What Will You Do?

[ldub23]

Are they killing people in Australia? Of course not. Paranoia isn't helpful.

We came really close to that during the corona pandemic. Many were for what she proposed. Dictatorship doesnt beging with the killing fields, but they often end there.

CNN's Leana Wen: The Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes

"You have the option to not get vaccinated if you want," said the doctor. "But then you can't go out in public."

reason.com

"Wen elaborated that society has an "obligation to prevent" the unvaccinated from leaving their homes and infecting others, in the same way that society has an obligation to deter drunk drivers."

What is the next step after forced house arrest? This is why we can never allow the govt to be the only ones with guns.

 

[marduc]

Much greater chance of being swatted in the OP scenario, especially if those opposing the kaw know that someone would support such a law.

I just reread the OP. Much better chance of who being swatted in the OP scenario, the gun owner or the non-owner?

I am more confused now than I was when I initially replied to you.

 

[Rucker61]

Are they killing people in Australia? Of course not. Paranoia isn't helpful.

We already have people shooting at cops who come to take their guns. The reason we have a red flag law in Colorado that allows to government to send armed police to take someone's guns is because the government sent armed police to take someone's guns.

 

[BabaVoss]

Right now those are just words. Clarify. How many fewer? How less deadly?

Why? You want to sideline the conversation into details that don’t really matter at the moment. It would be an improvement to have fewer guns with less killing power. That’s the point.

 

[Michael Cole]

We came really close to that during the corona pandemic. Many were for what she proposed. Dictatorship doesnt beging with the killing fields, but they often end there.

CNN's Leana Wen: The Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes

"You have the option to not get vaccinated if you want," said the doctor. "But then you can't go out in public."

reason.com

"Wen elaborated that society has an "obligation to prevent" the unvaccinated from leaving their homes and infecting others, in the same way that society has an obligation to deter drunk drivers."

What is the next step after forced house arrest? This is why we can never allow the govt to be the only ones with guns.

What does this have to do with Australia?

Australia isn't a left wing dictatorship and they aren't killing people for nothing. You're paranoid. It's not helpful. The issue is serious and requires calmer heads.

 

[Mongidig]

Are they gonna try to take our hand grenades as well?

 

[Rucker61]

I just reread the OP. Much better chance of who being swatted in the OP scenario, the gun owner or the non-owner?

I am more confused now than I was when I initially replied to you.

In the OP, more so the gun owner, but given the likely vindictiveness of some gun owners will likely result in significantly higher levers of swatting of non-gun owners, both to consume the limited law enforcement resources on false alarms and to hopefully (in the minds of those vindictive gun owners) to take revenge of those who supported the law.

 

[Rucker61]

Why? You want to sideline the conversation into details that don’t really matter at the moment. It would be an improvement to have fewer guns with less killing power. That’s the point.

You know this isn't going to happen, right?

 

[Seth]

Man, I have been hearing for 40 years how people are coming for teh guns, and somehow they never do.

Sure they do, just open your eyes. The machinegun ban, the various states with 'assault weapon' bans, all the many restrictions states like NY and CA put in place, and let's not forget red flag laws where the cops come to your house immediately for the explicit purpose of taking only your guns and no other lethal weapons in the home like swords. They tried putting handguns on the NFA list before closing the registry. Dian Feinstein is on TV saying she wants confiscation. The list of examples goes on and on. You must be living under a rock, the left is coming for guns just like the right is coming for abortion. They're political footballs the government uses to keep us from paying attention to real problems like digital currency paired with social credit scores, or conflicts like the South China Sea.

 

[ldub23]

What does this have to do with Australia?

Australia isn't a left wing dictatorship and they aren't killing people for nothing. You're paranoid. It's not helpful. The issue is serious and requires calmer heads.

Its how the killing begins. You first consider groups to be undesirables. Hitler didnt start killing Jews in 1933. First came the segregation of Jews, then the destruction and confiscation of property.

 

[Michael Cole]

Its how the killing begins. You first consider groups to be undesirables. Hitler didnt start killing Jews in 1933. First came the segregation of Jews, then the destruction and confiscation of property.

Australia. Check it out.

I deal in reality, not paranoid conspiratorial nonsense.

 

[marduc]

In the OP, more so the gun owner, but given the likely vindictiveness of some gun owners will likely result in significantly higher levers of swatting of non-gun owners, both to consume the limited law enforcement resources on false alarms and to hopefully (in the minds of those vindictive gun owners) to take revenge of those who supported the law

So some gun owners are vindictive and reciprocally will swat in an environment condusive to swatting, ergo don't touch or guns?
<edit... and aforementioned vindictive gun owners will potentially take revenge?>

Good argument.

 

[Rucker61]

So gun owners are vindictive and reciprocally will swat in an environment condusive to swatting, ergo don't touch or guns?

Good argument.

Some gun owners would be, and it wouldn't take more than a fraction of a percentage to have an adverse impact on the process.

Do you think all gun owners will peacefully turn in guns if possession is illegal?

 

[HIP56948]

if the law was unconstitutional?

Were either of these banned under the 1996 Australian law?

I think the rifle was but not sure. It's been 25 years and I've owned a few weapons in that time...

 

[anatta]

I don't have any guns. It's irrelevant to me.

neither do i own any but the Bill of Rights has to be constantly defended/exercised
Funny thing i think it's almost safer not to have a gun in Baltimore on the theory they will just rob you because you aren't a threat to shoot back- least that was my theory and i guess it worked for 35 years there

 

[marduc]

Some gun owners would be, and it wouldn't take more than a fraction of a percentage to have an adverse impact on the process.

Do you think all gun owners will peacefully turn in guns if possession is illegal?

I never argued otherwise, our entire discussion has hinged on the "swatting" red herring you proposed.

 

[RF667799]

Why? You want to sideline the conversation into details that don’t really matter at the moment. It would be an improvement to have fewer guns with less killing power. That’s the point.

What improvement would happen with a random reduction in the number of guns?

 

[Rucker61]

I never argued otherwise, our entire discussion has hinged on the "swatting" red herring you proposed.

You be you.

 

[zsu2357]

We have a serious gun problem here, but I don’t see it changing any time soon. Many other countries refer to us as having a ‘gun culture’ and many don’t travel here much or at all as they feel it is unsafe. So it is costing us in many unseen ways - in addition to the regular mass murder that happens because some nut with a gun fetish decides to off a bunch of children or minorities or whoever it is that he hates today.

Yes we have a gun culture so lets pull one (country) out of the air that doesn't OH look it's Japan. Is that why they flock to Guam to shoot guns? https://www.denverpost.com/2013/02/15/no-guns-at-home-so-japanese-shoot-em-up-in-guam/ So if it cost us a little tourism so what.

Now I do believe that I should have the right to own a gun if I so choose. But we have far too many, with far too much killing power, much too quickly, and with too large a capacity. There should be some sensible limits. Unless and until we get sensible people in Congress, that won’t happen.

But you don't other than some collectable that should never ever be shot. And we have limits all kind of limits and most of them aren't sensible. But yet you are ready to pile on more as if it would make a difference.

It is not an issue for me, as the only gun I own is a collector’s item and should not be fired, ever. Personally, I’d love to see fewer guns and less killing power in our country.

Yes I'm sure you would personally LOVE to see fewer guns here's a hint DON'T LOOK and you will see less. You don't have a dog in the fight so quit your worrying. Less killing power?? Left my M-134 mini-gun at home?

 

[zsu2357]

Really? Post the link to any interview where Obama said America should follow Australia.

Obama lectures Americans on gun control, wishes US could have strict guns laws like Australia

In a recent interview, former President Barack Obama lamented America's pro-gun culture and expressed his desire that the country implement gun control like Australia.

www.foxnews.com

 

[zsu2357]

Not for anyone, but the assumption that such a law would be irrelevant to do depends on someone not telling the government that you have banned guns. You have no control over that..

Hell the way they screw up addresses and hit the wrong houses w/casualties and just go OOPS.

 

[Redress]

And that law can't be changed? The current AWB bills differs significantly from the 1994 law? If the power exists to actually pass the 28th Amendment the power exists to change the definition of "assault weapon" prior to or subsequent to the Amendment being ratified. Of gun control advocates have the power to pass such an Amendment do you think they'd settle for anything short of confiscation, given that this law won't impact mass shootings?? Those countries they keep comparing us to confiscated lots of guns. They like what those countries did.

It could be very subtle changes. Ohio SB260 from the 2019 state legislative session redefined "assault" as any semiautomatic weapon "capable of accepting a large capacity magazine". That definition would prevent the sale of a subcompact Glock 42 pistol with a six round factory capacity as an "assault weapon" as there is a 12 round aftermarket magazine for it.

Nothing you say will make the claim that the proposed 28th amendment would end the 2nd true. The power the amend the constitution is in the constitution. It does not, nor will it, make your claim true.

 

[Rucker61]

Nothing you say will make the claim that the proposed 28th amendment would end the 2nd true. The power the amend the constitution is in the constitution. It does not, nor will it, make your claim true.

Effectively true. If "assault weapons" can be banned, and there is no limit as to what can be an 'assault weapon", what does the Second survive to protect?

 

[marduc]

You be you.

No one else I would rather be.

mission accomplished "swatting" down your red herring.

 

[Redress]

Effectively true. If "assault weapons" can be banned, and there is no limit as to what can be an 'assault weapon", what does the Second survive to protect?

First, it does not ban ownership of any weapons, it bans purchase of “assault weapons”. Second, a constitutional amendment could simply do away with the second amendment, so your slippery slope claim is kinda stupid. Note: I do not support the proposed 28th amendment, but at least I know what it does. It helps to know what you are talking about…