Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns?

[TripleR]

Hchxoom ... Well done .

+1 couldn't agree more; wish I could write as well.:thumbsup:

 

[alchemysa]

About the Australian gun buyback- what was the payout per gun?

Was it the average price of an old used gun (real value) or was it a a relatively large amount (at least two or three times the actual value)?

Was it the same payout for a cheap mass produced well worn semiauto .22 rimfire rifle as a mint condition high end .223 semiauto rifle? I am just curious about how the payment system worked.

I'm pretty sure it was a fixed price per type of gun regardless of quality or how you got it. It was a 'no questions asked' scheme. So a lot of people handed in crappy old guns and were happy.

Just to clarify whats legal in Australia now...

All handguns are illegal. (Except registered competitive shooters and some jobs)

All Automatic/self loading rifles are illegal. (That pretty well rules out all the assault style weapons).

Manual reload rifles are legal. So anyone who wants a rifle for vermin, roo shooting, or personal protection etc can actually have a gun if they want one.

Australia's tougher gun laws are a very good thing in my opinion.

 

[RoyJackson]

Could you gun advocates clarify something for me?

To my understanding, there is nowhere else in the civilized world than the US that has such lax and open-ended gun (un)regulation as "permitted" by your beloved 2nd Amendment and at the same time there is nowhere else in the civilized world than the US that has mass shootings that happen in the frequency that they do in the US?

At some point, shouldn't reason prevail over the "my stick is bigger than your stick"?

Living in Canada, I have ZERO worries about not having a gun in my house.

"Reason" is a very subjective term. If you've read any of these firearms related threads, you should realize that by now.
Your concept of "reason" is quite to the left of most Americans who cherish their rights.

So, a question to you...is it "reasonable" to punish millions of people for the actions of a very few? Sounds draconian, doesn't it?

 

[RoyJackson]

Australia's tougher gun laws are a very good thing in my opinion.

Well, we're very happy that you, as a subject to the whims of your government, are happy.

 

[cisco]

So, the Australian government didn't "confiscate your guns". That's no surprise, nor is the unfortunately large number in the US who believe such is likely to happen here......yeah, right, and at an inconvenient time like just before the UN troops invade. Anyhow, it's highly unlikely a "guns, or no guns" question will seriously be debated before Congress in our lifetimes (yup, some have or will submit legislation on this issue, but no way it gets anywhere). The process of nullifying or changing a constitutional amendment has made the occurence rare.

Anyhow, as stated by others, guns are in the fabric of a substantial portion of our society, and that's it, period. However, folks are now in good faith debating what constitutes our 2nd amendment rights versus those of public good/safety. In the spirit of full disclosure, sitting above me on a rack right now are the rifles of my great grandfather (single shot 45-70), grandfather (30-40 lever action), and father (30-30 lever action). No way I'd part with those elements of my history, and on a broader sense, our nation's history. However, the issues as I see them are not whether we have the right to have a gun, or many guns, but (1) whether we need the right to have 100 shot magazines, and (2) loopholes in background checks prior to gun purchase. I conceive no threat to my view of guns by restriction of magazines to ? (10-20, whatever - my rifles and shotguns hold no more than 3, and pistols no more than 10). Likewise I have no issue with a background check re. a criminal record or a mental disorder for every gun purchaser - gun show, Walmart, wherever. Objecting to those measures has put a decent organization, the NRA, cross-ways to the preponderance of Americans. That is indeed unfortunate, and it may well come back to haunt that organization (of which I am a member).

 

[RoyJackson]

(1) whether we need the right to have 100 shot magazines, and (2) loopholes in background checks prior to gun purchase. I conceive no threat to my view of guns by restriction of magazines to ? (10-20, whatever - my rifles and shotguns hold no more than 3, and pistols no more than 10). .

As soon as you wrote "need", you lost the argument.
I don't need anyone telling me what I need...nor do you (when those PETA folks ban your hunting...and they want to, don't they?)

If you really a member of the NRA (which I doubt), you'd know we gun owners need to stick together as a united front. Doesn't sound like you're willing to stick up for your rights...

 

[Rockgod]

So, the Australian government didn't "confiscate your guns". That's no surprise, nor is the unfortunately large number in the US who believe such is likely to happen here......yeah, right, and at an inconvenient time like just before the UN troops invade. Anyhow, it's highly unlikely a "guns, or no guns" question will seriously be debated before Congress in our lifetimes (yup, some have or will submit legislation on this issue, but no way it gets anywhere). The process of nullifying or changing a constitutional amendment has made the occurence rare.

Anyhow, as stated by others, guns are in the fabric of a substantial portion of our society, and that's it, period. However, folks are now in good faith debating what constitutes our 2nd amendment rights versus those of public good/safety. In the spirit of full disclosure, sitting above me on a rack right now are the rifles of my great grandfather (single shot 45-70), grandfather (30-40 lever action), and father (30-30 lever action). No way I'd part with those elements of my history, and on a broader sense, our nation's history. However, the issues as I see them are not whether we have the right to have a gun, or many guns, but (1) whether we need the right to have 100 shot magazines, and(2) loopholes in background checks prior to gun purchase. I conceive no threat to my view of guns by restriction of magazines to ? (10-20, whatever - my rifles and shotguns hold no more than 3, and pistols no more than 10). Likewise I have no issue with a background check re. a criminal record or a mental disorder for every gun purchaser - gun show, Walmart, wherever. Objecting to those measures has put a decent organization, the NRA, cross-ways to the preponderance of Americans. That is indeed unfortunate, and it may well come back to haunt that organization (of which I am a member).

As a gun owner, why would you be willing to compromise on this position? What if the number of magazines one could own were put on the chopping block? Would you just give up that right too? Or, the number of bullets you could own at one time? Do you think for one second that gun-control will stop at magazine capacity?

 

[cdaigle430]

No not alone.....actually can only think of one use for an automatic or semi automatic rifle.......to shoot someone......you can hunt control vermin etc with a bolt action gun.

Yes the main purpose of a hand gun, semi or automatic rifle is to shoot people who want to shoot you. Its for protection and our forefathers here in the United States new that governments may start out for the people but end up corrupt and Mafioso. That is why the right to bear arms is in out constitution-they new governments oppress as they just came from one.

Someday-when everyone, and I mean every human being on earth decides to get along in peace an harmony then, and only then will this type of protection be obsolete-and yes I would love to see that day come in my lifetime but you know it won't.

Just because something works for a small island country like Australia with only a population of 22.6 million people doesn't mean it will work for the US with a population of 131 million.

The right to bear arms is under fire because there are those who think they are smarter than the rest of us. Taking away arms from those who are responsible law abiding citizens in no way will prevent murders. As long as guns are being manufactured anywhere in the world, it will be obtained illegally and used by those who wish to kill from the black market.

 

[Rockgod]

As soon as you wrote "need", you lost the argument.
I don't need anyone telling me what I need...nor do you (when those PETA folks ban your hunting...and they want to, don't they?)

If you really a member of the NRA (which I doubt), you'd know we gun owners need to stick together as a united front. Doesn't sound like you're willing to stick up for your rights...

The worst part is Roy, there are many (right here on TBN) other gun owners ready, willing and able to forfeit their rights. These guys some how think they won't come for their guns next. The attitude is well, these new laws won't effect me, so who cares. Meanwhile, they don't seem to realize this is just the first step toward their ultimate goal. Disarmament, to the point of bolt-action rifles and a six shot wheel gun.

 

[weedpharma]

...........All Automatic/self loading rifles are illegal. (That pretty well rules out all the assault style weapons).

Manual reload rifles are legal. So anyone who wants a rifle for vermin, roo shooting, or personal protection etc can actually have a gun if they want one.

Australia's tougher gun laws are a very good thing in my opinion.

Correction to this is required.

Semi automatics are legal. You require a "C" class license and are restricted to primary production. I have a Ruger 10/22. High power semi's may be illegal.

Don't try getting a license for self protection as this is not classified as a valid reason to own a gun (unless it is for work ralated protection as an armed guard).

I concur re "Australia's tougher gun laws are a very good thing in my opinion."

Weedpharma