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

Status
Not open for further replies.
   / Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns? #31  
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...
Exactly why I will NOT join the NRA. NRA is out of touch with reality. Where will it end? I have the right to own cluster bombs, napalm, chem weapons? Common good is also a foundation for our country, not each persons individual rights to do as they will. There must be limits.
 
   / Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns? #32  
Interesting comments on a very emotive subject.

IMO, as a participant in Australian Gun Buy Back, it was nothing more than a political knee jerk reaction appeasing the mass outrage to a single horrific & tragic event.

Did it remove weapons from the streets ? A most, maybe marginally short term. Has is it done anything to curb illegal gun ownership/use ? Only if you're dreaming....gun crime & illegal gun ownership has not change appreacably + or -, & statistically in Australia no conclusions can be draw to any impact on mass shootings due to their extremely rare occurence.

For sporting & farm shooters the buy back was welcomed on some fronts, mostly because the government paid over the odds for aged & obsolete weapons allowing legal shooters to be paid extra dollars during the buy back & upgrade/replace later........

Sure there's increased restrictions effecting legal gun ownership & law abiding citizens, but the maximum penalties for illegal ownership/use are so rarely imposed they're insignficant to create any deterent for those already bent on a criminal existent......so criminals continue to readily access weapons & law abiding citizens are curtailed in their ownership......
Arguably, also now the fringe "nutters" may potentially have less access to firearms & correspondingly because of government welfare cut backs less access to mental healthcare.....so if/when another random mass attack occurs in Australia it is in theory less likely to involve a legally obtained firearm than an illegal firearm or perhaps other means of mass destruction, hardly a sobering thought....
 
   / Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns? #33  
Exactly why I will NOT join the NRA. NRA is out of touch with reality. Where will it end? I have the right to own cluster bombs, napalm, chem weapons? Common good is also a foundation for our country, not each persons individual rights to do as they will. There must be limits.

So, which of your rights should I limit? How about freedom of speech (wouldn't have to read your pesky posts anymore, would I?) Hey, you don't need that 4th Amendment protection, do you? 5th? No problem, we'll beat a confession out of you!! That sounds like fun!

As far as your comment about the NRA being "out of touch", the NRA is reflecting what it's members want...and we want no restrictions on semi-auto rifles, including the AR-15 rifles.
 
   / Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns? #34  
Exactly why I will NOT join the NRA. NRA is out of touch with reality. Where will it end? I have the right to own cluster bombs, napalm, chem weapons? Common good is also a foundation for our country, not each persons individual rights to do as they will. There must be limits.

Just for grits and shiggles, let's debate this for a moment. If used legally and responsibly, how would it harm you if your neighbor owned the weapons you listed? If they wouldn't harm you if used legally and responsibly, then why MUST they be limited? Is it the tool, or is it the use that we really need to control?

Now, I'm intentionally arguing the absurd, so don't get all hot and bothered. I'm just looking for a high-brow discussion and it seems it may be easier to do around weapons that aren't 2a protected than picking nits about classes of guns.
 
   / Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns? #35  
Never said you didn't have a right to a weapon. The question is - which kind of weapon. Let's go back to 1791. I say you (and I) have the right to bear muskets, swords, and any other weapons that were used back when we were given the right. My argument is: what are the limits to that right? So I have the right to a 20mm minigun. I can use it on my property. What if that weapon is taken from me by my death or whatever means. Now that weapon is superior to any other weapons my neighbors may have. I say for the good of all, limits should be placed within the right to bear arms, not to remove that right.
 
   / Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns? #36  
Well, you're headed into a new territory, now. I tend to believe that the framers intended that citizens shouldn't be prohibited from being as well equipped as their govt... but whatever I believe, that isnt what is written. And I certainly don't think we should have nuclear or chemical weapons (maybe our govts shouldnt, either, but that cat is out of the bag).

Again, I'd like to avoid a quibble over shades of gray, so invite you back to my initial question. What is it about ownership of the weapon (whether from your initial list or your new selection) itself, if used legally (today's laws) and responsibly, that harms you to the extent that you believe said ownership should be limited?
 
   / Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns? #38  
Interesting comments on a very emotive subject.

IMO, as a participant in Australian Gun Buy Back, it was nothing more than a political knee jerk reaction appeasing the mass outrage to a single horrific & tragic event.


.....so if/when another random mass attack occurs in Australia it is in theory less likely to involve a legally obtained firearm than an illegal firearm or perhaps other means of mass destruction, hardly a sobering thought....


This is about as spot on as one can get. This is all a warm fuzzy feel good. If some kid wants to go into a school and shoot a bunch of people they will use whatever they can get their hands on. It is not the weapons but the person using them that is the threat to others. As long as there are deranged people there will be mass killings weather it is inflicted with a firearm a vehicle or even a home made bomb. if the desire is there a criminal/deranged person will find a way to carry out their sick fantasy.

I do not own any semi-auto weapons but Ill be darned if I would give up the right to own one just to satisfy some average joe blowhard.
 
   / Could a Aussie tell us how your Government confiscated your guns? #39  
To expand on hchxoom's question, using "need" as the criteria for allowing firearm ownership assumes that the lack of a "need" is justification for the exercise of the police power of the state.

Tain't so. I don't "need" to go to the movies, or watch cable TV, but they are forms of entertainment for some folks. For others, shooting an AR15 is entertainment. So now we are down to the issue of whether the private ownership of guns is something the state should restrict in order to protect society.

When you speak of "school shootings", you have already biased your logic. To date, the largest mass murder in a US school did not involve a firearm. Read the history of the 1927 Bath Township school bombing. By restricting firearm ownership you may be altering the conduct of the deranged by affecting their choice of tools, but you aren't really going to affect their conduct in a meaningful way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
 
Top