Boycott these companies which do not support the right to own arms

Boycott these Democrat stooge companies

Oprah Winfrey anti-gun cheer leader


Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney, are cheer leaders for Obama’s offensive against guns








Over the weekend, Delta and United Airlines – two of the three largest US-based airlines – said they would no longer offer discounted fares to NRA members to attend annual meetings. Both airlines asked the NRA to remove any references to their companies from its website.

Other companies joining the boycott included car rental brands Enterprise, National and Alamo, Avis, Budget and Hertz; First National Bank of Omaha; insurance firm Chubb; digital security firm Symantec; moving services Allied and North American Van Lines; hotel chains Wyndham and Best Western; and MetLife, which offered savings on home and car insurance to NRA members.

Over the weekend, David Hogg, one of the most prominent student activists and a survivor of the shooting, issued a warning to the pro-gun lobby via US morning TV: “You might as well stop now, because we will outlive you.”












Avis, Budget, Hertz rent-a-car; Delta and United Airlines.

Meanwhile, the students’ movement is collecting millions of dollars from celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney, enjoy pro bono advertising from people in Hollywood and organisational know-how from groups including the Women’s March.

Corporate ties to the NRA aren’t the only elements undergoing scrutiny after the Valentine’s Day shooting.

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said he was investigating allegations that police officers who responded from nearby Coral Springs saw Broward County deputies waiting outside the building during the shooting – rather than rushing inside to apprehend the shooter and treat the wounded.

On Thursday, Broward County deputy Scot Peterson, who worked full-time as an armed officer inside the school, resigned because he waited outside.

Some have pointed to the alleged inaction of the local sheriff’s department as a critique of President Donald Trump’s call to arm more school teachers.

Mr Trump has promoted the idea of putting “gun-adept” teachers and staff in schools with concealed firearms to protect students. He has also called for giving bonuses to educators who volunteer to carry a firearm.

In his latest tweet he said: “Armed Educators (and trusted people who work within a school) love our students and will protect them. Very smart people. Must be firearms adept & have annual training. Should get yearly bonus. Shootings will not happen again – a big & very inexpensive deterrent. Up to States.”


About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understand the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen's nose. If we can help to turn it around we will otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no 'government' of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head this year.

Posted on February 27, 2018, in firearms, gun control, Gun Control Australia, guns, Trump and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 27 Comments.

  1. There is no constitutional right to bear arms in Australia. It’s hard to make anyone support a right that doesn’t exist.

    As for the US, all constitutional rulings have affirmed the right of governments to limit the type of weapons available to the public, and the way in which they may be kept and used. A ban on military weapons, silencers, large capacity magazines, repeater shotguns, proper funding and enforcement of background checks, abolition of the gun control loophole, requirements for secure storage on weapons and a ban on (concealed and open) carrying of any firearm in public would most certainly be found not to breach the Second Amendment.

    • So? Right to bear arms, ie to protect one’s self should be a birth right, anyway.
      Don’t need no darn paper telling me it is to support the idea.
      We write it down for the idiots hoping they can at least read!

    • Thall shall not be infringed means what it means and no government has a right to contrariness the constitution there is no gun show loophole when you buy y a firearms from a gun show you still fill out the 4473 which goes through the background check system like anyone else as for th silenceers they are not used is crimes that’s only a Hollywood fantasy land in the real world that doesn’t happen all that does is make it hearing safe for the shooter and everyone else around them the magazine capacity is standard 30 rounds the coomenta you wrote clearly indicate how miss informed you are you really need to stop watching cnn the 1903 ruling to the US constitution actually makes it illegal for congress to pass any gun control without the explicit say of the people disarmed and helpless is exactly why these things keep happening 98.4% of all mass shootings occur in gun free zones for god sakes put the armed security in the schools and allow people (teachers) who all ready have the ccp to protect there students this gives you an imediate deterant and then look at the mental health system where bug pharma hand out anti depressants that give you violent phsycotic tendencies it states it on the label but oh no they don’t want to stop that as it’s billions of dollars every year to the pharmaceutical industry grow up and smell the roses this insnt about saving lives it’s about making a crap load of money and gaining more control.

      • This might be of interest Freedomman
        reply to Mark.
        Sorry Mark we have had our right to carry and bear arms necessary for our self-defence guaranteed in the Holy Bible:

        He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.
        — Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV
        Furthermore the Bill of Rights 1688 further guarantees this inherent right. Now are you going to claim Australia’s Common law foundations are not based on the Bible? No corporate government can remove the inalienable Bill of Rights, although they have had a good try. Just remember there is no lawful ‘government’ in Australia today, just corporations registered on the New York Stock Exchange and answerable only to US corporate law.Ed

    • Sorry Mark we have had our right to carry and bear arms necessary for our self-defence guaranteed in the Holy Bible:

      He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.
      — Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV
      Furthermore the Bill of Rights 1688 further guarantees this inherent right. Now are you going to claim Australia’s Common law foundations are not based on the Bible? No corporate government can remove the inalienable Bill of Rights, although they have had a good try. Just remember there is no lawful ‘government’ in Australia today, just corporations registered on the New York Stock Exchange and answerable only to US corporate law.Ed

      • Thanks again I was aware of that but for some reason at the time I couldn’t recall the actual date of the bill of rights so in the interest of always being factual and to the point with truth and logic not crazed emotion based .

    • Further more they have already had surprem court rulings in multiple occasions in the US that rule just that they are unconstitutional to limit people’s right to self defence so your facts are warped there as well you really need to get off the coolaide and come back to reality every person has the right to defend their gift of life not only their own but more importantly their family and you don’t need a government beaurocrat to tell you you can protect your family

  2. Guess what…I am sick to the eyeballs of the Gun Ownership fiasco.. We can see what “they” want and the why Citizens to be UNARMED SITTING DUCKS..The need to defend you and the family is quite apparent in under threat is NOT A GOOD FEELING
    They are definitely MAD…

  3. Time is very important. The 2nd amendment dates to 1787 and calls for a militia to aid the young country after the revolution . Now that America has the world’s largest Defence Force and has no need of a militia, the 2nd amendment is cancelled. Otherwise we are left with the idea the founding fathers intended USA be armed so as to murder future school children. This is not credible. The sooner the NRA is disbanded the safer the USA will be.

    • The 2nd Amendment is NOT cancelled. I don’t know what hell hole you hail from.
      Don’t put words in My Founding Fathers’ mouth – you were never there, and also you sound foreign, too. Learn better English before you comment.
      And the moment we give up our guns is the moment we lose our freedom.
      You must be either a communist agent or a total idiot.
      We need more good guys with guns, that’s for sure.

  4. And of course there was a drill going on at the same time, no doubt the reason that the armed guards did not intervene. Same scenario every time:, there is always a drill going on. This is a deep state move once again to disarm America (the last man standing) ready for the NWO takeover by the U.N. After all that is part of their written agenda.

  5. The founders and framers had just been through a war (1776 – 1783) to rid themselves of an abusive, if not tyrannical, government. They did not want the central government to have a monopoly on the means of force (consider the examples of the USSR and Mao’s China).

    The right of Americans ought not be infringed, and the gun grabbers make use of every mass shooting to push their gun control agenda. But, reasonable restrictions are fine with many of us. This punk, or puke, should not have been able to buy a rifle at age 19. The background check system failed.

    What does not get addressed with all the circulating emotions is the mental health issues underlying so many of these shootings stateside.

  6. I have two firearms as a primary producer. A single barrel shot gun, and a .22 with a ten shot magazine. The only time I use them is to put some poor animal, which some recreational idiot of a shooter has injured, or a car driver has hit, out of it’s misery. The only serious vermin in the country are recreational shooters, motor cars, and farmers who kill roos but don’t eat them – and the cows and deer and rabbits, etc., introduced by idiots and let loose by them. And all the domestic cats and dogs roaming the bush around here. The most deadly weapon in Australia is the motor vehicle, and a gun won’t protect you from that. You gun lobby people are living an a western movie – should try to become aware of what is happening in the 21st. century world from a surviving the breakdown of our life support system perspective – terrorists are not even a minor threat in Australia, compared to step ladders and banana peels on the footpath. You just like to get your rocks off by playing with big guns! And your real enemy is your own state of mind – and the people you vote for, and the people who run them from behind the public eye They will always have the biggest guns, and they will always plays you off, one “team against another” and rule the divided for their own short-term advantage. Guns are toys for nasty, deranged children.

    • And of course the 80% jump in the crime rate and the homicide rate being 225% higher in Australia compared to the US all the Islamic fighters were letting back in to the country and their getting into all areas of our government do you still think there’s nothing to see here it is it yourself who’s living in fairyland?

  7. So much wrong, and so little time! 🙂

    I’ll deal with the true dross first of all: I won’t dignify false flag and crisis actor conspiracies with even acknowledging them beyond this point.

    Next, there is no God and no Jesus. I don’t care how many imaginary friends you’ve got, arguments for gun ownership based on the writings of irrational acolytes of fictitious deities are barely even laughable.

    The Editor’s contention that Australia’s common law foundations are based on the Bible interests me at least enough to ask for an example. Seriously, give me just one.

    Now, more substantively, to the Bill of Rights of 1689, known, for rather arcane reasons, as the Bill of Rights 1688. It was certainly quite revolutionary for its time, appropriately so as it actually accompanied a revolution, though a rather minor one. It is wrong, though, to assume that all rights embodied in it have carried down to the present day. It is simply an act of the English Parliament, and is as subject to amendment or revocation as any other act.

    For one, keeping a standing army in peace time is beyond parliamentary control in Australia, as the constitution (s68) establishes the Governor-General as the commander in chief of the “naval and military forces of the Commonwealth.”

    More appropriate to our present discussion is the Bill of Rights’ provision that Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. This has never been seen as an obstacle to the UK’s rather strict gun laws and is flatly unconstitutional in Australia, given the freedom of religion provisions of s116.

    So much for that Bill of Rights, now for that one in the USA.

    Sadly, you can’t converse with a gun nut without having “Shall not be infringed” thrown at you. Compare it to the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Nobody, and no court, has ever taken this to mean that no restrictions of any kind are allowed on speech.

    Similarly with the Second Amendment. The freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms are not absolute and have never been treated in that way. The Supreme Court decision most favourable to gun owners is DC v Heller (2010) which, for the first time, found that there is an individual right to bear arms but, also, that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”.

    Got that? The highest court in the US has held that it is entirely lawful for government to regulate the type of weapons owned, the purposes for which they are used and the uses to which they are put. So, freedomman, that means the limitations on gun ownership and use which I mentioned would be completely legal.

    Freedomman (who has certainly been successful in freeing himself from the tyrannical constraints of punctuation) contends that there is no gun show loophole. Actually, there is no federal requirement for backgound checks on purchasers at gun shows, and Congress has consistenttly refused to pass one. That’s the gun show loophole. A minority of states have enacted legislation requiring such checks, though at least one state (Nevada) does not enforce the law.

    I’m intrigued by the the “1903 ruling to the US constitution actually makes it illegal for congress to pass any gun control without the explicit say of the people disarmed and helpless.” I’m guessing you’re referring to the Militia Act (or Dick Act) and I’d like someone to read that act, or a summary of it, and tell me what you think it means. It certainly doesn’t say what you think it does.

    Stats. And lies and damned lies.

    Latest figures I could find have the Australian homicide rate at 1.0 per 100,000 and that of the US at 5.1 per 100,000. How is there a 225% higher rate in Australia.

    As for overall crime figures , the “80% jump in the crime rate” just ain’t true. The overall crime rate in most of the western world, Australia and the US included, has been falling for decades now, as is well known and thoroughly documented.

    Please feel free to bring up any of your arguments that I’ve missed. Failing that, does anyone have some actual facts to support their arguments?

    PS I don’t watch CNN (or cnn).

    • I suggest you actually do more research for yourself and you will find as of 1933 Australia become a private company listed in Washington DC we were basically bought out by the bankers and their private company’s do nothing in this country is legitimate after this time period as per the homicide rate in the US if you take out the 5 states that account for 80 % of the crime rate in the Us there crime rate is lower than the Uk and yes wait for it Lowry than ours here in Australia having said that if you were confronted with a situation and you had to protect your own self and your family I know what I would prefer to be armed and able to protect my self. As for the gun show loophole again your living in fantasy land it doesn’t exist.

    • I will add since concealed carry has been in effect in the US since the mid 90’s the US crime rate has dropped some 51% the mass public shootings have dropped 70% there are today some 17,000,000 ccp holders and as that rate goes up the crime rate goes down look it up it’s called google. And if your really feeling adventurous look up John Lott more guns less crime.

      • John Lott is a proven intellectually dishonest fraud. You don’t have to trust me on this, just take what he claims and compare it to the actual sources which he quotes.

        This 1933 business sounds horribly like you’re verging on sovereign citizen nuttery. Can you provide a source for your contention?

        The loophole: are you contending that federal law (or, indeed, the law of all states and territories) does indeed require background checks? Your source?

        Are you saying that the US has a lower crime rate than Australia if you omit many of the crimes committed in the US? That’s hilarious, if true. Frankly, it still sounds like rubbish to me, but I’ll have to look into it. That’s called research.

        As for guns in the home for “protection”, it’s pretty well documented that more family members than outside attackers are killed by using them. Lots more.

    • SNOPES
      Dear Mark I have little time to debate and it would be fruitless because obviously you are an atheist. Australia’s Monarchical Constitutional system of government, needs no explaining and I suggest if you read the preamble you will find all the references to God that are needed. Being an atheist the Ten Commandments would therefore be unknown to you but I can assure you the 10 Commands of God are indeed the basis of our Constitutional system of government and the cornerstone of orderly life itself. It seems you live outside of Australia so I suggest you ask the numerous school students rushing from the Florida school being interviewed by local television stations. Three students said there were more than one shooter and a quite reserved teacher said there was a man dressed in full body armour with a military helmet firing shots 20 feet from her. Sorry old mate but methinks you are probably connected to the fake news show Snopes or the dodgy CIA. Thanks for trying but our readers have seen all of this before. Ed

      • Dearest Editor,

        I really don’t what to argue false flag rubbish; it just helps to give it credence. I will, though, state that people’s recollections of events will always vary, to the extent that most eyewitness evidence is virtually useless. Put those people under extreme stress, and you compound the effect.

        The preamble to the Constitution has one (1) mention of God and no mention of Western Australia. Make of that what you will. Regardless, the preamble has never had any legal effect.

        I know the commandments quite well, I find Christianity and its history fascinating. In so far as they have impacted our legal system, there are a couple of remnants there from our theocratic British past (Britain, remember, is still a theocracy, with an established State Church) and some common sense rules for humans living together, which predate the Bible. The rest are irrelevant and unconstitutional nonsense.

        We’ll use the Protestant version here, as I’m guessing that’s what’s most familiar to you. (There are at least four – five if you count the Qu’ran – of extracting ten commandments from the relevant chapters of Exodus and Deuteronomy*.)

        You shall have no other gods before me
        – Religious nonsense. Unconstitutional in Australia under s116.

        You shall not make for yourself an idol
        – What? Why? Probably a reflection of Judaism’s polytheistic origins.

        You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
        – Remnants can be found in blasphemy laws. probably unconstitutional

        Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
        – Still in evidence in a few places (Sunday trading laws), but a dying remnant and hardly “the cornerstone of orderly life itself.

        Honour your Father and Mother
        – Not evident in law, but pretty much commonsensical, unless they beat the crap out of you.

        You shall not murder
        You shall not commit adultery
        You shall not steal
        You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour; you shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife
        – Basic rules to enable a society in peace, none of which were new to Judaism.

        Additionally, the Golden Rule of which Christians seem so proud and proprietorial, arose separately, earlier and independently in many other cultures and traditions. It’s such a basic idea that you really don’t need an obscure, and possibly fictitious, itinerant preacher to come up with it.

        Snopes and the CIA? WTF? Are you suggesting that either of those organisations employs people to go around correcting falsehoods in bush league web sites? Where do I sign up for the money?**

        What makes you think I don’t live in Australia? Please do answer this one, I’m interested in your reasoning.

        I apologise for the disjointed nature of this post; I was just addressing your points one at a time, rather than composing a more coherent presentation,

        *Do you really think that Moses took the trouble to write out the story in full twice, and to make the versions different?

        **Seriously, though, I like to consider myself a moral, if fallible, person, and there’s no way you’d catch me anywhere near such an abhorrent organisation as the CIA.

      • Mark it seems you have quite a lot of time on your hands. Why not ask why former senate President Stephen Parry left his $328,000 a year job? You might be better off using your research ability to go after Parry et al whose antecedents include a Tasmania copper; undertaker, embalmer and senator then senate President. Please don’t run the official line of dual citizenship disqualification. Try Port Arthur involvement. Good luck. When you find the easy answer let us know. Regards to all, Ed

  8. Robert Chapman

    Mark you’re wasting your time, your comments go straight over the heads of the people you are trying to educate because they’re red necks meaning they’re beyond comprehending anything, you couldn’t tell them how to boil an egg and if you did they’d find some absurd argument on why you should eat them raw!

  9. So this is for everyone why is it is every state in the US that has enacted conceal carry laws a lot of them now for more than 20 years not one state has rescinded these laws, instead the opposite is occurring all over they are constantly trying to strengthen these laws to make it easier for people who want to get their permit to do so. And John Lott has had his research peer reviewed multiple times and they have all come back with similar or the same results. You look at a country like Mexico rated the most violent country in the world, guns are outright banned in the hands od the civilian population .Yet they have annual around 150,000 people each year killed by the armed to the teeth drug gangs and further more the corrupt Mexican government. Every where were guns are heavily regulated or out right banned their is no country on the planet that has not seen a dramatic spike in their overall crime rate. Another good example is Switzerland they are even more liberal on civilians owning and possessing guns in the home and their crime rate is lower than the US again, and yes they do have more fire arms per capita than the US. Just go and look it up it’s called Google.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s