Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
OverSword

Australia to start new gun amnesty program

61 posts in this topic

I can't find this on any main stream media sight but it's all over the alternative news.
 

Quote

 

When the topic of gun control comes up, the left loves to cite Australia and their much touted gun buyback program. They view that nation’s gun control measures as the perfect way to peacefully remove firearms from society. But did Australia’s gun buyback program really work? Sure it reduced gun crime (though whether or not it reduced all violent crime is up for debate), but did it truly disarm Australia’s criminal class?

Clearly not, because the Australian government is about to engage in another gun confiscation scheme. The government is planning a new amnesty program in July that will last three months, which the NRA is calling “a tacit admission that criminals and scofflaws have had little trouble circumventing Australia’s National Firearms Agreement (NFA) and the government’s confiscation effort.”

Somehow the government thinks that they’ll manage to convince people to give up between 260,000 and 600,000 illegal firearms. But obviously, these are mostly people who didn’t give up their firearms the first time, or they are criminals who again, aren’t going to give up their firearms just because the government asks nicely.

 

source Daily Sheeple

Quote

 

The Australian government has begrudging and indirectly admitted the failure of their strict gun control laws, which included a gun buyback scheme that has been ignored by hundreds of thousands of citizens.

In a desperate attempt to get guns out of the hands of citizens who refuse to give them up, the Justice Minister has lamely offered an amnesty that amounts to whining, “won’t you please hand over your liberty?”

 

Source bearingarms.com

Quote

In a tacit admission that criminals and scofflaws have had little trouble circumventing Australia’s National Firearms Agreement (NFA) and the government’s confiscation effort, Australian officials have set a date for another firearms amnesty program. The program is set to begin in July and last for three months. Despite offering no compensation for surrendered firearms, government officials hope that the plan will net 260,000 of an estimated 600,000 illegally possessed guns.


Source Dailycaller
Quote


A three-month gun amnesty is set to begin in July, the first since the national amnesty in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre more than twenty years ago.

The Government hopes the move will take around 260,000 illegal firearms off the streets.

Border Force officers are currently seizing more than 30 guns, or gun parts, a week.

 

Source Skynews

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no interest in fighting this one again ;)   All I want to say is that the voice of Australians should be heard in the matter.  It's been about 20 years since the new laws were implemented and the people should have a chance to revisit the matter legislatively.  My guess is that it would be much more difficult to get it passed again but I might well be wrong on that.  If the majority of the people in OZ still want to severely regulate firearms, best wishes on that.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say it has generated a lot of noise; but, it has definitely been covered by the traditional print media. The top search results in Google, for me, are mostly MSM sites. The MSM reports lack a lot of detail and are devoid of opinion.

However, why rely on the media? The press release from the Minister is publicly available.

https://www.ministerjustice.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2016/FourthQuarter/Tackling-illegal-firearms.aspx

You'll find this in an instrument in fighting organised crime.

Australians still have the liberty to be licensed firearms owners and users.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You'll find this in an instrument in fighting organised crime.

Australians still have the liberty to be licensed firearms owners and users.

So Fat Tony and the rest of the mob, now given a second chance, will march right down to city hall and turn their guns in eh? :lol:

More power to the Aussies if they'd rather not have guns.  I don't own one myself, but thought that this amnesty was a bit funny since I can't really see people that didn't obey the law in 96 obeying it now.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So Fat Tony and the rest of the mob, now given a second chance, will march right down to city hall and turn their guns in eh? :lol:

Nah.  But would that happen *anywhere*?  What Fat Tony needs to do, though, is not ever be seen to be carrying... :)  And the claim is that guns collected during an amnesty are guns that won't ever be on the black market, or stolen or misused.  Would many/any of them have actually been in those categories?  Probably not.  Will they collect a lot during the amnesty?  I think you'd be surprised at how many get handed in.

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

More power to the Aussies if they'd rather not have guns.  I don't own one myself, but thought that this amnesty was a bit funny since I can't really see people that didn't obey the law in 96 obeying it now.

Typically, all you need to get one here (a hand gun or single shot rifle only, other types are more restricted..), is to either be a farmer, or to join a gun club and not have a 'history' either legally or psychologically...  And of course they need to be properly secured and registered.  I think the laws are quite sensible (and it's not often you'll hear me say that..).

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

So Fat Tony and the rest of the mob, now given a second chance, will march right down to city hall and turn their guns in eh? :lol:

More power to the Aussies if they'd rather not have guns.  I don't own one myself, but thought that this amnesty was a bit funny since I can't really see people that didn't obey the law in 96 obeying it now.

No, your first sentence is not a reasonable conclusion to draw; and no one is suggesting that is the goal.

The gun amnesty is designed to reduce the illicit market. It's not a buy-back - there's no public cost. If you give the law enforcement the discretion not to pursue prosecution that can also reduce public cost.

The noise generated from the anti-bike enforcement is far louder.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Speaking of fire-arms, a haul of weapons were seized in the US that were bound for Australia late last year. I wonder why they kept this quite for so long.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/afp-and-us-agencies-stop-shipment-of-5000-guns-organised-by-bikies-for-australia/news-story/0edcbcc7e072c721b2ed97989423a628

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/03/16/15/50/aust-cops-help-foil-import-of-5000-guns

Quote

THE largest ever shipment of guns organised by bikie gangs and bound for Australia has been stopped in the US and seized by police as the crackdown on outlaw motorcycle clubs intensifies.

The almost 5000-strong shipment of handguns and automatic rifles was nabbed late last year before reaching Australian shores as part of a joint investigation between federal, state and international policing agencies.

 

 

Edited by Astra.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why the left loves to cite Australia in terms of gun control is because it worked. Sure criminals can get weapons if they really want them but so can law abiding citizens. I don't understand why America is so against gun control (okay I do but I don't wanna get into it. All I'll say is NRA and Fox News). For 20 years Australia has had tight regulations but even then, it's easy enough to get a hand gun legally (which if you want a gun for HOME protection that all you need), hell I should know I was in the process of getting a hand gun myself.

The fact is that EVERYWHERE that sells guns should have gun control laws that make you go out of your way to get a gun. Prior to the gun laws Australia had 13 mass shootings in a period of 13 years. From 2000 - 2016 America had 7 mass shootings, so at one point we were worse than America in terms of mass shootings BUT since the laws have been introduced we have had no mass shootings at all. Purely from the laws that were put into effect due to the Port Arthur massacre.

The proof is right there. There is no reason to have lax gun laws

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Astra. said:

Maybe Taskforce Echo and the dawn raids last weekend.  Just a guess. Haven't read the articles yet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, IBelieveWhatIWant said:

The reason why the left loves to cite Australia in terms of gun control is because it worked. Sure criminals can get weapons if they really want them but so can law abiding citizens. I don't understand why America is so against gun control (okay I do but I don't wanna get into it. All I'll say is NRA and Fox News). For 20 years Australia has had tight regulations but even then, it's easy enough to get a hand gun legally (which if you want a gun for HOME protection that all you need), hell I should know I was in the process of getting a hand gun myself.

The fact is that EVERYWHERE that sells guns should have gun control laws that make you go out of your way to get a gun. Prior to the gun laws Australia had 13 mass shootings in a period of 13 years. From 2000 - 2016 America had 7 mass shootings, so at one point we were worse than America in terms of mass shootings BUT since the laws have been introduced we have had no mass shootings at all. Purely from the laws that were put into effect due to the Port Arthur massacre.

The proof is right there. There is no reason to have lax gun laws

I'm simply glad that we have strict gun laws.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 3/16/2017 at 8:21 AM, IBelieveWhatIWant said:

The reason why the left loves to cite Australia in terms of gun control is because it worked. Sure criminals can get weapons if they really want them but so can law abiding citizens. I don't understand why America is so against gun control (okay I do but I don't wanna get into it. All I'll say is NRA and Fox News). For 20 years Australia has had tight regulations but even then, it's easy enough to get a hand gun legally (which if you want a gun for HOME protection that all you need), hell I should know I was in the process of getting a hand gun myself.

The fact is that EVERYWHERE that sells guns should have gun control laws that make you go out of your way to get a gun. Prior to the gun laws Australia had 13 mass shootings in a period of 13 years. From 2000 - 2016 America had 7 mass shootings, so at one point we were worse than America in terms of mass shootings BUT since the laws have been introduced we have had no mass shootings at all. Purely from the laws that were put into effect due to the Port Arthur massacre.

The proof is right there. There is no reason to have lax gun laws

I'm happy for Australians who are content with their system.  I mean that sincerely.  I have a question.  In OZ today are their any issues that so divide your people that 98% of the media feel the need to vilify the choice made by the majority under the electoral system?  I use this as an example because our current conflict here in the U.S. is a prime example of the reason we cannot have better gun control laws.  First, there are sufficient laws in place to deter most gun crimes IF they were enforced.  That is a fact.  Nothing will ever stop an insane person bent on suicide, that wants to kill as many others as he/she can.  Not even laws that totally ban all guns.  America is surrounded by oceans and the Gulf of Mexico.  We have a total ban on recreational drugs like pot (except for a few states) and all narcotics that are deadly to people but there has never been a shortage of supply.  There is no reason to believe it would be any different with guns.  For the sake of argument, let's agree that the semi-auto type rifles like AR-15 and AK-47 and that complete Class of weapon could be removed from the picture.  Would fewer people be slaughtered in mass shootings?  ABSOLUTELY.  

Why then, does the 2nd amendment crowd not agree to such restrictions?  This is the nexus for the early question about divisions among Australians. One can look at the vehemence of protest today and see that Americans are like two armed camps set across a divide, staring and shouting at each other.  It is unlike anything I've seen in my life.  The history of this nation has always been about internal conflict and political resolution of it.  Today we have become far more polarized and unwilling to bend on any issue.  Gun control is at the TOP of that list.  There is a real history on this globe of governments that take away guns for the protection of their citizens, then become tyrannies over those citizens.  There can be no real argument of that.  We have seen today the real face of the Left and the Globalists and it is savage and willing to do ANYTHING that is required to crush opposition.  When elections are lost, use the media to continually rejuvenate protests.  If that isn't effective, use Left leaning judges on district courts, judges that only got their bench seat due to political connections in most cases. That is true of both parties.  The argument from the Right has always been about slippery slopes and and legal precedents.  These are valid arguments.  Consider this scenario.  Two years after 99% of AK's and AR's are eliminated or seized, some insane person walks into a school with a semi-auto .22 squirrel rifle and kills 2 dozen kids. (GOD FORBID!).  Then it would be roundly accepted by the Left that any weapon firing more than a single shot should be banned.  This doesn't account for the millions of illegal weapons that would be flowing in through our porous borders, btw.

The bottom line is that if we cannot agree to accept the authority of a PRESIDENT that was duly elected under our laws, how can we be expected to trust a government that so obviously wishes to refuse to enforce existing laws and uses every new mass shooting to cal for more "effective" gun control?  I'm a STRONG Second Amendment defender.  I believe it is the primary reason that America has remained free for 241 years. The shootings are more deadly because of the firearms we use but the REASONS for the shootings are never fully explored.  To do so might embarrass a few on both sides of the political divide.  

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, and then said:

 

I'm happy for Australians who are content with their system.  I mean that sincerely.  I have a question.  In OZ today are their any issues that so divide your people that 98% of the media feel the need to vilify the choice made by the majority under the electoral system?  I use this as an example because our current conflict here in the U.S. is a prime example of the reason we cannot have better gun control laws.  First, there are sufficient laws in place to deter most gun crimes IF they were enforced.  That is a fact.  Nothing will ever stop an insane person bent on suicide, that wants to kill as many others as he/she can.  Not even laws that totally ban all guns.  America is surrounded by oceans and the Gulf of Mexico.  We have a total ban on recreational drugs like pot (except for a few states) and all narcotics that are deadly to people but there has never been a shortage of supply.  There is no reason to believe it would be any different with guns.  For the sake of argument, let's agree that the semi-auto type rifles like AR-15 and AK-47 and that complete Class of weapon could be removed from the picture.  Would fewer people be slaughtered in mass shootings?  ABSOLUTELY.  

Why then, does the 2nd amendment crowd not agree to such restrictions?  This is the nexus for the early question about divisions among Australians. One can look at the vehemence of protest today and see that Americans are like two armed camps set across a divide, staring and shouting at each other.  It is unlike anything I've seen in my life.  The history of this nation has always been about internal conflict and political resolution of it.  Today we have become far more polarized and unwilling to bend on any issue.  Gun control is at the TOP of that list.  There is a real history on this globe of governments that take away guns for the protection of their citizens, then become tyrannies over those citizens.  There can be no real argument of that.  We have seen today the real face of the Left and the Globalists and it is savage and willing to do ANYTHING that is required to crush opposition.  When elections are lost, use the media to continually rejuvenate protests.  If that isn't effective, use Left leaning judges on district courts, judges that only got their bench seat due to political connections in most cases. That is true of both parties.  The argument from the Right has always been about slippery slopes and and legal precedents.  These are valid arguments.  Consider this scenario.  Two years after 99% of AK's and AR's are eliminated or seized, some insane person walks into a school with a semi-auto .22 squirrel rifle and kills 2 dozen kids. (GOD FORBID!).  Then it would be roundly accepted by the Left that any weapon firing more than a single shot should be banned.  This doesn't account for the millions of illegal weapons that would be flowing in through our porous borders, btw.

The bottom line is that if we cannot agree to accept the authority of a PRESIDENT that was duly elected under our laws, how can we be expected to trust a government that so obviously wishes to refuse to enforce existing laws and uses every new mass shooting to cal for more "effective" gun control?  I'm a STRONG Second Amendment defender.  I believe it is the primary reason that America has remained free for 241 years. The shootings are more deadly because of the firearms we use but the REASONS for the shootings are never fully explored.  To do so might embarrass a few on both sides of the political divide.  

 

Personally I don't watch ANY TV in Australia anymore and I haven't for quite a number of years. All the news I get I get online and barely any of it is based in Australia so I can not accurately answer that first question but I do get where you are coming from, if people want to kill with a gun they will kill. That is true, but that was also true and a risk for Australia as well, I believe it would be easier to remove classes of guns now than previously. According to NORC 2014 had the lowest amount of household guns, granted this is probably only registered weapons but you get the idea. As for the drugs argument even being in Australia I personally knew someone with lets just say a direct connection to coke (he is now in jail and about to be deported back to England).

The reason people who love the spout the second amendment don't like these restrictions is most likely because of the conservative sites they read (not only necessarily Fox news either) love to convince them that new rules and regulations around guns is just the government trying to take their guns away, funny enough these sites are real "fake news" as apposed to what Trump is trying to say is fake news but that's a different story all together. Or it's because for the past 8 years Obama had been in power and just because he is democrat/black/not who they voted for (take your pick) they were against everything he tried to do (not to mention that Fox was less than friendly with him), this line in your comment makes me chuckle a bit because of just what I said "The bottom line is that if we cannot agree to accept the authority of a PRESIDENT that was duly elected under our laws" but I digress.

Quote

There is a real history on this globe of governments that take away guns for the protection of their citizens, then become tyrannies over those citizens.

There probably is some connection between governments taking guns away and then turning dictator on them but, do you honestly think America will ever be a dictatorship? Sure I love to joke that Trump will turn into one because be loves his power so much but I don't honestly think that will ever happen. If it were a country like South Africa or China then I would agree but in America...really.

 

Anywhere that has a 2 party or more system will never completely agree or accept the authority of the leader they personally didn't elect, that's just a scape goat. If we could get corporations like the NRA to stop paying off the government then I think that their tune will turn pretty quickly

 

The bottom line is what I said in my previous comment, Australia had 13 mass shooting in 18 years. That was worse than how many America has had right now but since the laws have been put in place we haven't had a single mass shooting in 21 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, and then said:

I'm happy for Australians who are content with their system.  I mean that sincerely.

I wouldn't say we are content with our entire system eg:

- incredibly hard to get employment especially for over forties

- same too-much-bureaucracy as you guys

- same huge divide between rich and everyone else (where did the 'middle class' go?)

- ridiculously expensive utility bills because of the stupid claim that privatising makes things cheaper (of course it bloody doesn't - all you do is add shareholders dividends)

.... but... I don't see any unrest about our gun laws.  It makes perfect sense to me - prove you aren't a crim or crazy and have a valid reason, and that will get you a single shot firearm.  Auto's and semi-autos are much, much more difficult to get.  Over there, you seem to not draw the line until you reach nuclear weapons!

 

16 hours ago, and then said:

I have a question.  In OZ today are their any issues that so divide your people that 98% of the media feel the need to vilify the choice made by the majority under the electoral system?

Other than disappointment that none of the major or minor parties seeking election have any answers to those issues above, nope.  We're a pretty happy lot.  Must be the sunshine...

16 hours ago, and then said:

I use this as an example because our current conflict here in the U.S. is a prime example of the reason we cannot have better gun control laws.

Can you clarify what current conflict you mean?  Or do you mean the conflict over gun laws?

16 hours ago, and then said:

First, there are sufficient laws in place to deter most gun crimes IF they were enforced.  That is a fact.  Nothing will ever stop an insane person bent on suicide, that wants to kill as many others as he/she can.

Say what?  Of course there are laws in place, and of course it's only the ferking crazies (and I include terrorists in that).  The thing that I think has worked here, is simply that it is now incredibly difficult to get a weapon with automatic (ie fast kill) capabilities.  And without that, the cowardly crazies are too scared that they won't be able to kill lots of folks, and will instead (hopefully) get taken down while reloading...  Sure, if you are in a big crime syndicate it's probably easier to get your hands on something really nasty, but as i said earlier, those folks, while they are a problem in other ways, they are not really about mass killings..

16 hours ago, and then said:

Not even laws that totally ban all guns.

I think the Oz situation is often misunderstood.  We haven't really been disarmed - only those who really shouldn't have a gun...  Some will have slipped thru and there's still an underground market, I'm sure, but the statistics do tend to suggest we have done the right thing

16 hours ago, and then said:

America is surrounded by oceans and the Gulf of Mexico.  We have a total ban on recreational drugs like pot (except for a few states) and all narcotics that are deadly to people but there has never been a shortage of supply.  There is no reason to believe it would be any different with guns.  For the sake of argument, let's agree that the semi-auto type rifles like AR-15 and AK-47 and that complete Class of weapon could be removed from the picture.  Would fewer people be slaughtered in mass shootings?  ABSOLUTELY.

Yup.  Seems logical.  The thing is, over there it seems to be about "how dare you infringe our freedoms!", whereas over here it's "where would it be sensible to draw the line?"

16 hours ago, and then said:

Americans are like two armed camps set across a divide, staring and shouting at each other.  It is unlike anything I've seen in my life.

I, and I'd suggest most Aussies, are flabbergasted by the hideous levels of anger that the topic seems to raise, and the power of the gun lobby.  And every time there's another shooting (and it seems they are almost always cases where the weakest and most unable to defend are targeted by these scum.... I just shake my head that nothing changes...  You guys need to fix this - if it's not by changing the gun laws, then you need to track down every crazy before they go overboard.  Good luck with that.  Frankly I think the horse has bolted, with the amount of ridiculously over-powered weapons already 'out there'.  I don't know what the answer is, other than to just wait for the next one and watch the politicians and gun-running GL-ists pretend they sympathise with the parents of the dead...

And if you think this topic makes me angry, yes, I can feel my blood pressure going up as I type.  Forgive my terseness....

16 hours ago, and then said:

There is a real history on this globe of governments that take away guns for the protection of their citizens, then become tyrannies over those citizens.

Well, I'm no history afficionado, but countries like the USA, Australia, England...?  I doubt it.  There are ways of winning 'battles' or removing tyrants without handguns and automatic weaponry. One of the best methods is to have an election system that doesn't end with you voting for two equally ridiculous candidates...

And without going on for too long, I'd observe that there is no obvious sign here (touch wood) of our courts being infiltrated from any direction..  As for the future, who knows - I hope we learn some lessons from watching your trainwreck...!

Sadly, we have a history of just happily following in the US bootprints... although ... we are pretty much locked in to a much, much better electoral system...

 

BTW, May I suggest that now is the exctly correct time for a huge movement and new poliitical party in the US (and here too!).  Trouble is, at times like this we often get the Trump-types (hi Pauline!) rising to the top.  Bzzzt.  Wrong answer (imo).

 

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if gvmnt want to make sure population is really unarmed, what are they planning for them?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aztek that is the big unanswered question where the Port Arthur Conspiracy unravels.

I guess the plan is to regulate the ownership and of arms.  

The buy back after the Monash University shooting has, so far, not been mentioned. It was enacted to tighten some loop holes that allowed someone with mental illness to acquire numerous handguns. I'm sure you're of the requirements for handguns here in Australia.  

So was there a mass shooting in Australia after Port Arthur?  There was a shooting that precipitated change to legislation.

In effect the gun laws in Australia ensure that gun owners are responsible. Similarly, you'll find licence holders within a regulated industry will fight against deregulation.

Ultimately gun laws and self defence laws are not related. To try and understand the self defence and the law try looking at the Ben Batterham case.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

@aztek that is the big unanswered question where the Port Arthur Conspiracy unravels.

I guess the plan is to regulate the ownership and of arms.  


 

it seems to me,  the plan is pretty much confiscate the guns, not regulate them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, aztek said:

it seems to me,  the plan is pretty much confiscate the guns, not regulate them. 

Except that confiscation isn't what happens in buy back schemes or amnesties.

Furthermore arms imports and ownership is increasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Except that confiscation isn't what happens in buy back schemes or amnesties.

 

they are removing guns, same thing as confiscation, whether they take it by force, or make you bring it yourself, does not matter, the goal is to take your gun,

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, aztek said:

it seems to me,  the plan is pretty much confiscate the guns, not regulate them. 

Please explain that. You have had these laws explained to you several times, in particular the part that if you have genuine reason for ownership and have no 'background' or mental health issues, then you may own a suitable, non-automatic, weapon.  That weapon has to be registered and you need a firearms license but neither are overly expensive or complex.  That genuine reason for ownership can be as simple as being a member of a gun club, as I understand it.

And how many mass shootings do we have each year nowadays?  Here, let me help - since the 1950's, this is a list of multiple shootings that involved firearms, and that involved bystanders, ie it does not include Murder/suicide- type incidents involving family only.

1976 - 2 dead, 4 wounded - Boundary Street Qld

1984 - 7 dead, 28 wounded - Milperra NSW (this was a bikie gang incident with one bystander killed)

1987 - 5 dead - Top End NT 

1987 - 7 dead - Hoddle St Vic

1987 - 8 dead - Queen St Vic

1990 - 5 dead, 7 injured - Surrey Hills NSW

1991 - 7 dead - Strathfield NSW

1992 - 6 dead - Terrigal NSW

1993 - 5 dead - Cangai NSW

1996 - 35 dead, 24 injured - Port Arthur Tas
(This was the incident that sparked the popular desire for better gun control)

1996 - Gun Laws revised and tightened

2002 - 2 dead, 5 injured - Monash Uni Vic

2011 - 3 dead, 3 injured - Hectorville SA

2014 - 3 dead, 4 injured - Sydney NSW

Is it certain that our gun laws helped?  No, and no-one is absolutely claiming that.  Are our laws more sensible than in the US?  Do bears poop in the woods?

 

Please do outline your conspiracy theory - clearly you are hinting that the Oz gov't has a plan.  What do you think it is?

Personally, I think suggesting that there is a conspiracy behind it is laughable.  And stating falsehoods like "the goal is to take your gun" when clearly they are not taking the guns except from those who shouldn't dam well have them... well, let's just say I disagree.  And when your grandkids do not have to be fearful about going to school each day - I'm good with that.

Tell me Aztek..  Should you be allowed to carry a nuclear weapon (or perhaps just a flame thrower) around with you?   If not, why not?  Where do *you* draw the line, or don't you draw it at all?  How would *you* run the zoo?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

   Should you be allowed to carry a nuclear weapon (or perhaps just a flame thrower) around with you?   If not, why not?  Where do *you* draw the line, or don't you draw it at all?  How would *you* run the zoo?

Im not aztek but you gave me a good opening to join the thread :

If it is legal for the government to own it should be legal for the citizenry in a free nation to own as well, in order to keep it a free nation. Clearly nukes dont really fit that well into the conversation because of the shared territory, but in general thats my feeling on the issue. 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, aztek said:

they are removing guns, same thing as confiscation, whether they take it by force, or make you bring it yourself, does not matter, the goal is to take your gun,

Unregistered guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

If it is legal for the government to own it should be legal for the citizenry in a free nation to own as well, in order to keep it a free nation. Clearly nukes dont really fit that well into the conversation because of the shared territory, but in general thats my feeling on the issue. 

But we're told you no longer fear your standing army; just as we don't fear ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Golden Duck said:

But we're told you no longer fear your standing army; just as we don't fear ours.

I distrust the government and those that wield power. In recent years in the US our federal agencies and local police departments with the help of federal funds have armed themselves to the point that they themselves could be considered standing armies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.