. ^ Butler, James Davie (October 1896), "British Convicts Shipped to American Colonies", American Historical Review 2, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History
3. ^ Newman, Harry Wright (1984). To Maryland From Overseas. Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Co. p. 1. ISBN 0806311096.

 

[leVieux]

An article written by Tyler Durden who has managed to get Tony Montanas opinion on the incident which happened to a man who can't be identified and open carries a .25 automatic holstered on his belt.



Sounds legit.

All-around weird !

 

[343Gatter]

Aside from funding Britain during the first years of the war...
You are grossly understating both the German troops (recently reinforced due to the treaty with Russia) and the American presence (over 2 million troops by the end of the war) which arrived just as Germany was driving in to the heart of allied territory with a massive offense. They were in one area because in that area the war was on the verge of being lost.

I think you should do more research on the American influence as it relates to WW1.

I don't disagree that the US contributed to the allies in WW1 prior to their military involvement, but to what degree it changed the course of the war is debatable. Interestingly enough many US companies also paid massive royalties to German companies which in turn use that money to churn out equipment for the German army throughout the same war period when US companies were manufacturing equipment for the Allies under German patent. Of course the US were not blatantly funding the enemy, and certainly not more than they were funding the Allies, but it's a quirky fact nonetheless.

The Russians surrended in early March, the Kaiserslacht (the last great offensive of the Germans in WW1) which was launched bolstered by the reinforcements from the German Eastern front around late March.

Every non-hollywood history, even US unit histories state the Americans were largely not used in the halting of the Kaiserslacht offensive which heavily chewed up last of the German veterans and the US held no particular area of responsibility along the front and were largely held in reserve due to majority of them being very inexperienced at that time. Rather the already experienced American units (from other conflicts) were brought in as reserves and mixed with Australian and New Zealand units to fill gaps during the defence of the Kaiserslacht offensive. The end state of this is that, the US land forces alone did not decisively tip the balance against the Germans on the western front. Considering that the British Commonwealth, French, German, Dutch, Belgian, Portugese, Ottomans, Italians were also fighting across their colonies right across the world in smaller battles by scale, far more costly due to geography.

In regards to penal colonies I really don't get your point on that. Myself being an Australian and I use to live in Texas for a while (hence why I am on here), I can not see this vast difference of mindset between Australians and Americans you state. We are very much not like Europeans in their sense of culture and social heirachy, infact we are very resistant to any form social heirachy, far less than your average American even. We are far more similar than you think, both in history and present, the Texan would be more akin with a Queenslander (state of Australia) than he would with a Californian. In some ways the average Australian enjoy more freedom than the average American, in some ways it is vice versa.

I do apologise for detracting from the conversation at hand, however historical misconceptions are hard to scroll past haha.

 

[oldag]

One big difference between Texans and Aussies. We have not given up our guns.

 

[karlac]

I do apologise for detracting from the conversation at hand, however historical misconceptions are hard to scroll past haha.

My original blurb, which you took exception to, stands the test of historical fact, to wit:

Australia is the only continent colonized with penal colonies starting, in 1788.

The Brits tried it in North America, until the American's kicked the POME bastards out in 1776.

Australia continued being colonized with penal colonies until 1886.

Both the surrender of Japan, and the Japanese Occupation and it's subsequent rebuilding of Japan's economy, were both accomplished and financed by the US.

Any insinuation that the US participation in WWII was not paramount in liberating Western Europe, through the providing of ships, arms, material and troops, as well as financing it's reconstruction by the Marshall Plan, is an attempt at revisionist history by the liberal/progressive mindset of a country who's citizens willingly gave up their arms.

Australia has nothing equivalent to a singular Bill of Rights that contains the right to bear arms.

Australian citizens willingly gave up any such right to bear arms in 1996, with almost 90% of the population acquiescing in the doing so.

American have fought, and will continue to fight to keep the citizens right to bear arms.

While it remains to be seen, but based on its actual history, it is highly doubtful that the citizens of this country will do what Australia did in that regard without much blood shed.

Live with it ...

 

[BRD@66]

Your country? Where the hell are you?

Yes

First of all, Welcome!
......

No

 

[easy rider]

I don't mind debating those that have a different point of view, as long as they are willing to debate.

 

[343Gatter]

My original blurb, which you took exception to, stands the test of historical fact, to wit

You can simply google it man. It's no coincidence that the British started sending their indentured servants to contintental Terra Australis (later New Holland, later Australia), about 10 years after the American independence. The British had penal colonies in the US long before the war of independence, even other people on this thread cited references to this. America is no exception. At the same time penal colonies were being set up in Aus, free settlers were arriving and the convicts (indentured servants no longer being accepted in the US) were used as labourers to build towns and infrastructure.

Australia didn't surrender all it's guns in '96, hands down the biggest misconception of the lot. The government gave an option, if you have an unlicenced unregistered firearm (which was already illegal at the time in '96 as licencing and registering of firearms was introduced in the '74), nows your chance to surrender it and we won't ask questions or get it registered if you have an appropriate licence. That and stricter storage laws (you have to keep your gats in a safe) and licence categorisation came in (hunting, sport, occupational, etc).

90% of Australians didn't hand their guns in as 90% of Australians didn't have firearms to begin with. In 96 we had a population of 18 million, there was estimated 4 million legally and illegally owned firearms in Australia. After the buyback, there was 2.3 million legally owned and an estimated million illegal firearms left in circulation. As of today, 2018 there is 3.5 million legally owned firearms and estimated million illegal firearms, with a population of 24 million. So the percentage of ownership never really decreased that drasticaly as you stated. Also about 10-30% of the "surrendered firearms" were sold back into circulation after the buyback as registered firearms anyway.

Civilians still own more firearms than the government, by about 3 million more in civilian hands. I myself own 4 rifles and hunt very regularly (we don't have restricting seasons, hunting permits, bag limits, or need leases etc).

Also, it was not progressives that led the buyback (or surrender as you put it), it was the conservative party in power at the time.

I believe much of what you know of Australian firearm laws, society, history and mindset is largely from biased sources with limited exposure.

On to the world wars,
I don't really know why you're talking about Japan, and I hadn't mentioned WW2 at all to be honest, as no one denies the US contribution to WW2 was vastly significant compared to WW1. Which is why I wasn't arguing your point of the US garganutuan effort in WW2, only stating your point that America saved the day in WW1 as over exaggerated.

But once again, there is debate to be had here, in WW2 the US had what no one else did, and that is time. The US was not equipped to fight anyone effectively in 1939 just as no one else was. Nor really in 1940. And the US Army suffered defeats in the North African desert, Filipines and other theatres just like everyone else did. The US truly was one of the only nations in WW2 that had the luxury of being able to withdraw, regroup, rearm, supply.

The fact is on a manpower ratio the British Commonwealth landed more soldiers than the US on D-Day in Normandy, this was also true of the North African campaign and I think also the Italian Campaign, and I don't even think the US took part in the Greek/Sciliy Campaign, Middle East campaign, nor the South East Asia campaign. The main theatre the US truly tipped the balance in a manpower capacity was the Pacific campaign.

The US true strength in WW2 was its capacity to manufacture and supply. (Even I was always amazed how when I was in the Aus Army the US seemed to have no issue with supplying their guys with fuckin' ice cream and cake in the desert haha), the US turned out more equipment and supplies than anyone else in a shorter amount of time possible at that time, and their means of logistics were astounding, there was no way that the enemy was able to stand up against the volume of armoured vehicles, ships, planes, artillery that the US and USSR could produce.

But the end state here is this, this is not a pissing contest. No one could have done it without the other, and that is the absolute truth. We are allies. Myself I worked closely with the US military in my time in the Army, my own countrymen have fought and died in Afghanistan since 2001 with yours, and Iraq since day 1, and Somalia, and Vietnam and Korea, WW2, WW1, infact Australians also helped supply the Confederates in the US civil war with both men and material (that's a fun fact to read up on). To talk down to my countrymen like you are some higher being that we are some idiotic subserviant slaves under our masters whip is pretty disrespectful to our ancestors who died together and simply, incorrect.

Also yeah, I get the feeling that the original article this thread is about was kinda made up or at leasy extremely embellished. It's appeared on multiple fact check sites as such.