Does anyone else besides me, see the insanity of voting for a
government, that takes our money, (Taxes are theft) to buy guns and give them
to men, who will come and take our guns from us? So they can extort even more
money and property from us?
“The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property.” John Locke
So why do we put up with this system?
We do not have a 2nd Amendment, but we do have A Bill of Rights and our Monarch is Bound by Oath to uphold it.
We do not have a 2nd Amendment, but we do have A Bill of Rights and our Monarch is Bound by Oath to uphold it.
British Funny Hat Championships keep the plebs happy.
Royal Weddings are just diversions to placate the masses, a fancy hat
competition, while it reminds thinkers that the keeper of our “Rights and
Privileges” who swears to uphold them in the Coronation Oath is not doing her
job. Our Constitutions State and Federal gives the Queen the power to disallow
all State and Federal Legislation that contravenes her Coronation Oath to
preserve the peoples Rights and Privileges.
Commonwealth Constitution of Australia Act 9th July 1900.
Disallowance by the Queen.
59. The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.
The legal obligations surrounding the Coronation Oath are set out in Halsbury’s Laws of England.
“28. The Crown’s duty towards the subject. The essential duties of the Crown towards the subject are now to be found expressed in the terms of the oaths which every monarch is required to take before or at the Coronation. The duties imposed by the coronation oath are:
(1) to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the dominions etc belonging or pertaining to them according to their respective laws and customs;
(2) to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all judgments, to the monarch’s power;
it is declared that ‘whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof and all the kings and queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same…the same are….ratified and confirmed accordingly.”
Bill of Rights s 1; Act of Settlement, Magna Carta of 1215.
Commonwealth Constitution of Australia Act 9th July 1900.
Disallowance by the Queen.
59. The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.
The legal obligations surrounding the Coronation Oath are set out in Halsbury’s Laws of England.
“28. The Crown’s duty towards the subject. The essential duties of the Crown towards the subject are now to be found expressed in the terms of the oaths which every monarch is required to take before or at the Coronation. The duties imposed by the coronation oath are:
(1) to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the dominions etc belonging or pertaining to them according to their respective laws and customs;
(2) to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all judgments, to the monarch’s power;
it is declared that ‘whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof and all the kings and queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same…the same are….ratified and confirmed accordingly.”
Bill of Rights s 1; Act of Settlement, Magna Carta of 1215.
The Bill of Rights 1689, first listed the wrongs,
“by causing Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;” then proclaimed the right to address that problem.
“by causing Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;” then proclaimed the right to address that problem.
“Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their
conditions and as allowed by law;”
Which in effect gave that right to all who were law abiding.
As the Monarch of the day has disallowed parliamentary legislation in
the past why did this not occur with the legislation that in effect stole those
rights from us all.
It was not that shooters were a minority, at present over 20% of the electorate, it was because we were complacent, we left it to someone else to defend our rights, our placid conservatism silenced our rage. Yes, some of us, not even 1 % walked down the streets of our capitals, and even less wrote a letter of dissatisfaction, then nearly all handed in firearms, some even handed in all they had and walked away. Falsely believing that is would not effect them, so why worry about it.
It was not that shooters were a minority, at present over 20% of the electorate, it was because we were complacent, we left it to someone else to defend our rights, our placid conservatism silenced our rage. Yes, some of us, not even 1 % walked down the streets of our capitals, and even less wrote a letter of dissatisfaction, then nearly all handed in firearms, some even handed in all they had and walked away. Falsely believing that is would not effect them, so why worry about it.
We lost our property, we lost our pride and we lost the right to
defend our families and property. As I knew many years ago that disarmament of
the people was not a public safety issue, or misinformed politicians, that it
followed and international agenda to suit people who wanted control of all
systems of power.
In the 1980s I was called a Conspiracy Theorist,
In the 1990s I was a Fear Monger,
In the 2000s I was an Agitator
In the two thousand teens I am called a prophesier. Like the original
Cassandra, I too was cursed to utter prophecies which were true but which no
one believed.
A hundred years ago we were free to own property, when land was
purchased you owned the land, the sky above it and the soil below it to the
centre of the earth. You owned the water that fell on it and the water below
it. You owned the timber on it and the gold under it, All property was sacrosanct,
inviolable, impregnable, bomb proof, religion defended it and the law
guaranteed it. They hanged horse thieves and any sort of property theft was
going to deserve a fate sometimes worse than death transportation. You could
lawfully kill anyone who was attempting to steal your property.
I can remember 40 years ago thinking, the world has been turned up
side, but never really grasped the idea, that free people could fall so far
into the cess pit of socialism. I can remember a work mate telling me before
long that the government would do anything for money, that before long they
would legalise all gambling, they would tax the casino’s, that they would
legalise prostitution and run the brothels, that they would legalise the drugs
and sell them cheaper than cigarettes. Not quite on the drugs yet but they are
handing them out for free. It looks like my mates prophecy will be true, but
will we care?
“Whoever owns the soil, holds title all the way up to the heavens and
down to the depths of hell”.
Originally, the common law position was that the minerals belonged to the landowner: they were regarded as an inherent product of the land itself. The common law assumed that the person who owned the land owned not only the surface of the earth, but also the space above that surface and the soil below that surface.We are now conquered slaves, but knowing that public safety was Not the reason for the imposition of firearm restrictions made some of us think about the real reason that governments were so desperate to impose their firearm controls.
Originally, the common law position was that the minerals belonged to the landowner: they were regarded as an inherent product of the land itself. The common law assumed that the person who owned the land owned not only the surface of the earth, but also the space above that surface and the soil below that surface.We are now conquered slaves, but knowing that public safety was Not the reason for the imposition of firearm restrictions made some of us think about the real reason that governments were so desperate to impose their firearm controls.
Look now, See what we have all lost, and yes ‘All of us have lost’,
the media tells us that farmers have lost the right to clear vegetation from
their own land, so the farmers, like firearm owners, are isolated by the media
and the politicians they are the only ones affected, it does not affect you Mr
and Mrs Average, but it does, and the loss for one property right affects us
all. Not just in the price of food and its production but in the loss of your
property rights when its your turn for the government to take what’s yours.
‘No Man is an Island’
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne 1624 AD.
No one really protested with Peter Spencer who perched himself on a
wind-monitoring mast on his Shannon’s Flat property north of Cooma and went on
a hunger strike in 2009.
He was an individual who fought for compensation for not being allowed to clear his property under NSW native vegetation laws and accurately warned that this would eventually affect every farmer in Australia. Well he was right.
He told the press that he would not eat or come down until the then
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd would admit that the Australian Government owes
farmers like him $100 billion for capturing carbon in their vegetation that
they have lost the use of due to land clearing bans.
Mr Spencer said the farmers’ case was like the Government coming to a
$1 million suburban home in Canberra and taking three quarters of its equity to
fund services. That was a warning but the rest of the people did nothing, just
got on with making the most out of what they have, until the government steals
their property rights. Just the same as they ignored the law abiding firearm
owners. Mr Spencer lasted 53 days and had an eviction notice from the
government a few days later.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to
think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.
Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under
is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” H. L. Mencken
Same with water, we ignored the warnings of farmers being licenced to
pay for the water in their own Dams, not just water pumped from a creek or
river, but water that falls from the sky on their own property. The next attack
on property rights came to our attention in July 2017 when a levy was
introduced by the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management
(NRM) Board in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges. (WMLR)
The amount charged for the levy is calculated according to how much
water each farmer is allowed to use under their licence, not how much water
they actually use. This must be paid on top of having their Dam water licenced.
Wording on the bills says failure to pay for the levy within 90 days may result in debt collectors being sent. Any farmers refusing or unable to pay the levy will be obliged to relinquish their licence. Farmers have 90 days to pay before debt recovery action is initiated
Wording on the bills says failure to pay for the levy within 90 days may result in debt collectors being sent. Any farmers refusing or unable to pay the levy will be obliged to relinquish their licence. Farmers have 90 days to pay before debt recovery action is initiated
Seventeen independent Fleurieu farmers in the dairy, beef and
horticulture industries protested but where were the farmers from the rest of
South Australia or the rest of Australia as this sort of cancer spreads
quickly.
In South Australia, the state government claims that a person’s roof is the same thing as “land”. Under section 124 of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004, water flowing over land is surface water, and rights to surface water are vested in the state.
National water policy is embodied in the National Water Initiative Agreement. Clause 2 of the Agreement says, “In Australia, water is vested in governments that allow other parties to access and use water for a variety of purposes”. The Federal Government claims that rainwater falling on roofs is vested in governments.
In South Australia, the state government claims that a person’s roof is the same thing as “land”. Under section 124 of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004, water flowing over land is surface water, and rights to surface water are vested in the state.
National water policy is embodied in the National Water Initiative Agreement. Clause 2 of the Agreement says, “In Australia, water is vested in governments that allow other parties to access and use water for a variety of purposes”. The Federal Government claims that rainwater falling on roofs is vested in governments.
On February 27, 2007, the state government released its “runoff
policy” for surface water in surface water prescribed areas. A “water user”
capturing rainwater in excess of 500 kilolitres requires a water licence, and
then may be eligible to pay a water based levy if that water is used for
commercial purposes. The policy applies to rainwater tanks, on the presumption
that water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks in South Australia is
“surface water”.
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in
5 years there’d be ashortage of sand.” Milton Friedman
Same too with the mineral rights under the ground, this was the
property of the owner and of special interest to me as beneath Gympie is a huge
bed of Coal that goes up the coast as far as Bundaberg with that coal is a huge
deposit of Shale Oil and Gas, when diesel fuel is reaching $1.50 a litre and I
know that I’m sitting on deposit of fuel that is worth more than any lottery
win in the world, I know its 450 metres below the surface but I want to drill
down and use that oil and gas to run my vehicle and alleviate my electricity
bills. As it is now, the State and Federal Governments make billions more out
of the increased taxation percentage from the higher prices. The longer the
people’s resources stay in the ground, un utilised the higher the prices go.
Fuel Diesel and petrol have been manufactured from Coal since the beginning of
the 20 century and in the 1940s Coal was supplying 91 % of Germany’s engine
fuel. The process of making Diesel from Coal was first developed when Rudolph
Diesel was pioneering the Diesel engine. Standard Oil (Rockefeller’s) sold the
process of manufacturing petrol to IG Farben in the 1930s. It is just a different
refining process and we have vast amounts of coal to use and ultimately that
resource belongs to the individuals that own the land that above it.
Originally, the common law position was that the minerals belonged to
the landowner: they were regarded as an inherent product of the land itself.
The common law assumed that the person who owned the land owned not only the
surface of the earth, but also the space above that surface and the soil below
that surface.
Your property used to be your Castle.
Australians rightly perceived their homes as their Castle, and this was represented in the movie The Castle, as the Kerrigan family fought attempts by the government to resume their land in order to expand the airport. This view of a man’s land as his castle harks back to the origins of Common Law and it was acknowledged by the 17th Century Jurist Lord Coke who pronounced that ‘Everyone is to him as his Castle and Fortress’.. In doing so, the landowner essentially enjoys a right to exclude any person from entering his land. This common law position a landowner’s right to control those who enter his land over land has been altered by statute in all jurisdictions in Australia, granting the Crown the right to reserve ownership and control over petroleum (including Coal Seam Gas) and minerals. The case Plenty v Dillon confirmed in law that a landholder has a right to exclude others from entering their land as a trespasser. This case involved a successful action for trespass brought by a landowner against two police officers who entered premises without consent. The High Court of Australia concluded the landowner did not grant an implied consent to the police offers to enter the premises, and therefore held that the police officers were trespassing.
Australians rightly perceived their homes as their Castle, and this was represented in the movie The Castle, as the Kerrigan family fought attempts by the government to resume their land in order to expand the airport. This view of a man’s land as his castle harks back to the origins of Common Law and it was acknowledged by the 17th Century Jurist Lord Coke who pronounced that ‘Everyone is to him as his Castle and Fortress’.. In doing so, the landowner essentially enjoys a right to exclude any person from entering his land. This common law position a landowner’s right to control those who enter his land over land has been altered by statute in all jurisdictions in Australia, granting the Crown the right to reserve ownership and control over petroleum (including Coal Seam Gas) and minerals. The case Plenty v Dillon confirmed in law that a landholder has a right to exclude others from entering their land as a trespasser. This case involved a successful action for trespass brought by a landowner against two police officers who entered premises without consent. The High Court of Australia concluded the landowner did not grant an implied consent to the police offers to enter the premises, and therefore held that the police officers were trespassing.
Under common law, landowners owned sub-surface minerals and could
prevent anyone from excavating them; as doing so would constitute a trespass.
The only qualification was the right of the Crown to extract gold and silver,
characterised by the common law as “Royal Minerals”.
Most landowners in Australia presume that they have absolute
ownership over their land, and therefore the right to refuse others from coming
onto their land. Given the common law position regarding rights over land, and
the concept of trespass to land that was reinforced by Plenty v Dillon,
landholders mistakenly presume that they have the right to exclude petroleum
companies from entering their land. This common law position was, however,
significantly limited when specific State legislation vested the ownership of
minerals contained within the soil of private landholdings in the Crown.
In Victoria, the Mines Resource (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (Vic) states that the Crown owns all minerals (with a few small exemptions). Similar provisions exist in other states.
This statutory vesting means private landowners no longer control the minerals in their sub-surface soil, even though they continue to own the land itself. As owner of the minerals, the Crown is legally entitled to grant exploratory or mining licences to mining companies, allowing companies to explore for or extract sub-surface minerals. The effect of this process upon private landholdings is often devastating.
This legislation is known as a Crown reservation in respect of minerals and petroleum. Queensland – Crown rights over Coal Seam Gas under the land In Queensland, this reservation is outlined in section 27 of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Gas) 2004 (Qld) (PGPGA), which notes that a Crown grant is taken to contain a reservation to the state of all petroleum on or below the surface, and the exclusive right to undertake petroleum activities of to authorize others to undertake petroleum activities. Furthermore, section 26 of the PGPGA states that petroleum is the property of the State, and a person does not acquire any property in relation to the property irrespective of whether the property is freehold or leasehold. Therefore, under the concept of Crown reservation, the Crown in Queensland owns all of the petroleum under the land, and has the right to take the petroleum or grant a title to another in order to explore for and/or produce petroleum, including coal seam, or shale gas. This means that under the system of law in Australia, the Queensland government can allow separate interests to be held over a single property. This concept, known as fragmentation of property rights, means that the land can be owned by a farmer as a freehold interest, yet entitle a petroleum company to hold a title that allows it to enter the property to search for and produce gas. Australia is not the United States The position in the United States regarding minerals ownership and Crown reservation differs to the Australia. In the US, the development of onshore gas resources operates under a system of private ownership of resources, known as the law of capture. Under the US system of land tenure, a landowner has absolute ownership over his land (known as allodial title). This includes ownership over all of the resources (including petroleum) that lie under the land he owns. In the USA since the landowner owns all of the resources under his land, he has the right to accept or refuse offers from a company to develop these onshore gas resources.
In Victoria, the Mines Resource (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (Vic) states that the Crown owns all minerals (with a few small exemptions). Similar provisions exist in other states.
This statutory vesting means private landowners no longer control the minerals in their sub-surface soil, even though they continue to own the land itself. As owner of the minerals, the Crown is legally entitled to grant exploratory or mining licences to mining companies, allowing companies to explore for or extract sub-surface minerals. The effect of this process upon private landholdings is often devastating.
This legislation is known as a Crown reservation in respect of minerals and petroleum. Queensland – Crown rights over Coal Seam Gas under the land In Queensland, this reservation is outlined in section 27 of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Gas) 2004 (Qld) (PGPGA), which notes that a Crown grant is taken to contain a reservation to the state of all petroleum on or below the surface, and the exclusive right to undertake petroleum activities of to authorize others to undertake petroleum activities. Furthermore, section 26 of the PGPGA states that petroleum is the property of the State, and a person does not acquire any property in relation to the property irrespective of whether the property is freehold or leasehold. Therefore, under the concept of Crown reservation, the Crown in Queensland owns all of the petroleum under the land, and has the right to take the petroleum or grant a title to another in order to explore for and/or produce petroleum, including coal seam, or shale gas. This means that under the system of law in Australia, the Queensland government can allow separate interests to be held over a single property. This concept, known as fragmentation of property rights, means that the land can be owned by a farmer as a freehold interest, yet entitle a petroleum company to hold a title that allows it to enter the property to search for and produce gas. Australia is not the United States The position in the United States regarding minerals ownership and Crown reservation differs to the Australia. In the US, the development of onshore gas resources operates under a system of private ownership of resources, known as the law of capture. Under the US system of land tenure, a landowner has absolute ownership over his land (known as allodial title). This includes ownership over all of the resources (including petroleum) that lie under the land he owns. In the USA since the landowner owns all of the resources under his land, he has the right to accept or refuse offers from a company to develop these onshore gas resources.
Can see from the above that firearm ownership is tied to freedom, and
the ownership of property. If the Americans ignore their Rights under the
Second Amendment as we have in Australia and Britain they could expect to lose
all remaining Rights as we have.
Can we see that our American cousins are Free and we are Slaves?
Do we have a government that sees us as property?
Are we just ‘Tax Produces’ who barely own the breath in our lungs?
Remember my opening questions,
“Does anyone else besides me, see the insanity of voting for a government, that takes our money, (Taxes are theft) to buy guns and give them to men, who will come and take our guns from us? So they can extort even more money and property from us?
Are we just ‘Tax Produces’ who barely own the breath in our lungs?
Remember my opening questions,
“Does anyone else besides me, see the insanity of voting for a government, that takes our money, (Taxes are theft) to buy guns and give them to men, who will come and take our guns from us? So they can extort even more money and property from us?
We need an Oliver Cromwell not to remove the system that has served
free people for hundreds of years, but an Oliver that could make a Monarch
follow their Coronation Oath, and sacking a tyrannical parliament with the
words.
“Mr. Speaker. May I have your permission to address this assembly? By all means, sir. My lords, honourable members… …I have always desired, above my life, a free Parliament… …sitting by the authority of the good people of this nation. A Parliament open and visible, to be seen by all men. Instead of uniting the good people of this nation… …with righteousness and peace… …which would have been a glorious and Christian thing to have done… …what do I find? Anarchy, corruption… …division and dissatisfaction. I say that the enemies of this nation… …have flourished under your protection. You were from the beginning a provisional government… …not truly representative of the people. For have the people elected you? Has this House gone once to the people it purports to represent? No, it has not! And after six years of misgovernment, what do we find? Sir Thomas Fairfax moves a bill to give this House a further lease… …of its worthless and dishonourable life! Gentlemen, an immovable Parliament is more obnoxious… …than an immovable king! You are drunkards, tricksters, villains, whoremasters… …godless, self-seeking, ambitious tricksters. You are no more capable of conducting the nation’s affairs… …than you are of running a brothel! You are scum, sir. And not truly elected scum at that. This is no Parliament. I shall put an end to it. I hereby declare this Parliament dissolved! – Colonel Harrison! – Yes, sir. Troops forward! (Speech from the movie Cromwell)
“Mr. Speaker. May I have your permission to address this assembly? By all means, sir. My lords, honourable members… …I have always desired, above my life, a free Parliament… …sitting by the authority of the good people of this nation. A Parliament open and visible, to be seen by all men. Instead of uniting the good people of this nation… …with righteousness and peace… …which would have been a glorious and Christian thing to have done… …what do I find? Anarchy, corruption… …division and dissatisfaction. I say that the enemies of this nation… …have flourished under your protection. You were from the beginning a provisional government… …not truly representative of the people. For have the people elected you? Has this House gone once to the people it purports to represent? No, it has not! And after six years of misgovernment, what do we find? Sir Thomas Fairfax moves a bill to give this House a further lease… …of its worthless and dishonourable life! Gentlemen, an immovable Parliament is more obnoxious… …than an immovable king! You are drunkards, tricksters, villains, whoremasters… …godless, self-seeking, ambitious tricksters. You are no more capable of conducting the nation’s affairs… …than you are of running a brothel! You are scum, sir. And not truly elected scum at that. This is no Parliament. I shall put an end to it. I hereby declare this Parliament dissolved! – Colonel Harrison! – Yes, sir. Troops forward! (Speech from the movie Cromwell)
Oliver we need another Oliver.
With yet another school shooting in the USA we will be assaulted by
the anti gun and anti freedom paparazzi we will have to feed the chickens, yet
again with truth. These links will assist.
Don’t forget to mention where Gun Control Australia, Get Back and the
Open Society and the friends of the ABC and SBS get their funds from. Its
foreign intervention of the politics of our country, this socialistic support
that has worked away like white ants, deviously destroying the wishes and
aspirations of the Australian people. This link concerns Florida but his money
via his foundation organisations syphon money from the International Mega
Corporation through to Unions and the Australian Labor Party and the Greens.
The Genesis for these international agenda are the big banks and oil companies
that rule the world. They want to ensure that resources stay in the ground,
they want us all on the world wage, they want no country boundaries. They want
us poor and defenceless so that they can exploit what was once our resources
without any interruptions.
Minutemen volunteers facing off British soldiers who had orders to
disarm them, on Lexington Common, Massachusetts, in the first battle in the War
of Independence, 19th April 1775. Original artist William Barnes Wollen.
After the above event Patrick Henry made a statement that has
resounded though the centuries.
“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.” “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.” “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
There is no Spring without Winter, without Mistakes there is no
Learning. There is no Life without Death, without Doubts there is no Faith.
There is no Peace without War, without Fear there is no Courage. For without
Mistakes, Doubts and Fears there are no pathways to Wisdom.
Ron Owen
http://www.owenguns.com/ad-category/used-guns/
Ron Owen
http://www.owenguns.com/ad-category/used-guns/
