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

[Grumpy Old Man]

Anyway to get back to the main issue of Confiscations of guns , here's a video with another view point from Australia
DevilDog
https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA

They can't confiscate your guns if they don't know you have them .

 

[LWG]

"...invading Canada.."

We didn't fail. We found out your idea of haute cuisine was poutine, and left.

 

[alchemysa]

It is unfortunate to see the degree of animosity growing between members from different countries, but it is not new, I commented a year or more ago on Canadians/Australians/Britain

I haven't read every post here, but I've read most, and I don't see much animosity at all from outside the US. (Well at least not from outside North America).

 

[yelbike]

i respect most if not all of your posts. I agree that just because we are from seperate countries does not mean we can't get along. i don't mean to tell you or anyone else how to run your own country. Just stating an opinion. Being told I should have no opinion bc I'm canadian, well I swung back at someone that post 7.xx time a day for 3 months. I guess if he thow enough poop at the wall some will stick. Most members here don't tell eachother to buzz off.

I don't say to do things like me or canada, we are not perfect and I hope we don't proclaim to be.

Back to the gun issue is their a good reason for a 30 round clip? just asking, is that some thing hunter or farms would let go?

BTW, yes your counts high enough to answer!:laughing:

It is unfortunate to see the degree of animosity growing between members from different countries, but it is not new, I commented a year or more ago on Canadians/Australians/Britain tell those of us in the United States how we should run our country and "be reasonable like them". I don't remember ever making a comment like that to anyone from another country and am growing increasingly weary of hearing it. At some point the tone and constant drumbeat begins to have the opposite effect and people will just tend to tune someone out.

Agreed everyone has the right to their own opinion, but I believe we are close to the point to where we really are no longer really listening to each other and some are making some really ridiculous assumptions on the beliefs and opinions of others.

I hope my post count is high enough to be taken seriously; a really absurd point in my opinion as threads on credibility have pointed out the meaninglessness of high post counts. You can say stupid stuff a lot of times and get a high post count; totally meaningless.

 

[yelbike]

TBN is a privately owned forum. The management determines what is allowable.
If you tried to limit the freedom of speech in a newspaper or other media, for example, there would be a series of lawsuits and all kinds of issues brought against those who inflicted such restrictions.

Now, firearms...Obama, Feinstein, Schumer and others have had a long standing prejudice against firearms in general. The Democrats are currently in power and they may try restrictions...and in 2014, the people will make their choices for many currently in office. The last time the Democrats did this nonsense, they lost big time....and I expect it again.
Now, I maintain it will take an amendment to restrict any rights...including the 2nd Amendment.

Do you there's no limitation on freedom of speech in the media? Heard **** or he!! in the last news cast? You get my point I hope. So limitation is acceptable.

Would SOME limitation be acceptable on gun ownership? Maybe no AR15, maybe no huge clips or locked when not in use or carried? Just a maybe would be nice.

 

[RoyJackson]

Do you there's no limitation on freedom of speech in the media? Heard **** or he!! in the last news cast? You get my point I hope. So limitation is acceptable.

Would SOME limitation be acceptable on gun ownership? Maybe no AR15, maybe no huge clips or locked when not in use or carried? Just a maybe would be nice.

Note I wrote media which isn't limited to newspapers or television news. Media consists of books, movies, TV, etc. Although the FCC has standards for television, it seems to me the Supreme Court knocked down those standards recently. I assume the case concerned cable/pay television and not commercial broadcast TV.
However, even or broadcast TV, H*ll, D*mn, and other curse words aren't infrequent.

There is already limitation on gun ownership. If one is convicted of a felony, one cannot own, possess or handle a firearm. If one is a habitual drunk, or user of illegal drugs (and other reasons); ownership and possession is prohibited.
However, we aren't discussing felons, drug addicts or drunks...we're discussing citizens who have commited no illegal acts. Those are the people the government will punish.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Do you there's no limitation on freedom of speech in the media? Heard **** or he!! in the last news cast? You get my point I hope. So limitation is acceptable.

Would SOME limitation be acceptable on gun ownership? Maybe no AR15, maybe no huge clips or locked when not in use or carried? Just a maybe would be nice.

So what do you propose we do about all the AR 15's already sold /traded /bartered/ stolen/already in the hands of gangs or nut cases / lost or just misplaced ? When will some people get the fact that the only guns that would be "turned in " would be from law abiding citizens ? the crooks and thieves would surely keep theirs or sell to the next felon wanting a weapon !

 

[yelbike]

Note I wrote media which wasn't limited to newspapers or television news. Media consists of books, movies, TV, etc. Although the FCC has standards for television, it seems to me the Supreme Court knocked down those standards recently. I assume the case concerned cable/pay television and not commercial broadcast TV.
However, even or broadcast TV, H*ll, D*mn, and other curse words aren't infrequent.

There is already limitation on gun ownership. If one is convicted of a felony, one cannot own, possess or handle a firearm. If one is a habitual drunk, or user of illegal drugs (and other reasons); ownership and possession is prohibited.
However, we aren't discussing felons, drug addicts or drunks...we're discussing citizens who have commited no illegal acts. Those are the people the government will punish.

Okay Roy, I see your point. I won't go as far as agreeing with you just yet but I see your point.

Please explain to me why politician want to take your guns away if its not for safety? I don't get it or see it?

 

[aczlan]

Roy, here a thought. Freedom of speech correct. Why can't you say **** or he!! on here? That's limitation correct. Acceptable? I think so, so do you, you are a member here that agreed to the terms of use!

Doesn't count. The First Amendment is a check on the GOVERNMENT restricting speech, not against a private party restricting speech on their private forum.

Aaron Z

 

[yelbike]

So what do you propose we do about all the AR 15's already sold /traded /bartered/ stolen/already in the hands of gangs or nut cases / lost or just misplaced ? When will some people get the fact that the only guns that would be "turned in " would be from law abiding citizens ? the crooks and thieves would surely keep theirs or sell to the next felon wanting a weapon !

I don't know! I'm Canadian not perfect!