Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This is why Austrailian style gun control won't work here.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This is why Austrailian style gun control won't work here.

    Hillary wants to force "Austrailian style gun controls" on the American public.
    There are many reasons it won't work here, but this story should be at the top of the evidence submitted to the court of public opinion,


    Man Who Shot 3 Chicago Officers Had Been Arrested 43 Times:

    Lamar Harris, who fired at officers Monday night in West Chicago, had seven felony convictions and 43 arrests on his rap sheet, according to police. His most recent felony convictions were on January 9, 2012, for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and resisting a peace officer, causing injury.

    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...372161092.html

    43 arrest and this scum is still walking the streets!
    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

  • #2
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    Hillary wants to force "Austrailian style gun controls" on the American public.
    There are many reasons it won't work here, but this story should be at the top of the evidence submitted to the court of public opinion,


    Man Who Shot 3 Chicago Officers Had Been Arrested 43 Times:

    Lamar Harris, who fired at officers Monday night in West Chicago, had seven felony convictions and 43 arrests on his rap sheet, according to police. His most recent felony convictions were on January 9, 2012, for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and resisting a peace officer, causing injury.

    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...372161092.html

    43 arrest and this scum is still walking the streets!
    Not any more. From your article/link, quote:

    "The 29-year-old man who died in a shootout that left three Chicago officers injured was a felon and a documented gang member, police said Tuesday."
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • #3
      The primary reasons why it wouldn't work here are, the size of our population versus Australia's, the number of guns now in the hands of our population (probably upwards of 300 million) and no one knows exactly who has them since they are not registered in the Sates like in Australia and last but not least, the second amendment of the US Constitution.
      This is just part of her spiel for progressive votes and I believe she knows that she can't do it, however I wouldn't put it past her to try.
      Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

      Comment


      • #4
        This is what gives me hope for Hillary's chances: Bobo is the most outspokenly anti-gun Prez in living memory. He presided during a tuime of horrific mass shootings. Yet during his tenure US gun laws at every level have loosened.

        His own frustration is clearly apparent when he talks on the subject.

        Yet Hillary is charging into that very issue before she's even secured her nomination.

        With that sort of political acumen....
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
          The primary reasons why it wouldn't work here are, the size of our population versus Australia's, the number of guns now in the hands of our population (probably upwards of 300 million) and no one knows exactly who has them since they are not registered in the Sates like in Australia and last but not least, the second amendment of the US Constitution.
          This is just part of her spiel for progressive votes and I believe she knows that she can't do it, however I wouldn't put it past her to try.
          The absolute reason would be that Constitutionally, to force everyone to turn in their weapons would require the government to pay fair market price for doing that. I don't know if Australia had such laws as eminent domain that require the government to pay for taking property from citizens for public use / good, but the US does.
          Any plan to mass confiscate guns and ammunition in the US would first result in a decade or more of court battles. Even if the government were successful, the resulting cost would easily top a trillion dollars. Then there's absolutely no way of knowing if everything got turned in or even close to it.
          Add in that gun sellers, range owners, and such would also have a claim for compensation of loss of business by the government and it starts to become obvious that the Shrill one's plan is insanely unenforceable and expensive. But, that's never stopped Progressives before until they get run over in the street by their own stupidity.

          Comment


          • #6
            43 arrest, several felony convictions, still on the streets.
            There is no will, no purpose to our justice system, we have totally insane people living in the streets, literally thousands of violent convicts roaming the streets in packs, preying on us all.
            The simplistic argument that disarming the general public would somehow make the public safer is an illusion.
            Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
            Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
              43 arrest, several felony convictions, still on the streets.
              There is no will, no purpose to our justice system, we have totally insane people living in the streets, literally thousands of violent convicts roaming the streets in packs, preying on us all.
              The simplistic argument that disarming the general public would somehow make the public safer is an illusion.
              It's as much an illusion as the belief, often by the same gun control nuts, that if we only understood criminals and coddled them some they'd come to see the error of their way and stop committing crimes...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                The absolute reason would be that Constitutionally, to force everyone to turn in their weapons would require the government to pay fair market price for doing that. I don't know if Australia had such laws as eminent domain that require the government to pay for taking property from citizens for public use / good, but the US does.
                [.....]
                Of course it does.

                You will find that such laws are quite commonplace, varying only to the extent of fairness to those having property forcibly aquired, in all democracies.

                You could have found this out quite easily by searching for the term you used yourself.


                Eminent domain (United States, the Philippines), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption (Hong Kong), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia), or expropriation (South Africa, Canada, Brazil) is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use.
                [.....]
                Main article: Section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution

                In Australia, section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution permits the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws."[24] This has been construed as meaning that just compensation may not always include monetary or proprietary recompense, rather it is for the court to determine what is just. It may be necessary to imply a need for compensation in the interests of justice, lest the law be invalidated.[25]

                Property subject to resumption is not restricted to real estate as authority from the Federal Court has extended the states' power to resume property to any form of physical property.[citation needed]
                [.....]
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
                Last edited by At ease; 17 Mar 16, 00:48.
                "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Fine.

                  I also see that buy back programs in general offer in the range of $100 to $300 per gun turned in. If the US were to implement a vigorous national program to get everyone, or most people to turn in weapons it'd be in count in a nanosecond over the value of the weapons turned in. Most hunting rifles are worth considerably more than that today. "Assault" rifles go for $1000 and up even used. Pistols run $300 and up new and even used ones are often going to exceed the $100 offer level.

                  If someone owned fully automatic weapons those go for thousands to tens of thousands each. Again, forcing a turn in and compensation could not be done on a few hundred dollars a weapon.
                  Ammunition is the same way. How much per round would be offered. For many rifle rounds the cost is easily as much as $1 + per round. Even common pistol and rifle ammunition on the cheap side is as much as .50 + a round.

                  An owner could also demand compensation for auxiliary equipment associated with weapons like reloading equipment, cleaning equipment, scopes, etc.

                  A billion wouldn't even begin to cover the cost of a general turn in of weapons in the US.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It won't work because Australians aren't Americans. And both are probably just fine with that..

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      It's as much an illusion as the belief, often by the same gun control nuts, that if we only understood criminals and coddled them some they'd come to see the error of their way and stop committing crimes...
                      It's that whole liberal stupidity versus conservative hypocrisy element to the whole issue that makes it so tragically amusing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                        It won't work because Australians aren't Americans. And both are probably just fine with that..
                        Our media hasn't convinced them that they want to be Americans? We shall double our efforts!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          It's that whole liberal stupidity versus conservative hypocrisy element to the whole issue that makes it so tragically amusing.
                          Eh, hypocrisy is universal, stupidity is unfortunate. We've got the liberal frontrunner, who makes more in an afternoon than I made in the last couple of years.....but she understands the disadvantaged.

                          Every single leader of a country with strict gun laws is protected by firearms that would otherwise be proscribed for anyone else to be protected with. By and large that's what I like about US Gun laws. A private citizen can, with a bit of cash and some paperwork, be protected by the exact same weapons (or the equivalent) that the President is directly protected with (talking protective detail, not the wider USSS with heavy weapons). If I were going to propose a bit of gun legislation, that would be the language.....any law restricting the possession of a class of weapon or specific weapon to the citizen also proscribes the possession of that weapon by any agent of the state functioning in the capacity of protecting an official of said state entity. After all if a bolt action rifle is good enough for Joe to protect his house, person, and property, then the President should feel very adequately protected by a detail of over a dozen carrying bolt-action rifles.

                          Hypocrisy abounds.....my very existence is an oxymoron of hypocrisy, I'm a man of war sworn to fight for peace. I carry enough firepower to decimate a trailer park, for the purpose of preventing violence.

                          Unfortunately, stupidity causes actual problems. Hypocrisy can easily be anticipated and nullified. Stupidity's wide reaching effects cannot.
                          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            Fine.

                            I also see that buy back programs in general offer in the range of $100 to $300 per gun turned in. If the US were to implement a vigorous national program to get everyone, or most people to turn in weapons it'd be in count in a nanosecond over the value of the weapons turned in. Most hunting rifles are worth considerably more than that today. "Assault" rifles go for $1000 and up even used. Pistols run $300 and up new and even used ones are often going to exceed the $100 offer level.

                            If someone owned fully automatic weapons those go for thousands to tens of thousands each. Again, forcing a turn in and compensation could not be done on a few hundred dollars a weapon.
                            Ammunition is the same way. How much per round would be offered. For many rifle rounds the cost is easily as much as $1 + per round. Even common pistol and rifle ammunition on the cheap side is as much as .50 + a round.

                            An owner could also demand compensation for auxiliary equipment associated with weapons like reloading equipment, cleaning equipment, scopes, etc.

                            A billion wouldn't even begin to cover the cost of a general turn in of weapons in the US.
                            Buy back programs are a joke. I had my wife 'sell back' a case of Raven .25s I had picked up for $220 at a gun show (case of ten pistols) for $100 each. The anti-gun-nuts shelled out two grand for me to dispose of guns I wouldn't fire if you paid me.

                            The good thing about buy-back programs are working them. "Hey, I'll give you a hundred over what the program will, cash. Meet me out back in five minutes."

                            You can pick up some really great deals that way.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                              Buy back programs are a joke. I had my wife 'sell back' a case of Raven .25s I had picked up for $220 at a gun show (case of ten pistols) for $100 each. The anti-gun-nuts shelled out two grand for me to dispose of guns I wouldn't fire if you paid me.

                              The good thing about buy-back programs are working them. "Hey, I'll give you a hundred over what the program will, cash. Meet me out back in five minutes."

                              You can pick up some really great deals that way.
                              A city in my state did a buy back......it was raved over as a success, until someone actually inspected the weapons. You know, someone that actually knew about weapons, not the liberal shills they sent to do the feel good part while the cops stuck on the assignment just grabbed and threw in a box.

                              They shelled out a few grand, and to my recollection did not get a single functional defensive firearm. They got broken guns, bargain basement 22s, and some other crap.

                              Buyback programs work great......if you do like you did and pick up a bunch of crap guns in a bulk buy. Sell them to the Brady Bunch for thrice or more than you paid, then go out and buy you a couple of nice guns and a whole lot of ammunition. Better bet than putting it in the commodities market.
                              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X