Obama Dreams Of Gun Confiscation

originally posted by: Layaly
May I ask who in this thread is an AU resident?

I am. I truly can't tell by the responses . they will make more sense when I will go back and read the tread

much appreciated and I respect everyone's privacy too

25 people responded so far

a reply to: Ultralight

Well, I might try to "use the Force" too, but that doesn't mean I can throw lightning or levitate objects.

Same goes for the gun-grabbing. It's logistically impossible, outside of divine intervention or alien invasion.

originally posted by: Layaly
originally posted by: Layaly
May I ask who in this thread is an AU resident?

None of the regular Aussie poster's seem to have contributed to this thread (there may be ones I don't know about). Most of them are usually to timid to post in threads about American gun regulations, lol.

Who wants a laugh?

Whether you're pro or anti, this is 15 minutes of an Aussies take on US gun control - Port Arthur gets a mention.

BTW a very close friend of mine was (and still is) a tour guide for the ghost tours of Port Arthur - she happen to be sick that day and knew 3 of the deceased.

I was at the Maritime College in Launceston at the time and that day is still vivid in my memory.

Anyway, enjoy............(or not - your call)

When you examine the subject of banning guns you have to ask yourself, is it the right thing to do in a country that has large predators wandering the wilds. In Australia the beasts in question would be dingos and saltwater crocs but it would require a vey particular set of circumstances for those to be a threat, so i can understand the restrictions in force there now.

The USA and Canada have a plethora of apex predators native to the countries so a ban on rifles would make people venturing off grid a nice fatty packed lunch should the creature desire it.

An outright gun ban such as we see here in the uk (very regulated sporting pastimes excluded) would seem to be very unlikely given the geography and fauna of the regions. However i could see a ban on weapons in urban environments being ushered in.

originally posted by: spygeek
not really. australia instituted a "buy back", hardly confiscation.

The Australian 'buy back' wasn't confiscation? No, it pretty clearly was. Lets not forget that the Australian program wasn't optional. When a person doesn't have a choice, yeah, I'd say that constitutes confiscation. That the owners were paid was a means of the politicians giving themselves political cover.

Meanwhile, I see that the Australian government is now having a collective panic attack over lever action rifles and shotguns. But no sir, there's no way that the American government would ever do such a thing. They just want 'reasonable' restrictions and would never come after your lever actions and bolt guns.

Right.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Who wants a laugh?

Whether you're pro or anti, this is 15 minutes of an Aussies take on US gun control - Port Arthur gets a mention.

BTW a very close friend of mine was (and still is) a tour guide for the ghost tours of Port Arthur - she happen to be sick that day and knew 3 of the deceased.

I was at the Maritime College in Launceston at the time and that day is still vivid in my memory.

Anyway, enjoy............(or not - your call)

Man...... that video was absolutely hilarious. I laughed for 15 minutes straight, thanks for posting it.

I guess sometimes it takes a comedian to put things into perspective, lol

a reply to: xuenchen


Because an unarmed populace is helpless to protect themselves. Period.

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: spygeek
not really. australia instituted a "buy back", hardly confiscation.

The Australian 'buy back' wasn't confiscation? No, it pretty clearly was. Lets not forget that the Australian program wasn't optional. When a person doesn't have a choice, yeah, I'd say that constitutes confiscation. That the owners were paid was a means of the politicians giving themselves political cover.

when you make something illegal, such as semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, then yes, they obviously need to be removed from those who have them. the buyback reimbursed those who owned such firearms. completely fair. confiscation is by definition seizure without reimbursement. not the same thing.

Meanwhile, I see that the Australian government is now having a collective panic attack over lever action rifles and shotguns. But no sir, there's no way that the American government would ever do such a thing. They just want 'reasonable' restrictions and would never come after your lever actions and bolt guns. Right.

i wouldn't call it a panic. they are considering reclassifying certain models of firearms that "mimic semiautomatic firearms". they are looking into updating the legislation to keep it up to date with current technology..

from your link:

“Firearms technology and design has evolved since the National Firearms Agreement in 1996. “And we will argue that these types of weapons should have a Category C level restriction — the same level as semiautomatic firearms,” Mr Noonan said.

“My Senate inquiry found law enforcement authorities need more resources to tackle gun crime,” Senator Wright said

“Victoria Police told the inquiry they were already struggling to cope with the range of new weapons on the streets.

“I can understand they would be concerned at the proliferation of a new model which mimics a semiautomatic firearm,” she said.

“I agree with Victoria Police’s comments this week that it would be very concerning to have these new rapid-firing Adler firearms on Australian streets.

it is in the interest of public safety, it is not removing the rights of people to own a firearm. if the u.s. followed suit, you could still own a gun. again, i do not understand the paranoia of the american gun owners and their knee-jerk reaction whenever the government looks into making their society safer. they don't want to disarm the people, never have, never will. they simply want to curb gun crime. what in the world is wrong with that?

a reply to: spygeek

I suppose you can call it whatever you want. The fact remains, however, that the people were forced to do it and subjected to penalty if they did not.

As for the part about lever actions, don't misunderstand me. I don't care about Australia's gun control laws. Your country, your laws. That was intended more for the domestic American gun owners, as well as the anti-2A crowd, as an example that the pro-gun-control crowd is never satisfied. Its never enough. In this particular example, it does not 'mimic a semiautomatic', as the person interviewed in the article tries to argue. Its a lever action shotgun. That's all it is. Go watch what 'cowboy action shooters' can do with a traditional lever action if you think that shotgun is something special. But because it seems scary to people who don't know what they're talking about, such as the person in that article, not only does it need to be restricted or banned, but ALL lever actions need to be restricted as well.

Again, I don't care what Australia does. I was only using it as an example of how gun control proponents panic, twist definitions, and are never satisfied.

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: xuenchen


Because an unarmed populace is helpless to protect themselves. Period.

Phew - just as well there's no unarmed populations around....not even in Australia.....

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: xuenchen


Because an unarmed populace is helpless to protect themselves. Period.

Phew - just as well there's no unarmed populations around....not even in Australia.....

Violent crimes there, pretty low right? (nope)

Criminals run amok when the people's ability to protect themselves adequately.

Besides, the politicians are hypocrites...they have armed themselves and/or have armed guards...ever wonder why? I don't.

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: xuenchen


Because an unarmed populace is helpless to protect themselves. Period.

Phew - just as well there's no unarmed populations around....not even in Australia.....

Violent crimes there, pretty low right? (nope)

Wrong

Criminals run amok when the people's ability to protect themselves adequately.

?? We're talking about Australia, not America!!

Besides, the politicians are hypocrites...they have armed themselves and/or have armed guards...ever wonder why? I don't.

No I don't either.

Yea America should ban guns like our Southern cousins. They are more enlightened in that regard.

Australia should accept a few tens of millions of illegal immigrants and stop sending them out the country (and provide them with food, shelter, medical treatment, and education) as we are more enlightened in that regard

I wonder if President Obama would be willing to meet in the middle?

Say we get rid of all the illegal guns and all the illegal immigrants? That would be a fair trade

Unless you've had to use a firearm in self defense to protect your life or the life of a loved one or your own family - I don't care what your opinion is...

The supreme court has said the police are not there to protect you, nor are they required to intervene to help you - they are there to maintain order.

Police are reactive, not proactive. Nobody has their own private police or armed guards like many of the hypocritical celebrities, politicians, or other socialites who preach this utter nonsense garbage.

You know some of the most dangerous and despised people in history also banned guns from general public.

One of which was Hitler.

History will repeat itself if people don't learn.

You don't want a firearm, don't get one.

You don't feel that your life or the life of your family is worth protecting, then don't.

But don't you dare tell me that any law abiding citizen doesn't have the right to protect themselves or their families.

When a politician says you don't need a firearm, you need a firearm. Most of them have CCWs and armed guards...they more important than you or me? I'd say not.

Drunk drivers misuse their cars, and kill people...should we give up our cars?

A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% misuse their firearm to take the life of another in a crime (not self protection). Far more are used to prevent crimes than not.

Besides, can you name one HONEST politician? Name ONE who's kept their campaign promises, walks the walk, talks the talk and stands by what they promised to all of us during their electoral campaigns.

Can you think of one? I can't. I'd trust an armed stranger to protect me before I'd trust a politician to do the same.

These laws won't take the firearms out of the hands of criminals - no criminal obeys the laws...otherwise, how exactly did they become a criminal?

a reply to: krosnos

You can tell outright lies as long as you use a minimum of 4 emoticons.

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
You know some of the most dangerous and despised people in history also banned guns from general public.

One of which was Hitler.

No, he didn't.
He widened gun ownership by removremoving many previous restrictions for German citizens (which didn't include Jews of course!)

What a brilliant example of Godwin's law - not only do you "lose" by mentioning Hitler - but you are wrong AS WELL!!

I went to the gun range yesterday, I had a good time.

I did see a lot of ridiculous weapons that I can't see as practical. I guess the "boom" factor is fun?

I saw a lot of people walking around with guns on their hips as if they expected something bad to happen. I usually find in my life that if I expect to find myself in a bad situation, I do.

It's like when I carry a knife. I always find an excuse to use my knife when I have it. If I don't carry one, I never seem to need it. When I have one though, for some reason I'm cutting boxes open and all sorts of stuff.

I don't know. Not really sure any of my rambling helped the discussion, just some observations.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

So you're saying that the millions of Jews who died weren't affected by gun restrictions then eh?

I'll pony up and admit the context in which I referred to general gun restrictions was incorrect.

However, had the Jews been armed...the atrocity that happened wouldn't have gone as far as it did, or are you implying that the restrictions of firearms had nothing to do with them being defenseless and the subsequent deaths of how many exactly?

I'm sure they'd have fought back, had they been armed, no doubt.

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

the jews were disarmed, as were all Germans, by the Versailles treaty - nothing to do with Hitler.

The context is irrelevant - you were just plain wrong.

Whether jews would have "fought back" or not is speculation - there certainly IS doubt and you cannot truthfully say anything concrete about it.

Any number of minority groups have been oppressed throughout history all over the world - perhaps you should try for a more obvious example....such as black Americans - how well are they fighting back with guns??

Or LGBT people - how has their armed struggle gone? Or atheist Americans - how are they handling the imposition of religious tyranny?