Australia to start new gun amnesty program

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

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. 

Aren't there legislative instruments designed to prevent standing armies; or has that philosophy changed and they're now considered a necessity? 

[Farmer77]

8 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Aren't there legislative instruments designed to prevent standing armies; or has that philosophy changed and they're now considered a necessity? 

Well we had the posse comitatus act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act     which was put in place to prevent the US military from being used on US soil but G.W Bush amended that in 2006 this is that amendment: 

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.^[8] 

 

In my opinion though the extreme arming of federal agencies and the militarization of local police departments on the federal dime has been an effort to circumvent Posse Comitatus. 

Throw in the fact that our congress has voted against the will of the people in favor of the will of corporations for some 30 odd years now and I think we begin making a pretty good case for an armed populace. 

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Farmer77

[aztek]

6 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Unregistered guns

lol, sad thing you actually believe that, if that was the case, they would do same thing we tried in nys, make people register them.  i can guarantee you, those that surrender their unregistered handguns, will not be able to replace them with registered handguns,

btw i thought gun control worked in your country, if it does, why does gvmnt need another buy back program?

Edited April 3, 2017 by aztek

[IBelieveWhatIWant]

6 minutes ago, aztek said:

lol, sad thing you actually believe that, if that was the case, they would do same thing we tried in nys, make people register them.  i can guarantee you, those that surrender their unregistered handguns, will not be able to replace them with registered handguns,

Ok, if it's about completely removing guns. How is it that Aussies can still quite easily get a gun/s? If their big plan was to remove all guns from civ hands, then why can we still get them legally? They surely would have stopped the sale of guns as a means to stop the population arming themselves if there was a "big plan"

[aztek]

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Please explain that.

it is pretty simple really, the program is aimed to take your gun away, that is all there is to it.  not to make you pass background check, not to register yours, but to take it away.

 

 

 

[aztek]

1 hour ago, IBelieveWhatIWant said:

Ok, if it's about completely removing guns. How is it that Aussies can still quite easily get a gun/s?

do you have a handgun?  if it is so easy to  get a new one, why do they bother taking the old ones? why not just make you pass BC and register the one you have?

Edited April 3, 2017 by aztek

[Golden Duck]

13 minutes ago, aztek said:

lol, sad thing you actually believe that, if that was the case, they would do same thing we tried in nys, make people register them.  i can guarantee you, those that surrender their unregistered handguns, will not be able to replace them with registered handguns,

btw i thought gun control worked in your country, if it does, why does gvmnt need another buy back program?

It's not a buy back. it's an amnesty. The figures of how many illicit guns are removed from each scheme have been given.  That they repeat a scheme doesn't indicate a failure.

A better metric is the comparative black market price for illicit firearms..

[aztek]

12 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

It's not a buy back. it's an amnesty.

lol, minor irrelevant detail, both offer amnesty, but one pays other does not. the important thing, that you fail to recognize is, they want you to surrender your gun. 

your police force is tiny, even small armed population can seriously derail enforcing of some gvmnt policies. it would be so much easier to make you comply if you can't resist. 

but hey this is your country, good luck,

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, aztek said:

lol, minor irrelevant detail, both offer amnesty, but one pays other does not. the important thing, that you fail to recognize is, they want you to surrender your gun. 

your police force is tiny, even small armed population can seriously derail enforcing of some gvmnt policies. it would be so much easier to make you comply if you can't resist. 

but hey this is your country, good luck,

Ahhh so you get to what words mean now to suit your own purpose.  They point is that amnesty doesn't apply to registered firearms.  So where is the conspiracy? 

Where are these examples of armed population derailing government policies? 

[aztek]

10 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Ahhh so you get to what words mean now to suit your own purpose.  

i see the idea and a goal, you see fancy words but not what is behind them. like i said, it is your country, good luck,. 

i do not have any examples from your country, but i have from mine, independence from uk,  more recent, cattle farmers and BLM, gvmnt stood down due to armed people opposing.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by aztek

[Golden Duck]

2 minutes ago, aztek said:

i see the idea and a goal, you see fancy words but not what is behind them. like i said, it is your country, good luck,. 

 

 

Can't answer the question about armed populations being effective?

[aztek]

Just now, Golden Duck said:

Can't answer the question about armed populations being effective?

can't read?

[Golden Duck]

21 minutes ago, aztek said:

can't read?

Point me to your example, please.  I asked previously in posts 34.and 36.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Golden Duck

[aztek]

and i gave you 2 in post 35

[Golden Duck]

7 hours ago, aztek said:

and i gave you 2 in post 35

Edited after i replied to you.  Nice trick.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Golden Duck

[aztek]

actually 4 minutes before you posted, i had a feeling you'd say it, so i looked at the time,  but  you may not have seen it, if you had reply window open during that time. I had that happen to me before,  i was in your shoes, this new forum soft does not leave exact time of the edit\post  

Edited April 3, 2017 by aztek

[ChrLzs]

9 hours ago, aztek said:

can't read?

Oh, the irony.  You are completely sidestepping every question.  You are indeed a troll, as your signature states.

[aztek]

2 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Oh, the irony.  You are completely sidestepping every question.  You are indeed a troll, as your signature states.

now you are being a lair, i answered the only relevant question you asked, i'm not even gonna read idiocy about nukes, or whatever else you compared gun ownership to.

Edited April 3, 2017 by aztek

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

actually 4 minutes before you posted, i had a feeling you'd say it, so i looked at the time,  but  you may not have seen it, if you had reply window open during that time. I had that happen to me before,  i was in your shoes, this new forum soft does not leave exact time of the edit\post  

Fair enough.  But I'm sure my posts support my assertion that I'm clear when I redact any other user's post when I'm replying.

Off the top of my head, the last time arms were raised against the government was during the Eureka Rebellion. More recently, the government adjusted its policy concerning the Aboriginal Tent Embassy. It can be argued that both of these events had some legacy.

I'm not sure what the cattle farmers' legacy will be.  The Bonus Army might have been a better example; but they didn't acheive their goals with a parity in arms, dud they?

Mentioning the Eureka Rebellion raises the question of how gun licensing is funded - us it cost-recovery, a surplus or borne by the taxpayer. I don't know the answer to this. 

But is any of this germane to the OP? The purpose of the latest amnesty is to reduce illicit firearms. It's clear it dovetails with OMG legislation.  The link to the ACIC report has been provided - are there any lies in that?

[aztek]

56 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

 The purpose of the latest amnesty is to reduce illicit firearms. 

you really believe that?  why would a person surrender a gun no one knows about? i mean they did not surrender the first time, why would they surrender it now? 

lets say you have such gun, would you surrender it? if you have it for a while, most likely you ignored first amnesty. or you acquired one illegally, for some purpose, after first amnesty.  in both cases, you have no interest in giving it up, and if for some reason you do want to, why would you show your face at the station, even thou they say no questions asked. you would sooner dump it in a lake, or an ocean, and no one would know you ever had one. 

we have buybacks too, vast majority of guns old and many none functioning, old garbage that old people give up, not guns  mostly used in crimes, even police say those programs are useless, google, plenty of articles about it. you really think it'll put even tiny dent in amount of illegal guns? you really do not think your gvmnt does not know that? lol, 

Edited April 4, 2017 by aztek

[Golden Duck]

3 minutes ago, aztek said:

you really believe that?  why would a person surrender a gun no one knows about? i mean they did not surrender the first time, why would they surrender it now? 

lets say you have such gun, would you surrender it? if you have it for a while, most likely you ignored first amnesty. or you acquired one illegally, for some purpose, after first amnesty.  in both cases, you have no interest in giving it up, and if for some reason you do want to, why would you show your face at the station, even thou they say no questions asked. you would sooner dump it in a lake, or an ocean, and no one would know you ever had one. 

we have buybacks too, vast majority of guns old and many none functioning, old garbage that old people give up, not guns  mostly used in crimes, even police say those programs are useless, google, plenty of articles about it. you really think it'll put even tiny dent in amount of illegal guns? you really do not think your gvmnt does not know that? lol, 

But people do - guns are handed in.

What's the trend in black market price?

What are the untruths in the ACIC report?

[aztek]

Just now, Golden Duck said:

But people do - guns are handed in.

 

i'm sure some are, but do you really think actual criminals (people who use the gun for purpose of committing crime) will give up theirs??? sure some old guy who had one for decades and does not want it no more, will surrender, but even if he did not his gun would be under his bed, or somewhere else, but it would not be a gun used in crime, 

this is what 1 guy brought to buyback program here. you really think this means taking guns off the streets? lol

Experts Agree – Gun Buybacks Are Useless and Do Nothing to Prevent Crime

 

CHARTS: Gun Buybacks Probably Won't Prevent the Next Newtown

The absurdity of Gun Buyback programs

do you really think it will be any different in your country? oh actually it will a lot less guns will be brought, since no one pays 100 fro some old broken rifle that last time was fired during nixon administration.

sure there will be exceptions, however. 

[aztek]

this is actually article from australia

Buyback has no effect on murder rate.

HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback of more than 600,000 mainly semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns had made no difference in the rate of decline.

 

this is exactly what i was saying for years, gun control does not work in your country, you never had gun problem to begin with, i posted stats proving it, and you guys did not believe me, maybe cuz i'm an american, but i do not blame you for that, now 2 of Australian academics prove me right,  so maybe there is at least  some truth in what i was saying? you had 1 nutcase shoot up a cafe, it doe snot indicate gun problem in general, look at stats, you never had  a problem, but gvmnt saw how lethal armed person can be, and no doubt thought, what is next time it is used against us, for one reason or the, with population having power to object, they can't rule.

Edited April 4, 2017 by aztek

[Golden Duck]

This latest amnesty is not a buy-back.  

There is no financial gain for handing in those bodgy guns your holding up as a typical example.

The academics you're quoting are making conclusions that are not directly related to the goals of the amnesty.

There's nothing in your links that refutes the ACIC reports.

Oh BTW... licence holders can apply to register the firearms as part of the amnesty.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Golden Duck

[aztek]

well there is noting i can add  to what i already said, good luck with your gun control