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

[RadarTech]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=N9ef...top_uri=/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI&feature=youtu.be


Watch this...

 

[dennis52]

The breakdown for Australia is a nonsense : Everyone is labelled either White or Asian or Aboriginal!!!!!!! I can tell you that Australian cities are teeming with people that are white, asian, middle eastern, African and whatever colour you like from just about everwhere in the world and especially those countries that have experienced war, persecuction and natural disasters.

Good explanation of your view. It looks like Canada is probably more ethnically diverse than the US. Australia is much less from this site: Ethnic groups statistics - countries compared - Nationmaster

Its an interesting site that compares ethnic diversity. I learned something again. I also agree with your view.

Loren

 

[toppop52]

Z

No. The common factor was semi automatic weapons, designed specifically to kill people efficiently. Not hunting rifles, not target rifles, not breach loading shotguns, not steak knives, not hammers, not baseball bats, not bombs, not automobiles. Semi automatic firearms specifically optimized for killing humans, which is exactly what almost all lunatics choose to make their statement.

and mentally I'll people on anti depressants!

 

[clemsonfor]

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).

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.

No. The common factor was semi automatic weapons, designed specifically to kill people efficiently. Not hunting rifles, not target rifles, not breach loading shotguns, not steak knives, not hammers, not baseball bats, not bombs, not automobiles. Semi automatic firearms specifically optimized for killing humans, which is exactly what almost all lunatics choose to make their statement.

I have a semi auto deer rifle and it can have a 10 rd clip inserted to it. By no means is it an assult rifle or looks like anything other than a deer rifle. Plain and simple a deer rifle that is 20+ years on in .243 caliber. Its a Remington 7400 look it up if you like.

This gun was not designed to kill people it was designed to kill deer and other medium sized game to smaller things like prarie dogs coyotes or things like that.

 

[toppop52]

Toppop52 quote
She never said that. The quote was, "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
Which if one had a clue, one would already know. Katie and apparently others, don't have a clue.

She never said what? My post says "after Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska", which is basically what you said she said.

As far as Palin goes, sorry but I never was a fan. At least Paul Ryan was a credible VP candidate who knew his stuff.

I wasn't a fan either, but truth is truth, edit buttons aside.

 

[clemsonfor]

OK so lets ban all semi autos like AR's cause that's the flavor of the month for crazies to shoot up stuff. Oh and make all mags over 10 rds illegal now. (they did not even ban the guns in the first ban). There probably never going to be able to take whats out there already so we will assume current stuff remains legal to own even if they make private transfers to go through an FFL.

So your next copy cat crazy 2 years into the ban wants to shoot up stuff, he does just like the kid who shot the children or the mall shooter. He cant now buy a new assault rifle or big mags so what does he do, get to know gun guys and scope out some and just steal theirs and 4 mags, then buy ammo and shoot up a a church meeting!! 10 dead 20 wounded its the same thing over. What does the ban do to stop this. Or he just and goes and buys his gun off the street like all the other criminals and still shoots up the place???

I mean there is nothing that the ban will do other than stop a crazy from buying a new gun and mags off the shelf, oh wait its already a felony for a mental deranged person to buy a gun!!!

 

[toppop52]

Well the Civil war, was not fought with semi-auto's, they were armed principally with single shot muzzleloading firearms with a few lever action repeaters, mostly on the Yankee side. 620,000 dead. World War 1 with 16 million dead, all nations armed with bolt action mostly 5 shot repeaters.. The British cheated and used 10 shot bolt action repeaters. World War II, military deaths only about 23 million the Germans and Russians , and British all armed with bolt action repeaters. Americans used the deadly semi-auto 8 shot repeater. Now not saying many of those deaths weren't to other causes.. Disease probably number 1 in civil war and maybe WW1, and artillery in Civil War and WW1, and also in WW1 the water cooled machine guns certainly played a role. And in WW2 all sides supplemented their bolt action guns with machine guns, sub-machine guns and a few actual Assault Rifles (on the German side). But to say that the Semi-automatic is what it takes to be optimized for killing humans, I don't think so. I think you can kill humans very effectively by lesser means. And I have history on my side. The point is that semi-auto firearms have been used with great effectiveness in killing humans, and so have many many other firearms and methods that have nothing to do with firearms. My other point is this. You have started by focusing on the Assault Rifle, and even now you are trending to any Semi-automatic firearm as being "bad" and must be gotten out of our hands. And you are placing them in a group that you wish to segregate as just being too dangerous for civilian hands. I mean after all they are "weapons of war" and" No-one needs one". and so on. I do not believe you will stop. When I am referring to "you" I am referring to all that think like you. As you pointed out yourself, if Louisville sluggers were the whole point of this discussion, and were used in the last 3 mass murders, you would be all for placing restrictions or even an outright ban on Louisville sluggers. This is how you think. You think that banning an object that is deadly and has been used repeatedly to commit mass murder should be banned. You actually think by doing this, it will "help" to curb "baseball bat crime" You cannot imagine how ludicrous that logic sounds to me. You say the common factor was semi automatic weapons. I say the common factor were mentally disturbed individuals.

James K0UA

More people in every one of those wars died from starvation, disease, means of torture and mass murder other than by gun, artillery, bombing, etc... Than those killed by hand held weapons, so get your numbers right or don't use false premise to advance your anti American agenda.

 

[clemsonfor]

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).

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.

The breakdown for Australia is a nonsense : Everyone is labelled either White or Asian or Aboriginal!!!!!!! I can tell you that Australian cities are teeming with people that are white, asian, middle eastern, African and whatever colour you like from just about everwhere in the world and especially those countries that have experienced war, persuction and natural disasters.

no it was 1% is either Aboriginal or other if I read it right.

 

[danito]

Honestly I don't know how you guys do it, living in a constant fear of home invasion, armed agression, terrorist attack or dictatorship from your government. I'm not saying you're wrong or right BTW, I'm just wondering how I'd deal with this and can't figure it out. Before this whole 'gun issue', I certainly didn't view the USA this way, and many others outside certainly didn't either. Sorry had to say it, you can now go back to your regular programming

 

[RadarTech]

Honestly I don't know how you guys do it, living in a constant fear of home invasion, armed agression, terrorist attack or dictatorship from your government. I'm not saying you're wrong or right BTW, I'm just wondering how I'd deal with this and can't figure it out. Before this whole 'gun issue', I certainly didn't view the USA this way, and many others outside certainly didn't either. Sorry had to say it, you can now go back to your regular programming

It is not a fear....

I can protect myself... And those around me...

The crime we see is not everyday, every city...
It is sufficiently rare that we are vigilant to stop and defend as necessary ...