Every single one of those proposed bills failed, too. Keep letting the legislative body know your thoughts on such laws...I do.
Registration ==> Confiscation?
- Thread starter Aguila Blanca
- Start date
Every single one of those proposed bills failed, too. Keep letting the legislative body know your thoughts on such laws...I do.
Armed_Chicagoan
New member
This is how it went down in Australia:
"Mick Roelandts, firearms reform project manager for the New South Wales Police, looks at a pile of about 4,500 prohibited firearms in Sydney that have been handed in over the past month under the Australia government's buy-back scheme, July 28, 1997."
"Mick Roelandts, firearms reform project manager for the New South Wales Police, looks at a pile of about 4,500 prohibited firearms in Sydney that have been handed in over the past month under the Australia government's buy-back scheme, July 28, 1997."
Chicagoan, that picture actually shows a significant percentage of the firearms actually turned in. Actual compliance with the 1997 buyback is estimated to be 10-20%.
chesterfield
New member
Australian government buy back scheme
Seeing that picture just breaks my heart but knowing how much it makes the anti-gunners salivate makes it an important picture to see. The logic they use doesn't allow them to see the rising crime rates as a bad thing, it only means that they still have work to do before their gun free utopia becomes a reality. Never mind the fact that in confiscating legal guns they removed a major crime deterrent and left people at the mercy of still-armed thugs who now have nothing to fear from their victims. Yes, registration = confiscation = disaster.
Seeing that picture just breaks my heart but knowing how much it makes the anti-gunners salivate makes it an important picture to see. The logic they use doesn't allow them to see the rising crime rates as a bad thing, it only means that they still have work to do before their gun free utopia becomes a reality. Never mind the fact that in confiscating legal guns they removed a major crime deterrent and left people at the mercy of still-armed thugs who now have nothing to fear from their victims. Yes, registration = confiscation = disaster.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Be careful what you post - some are at the edge for TFL. Those were deleted.
GEM
GEM
Not buy back as we use the term in the USA. That was forced and mandatory using the registration list in Australia.
Murder rate change in Australia since that scheme: down about 30%
Murder rate change in the USA during the same period: down about 50%
And the Australian gun control groups and politicians to claim a drop in Australian suicide since their two large gun control measures. Sober researchers in Australia, in peer reviewed work, and having no bias, believe that Australia actual suicide rate did not change at all.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010...uicide-australia-rationale-and-program-change
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/die...ustralias-suicide-epidemic-20090820-es3p.html
jersurf101
New member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now that is the question to ask your buddies who own fire arms and still support UBC's.
Now that is the question to ask your buddies who own fire arms and still support UBC's.
Quite a few, I would think, although I am only vaguely familiar with European laws (and less so with the rest of the world) I do know there are places with full registration that have not (yet) moved to full confiscation. Yet.
Switzerland comes to mind.
The problem with these nations is the "yet" part of it. You can have guns, under the existing restrictions, fully registered (them and you) with the authorities. Every thing is fine, right?
Until a charismatic "LEADER" is elected, who believes guns in hands outside his are a threat to his power. IF/when that happens, a ready made list simply delivers the guns, and you directly into his hands.
The most famous case of this happened in Germany, from 1933-45.
There was no right to gun ownership in the 1919 Constitution. The Law On Firearms and Ammunition was introduced in the Weimar Republic in 1928. In 1938 Adolph Hitler announced the Weapons Law. By 1938 the Nazis were in complete control of Germany.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
Notes from "diary of a mad man" (you know, the guy that does the same thing over..."
jerserf101:
So, here's how I explain UBC to my sister who thinks they make sense.
Me: Ok, we know that child pornography exists. We know that many pictures of child pornography are sent via email.
Therefore, to combat this scourge and save the children whom we know are affected every day by this scourge, I suggest that the government be allowed to look at every email that you, I, everyone send, b/c THEN they would be sure to catch those who are supporting this evil market.
Sister: "They can look at mine, I have nothing to hide."
Me: so, it doesn't bother you that people can look at, copy, maybe retransmit w/out your will, all the info that you think is a private, first amendment-protected discussion with someone else, like your lawyer?
Sister: no.
Me: I bet people who are witnesses to crimes; people who are trying to invent new-wave technology; people that might be wanting to share intimate secrets might have other opinions.
Sister: They can find another way.
Me: do you think that the child pornographers will find another way?
Sister: yes.
Me: So why do you think that UBC will stop criminals dealing in guns any more than criminals dealing with pornograpy?
Sister: it will help a bit.
There is no arguing with people who don't want to see the connections.
jerserf101:
So, here's how I explain UBC to my sister who thinks they make sense.
Me: Ok, we know that child pornography exists. We know that many pictures of child pornography are sent via email.
Therefore, to combat this scourge and save the children whom we know are affected every day by this scourge, I suggest that the government be allowed to look at every email that you, I, everyone send, b/c THEN they would be sure to catch those who are supporting this evil market.
Sister: "They can look at mine, I have nothing to hide."
Me: so, it doesn't bother you that people can look at, copy, maybe retransmit w/out your will, all the info that you think is a private, first amendment-protected discussion with someone else, like your lawyer?
Sister: no.
Me: I bet people who are witnesses to crimes; people who are trying to invent new-wave technology; people that might be wanting to share intimate secrets might have other opinions.
Sister: They can find another way.
Me: do you think that the child pornographers will find another way?
Sister: yes.
Me: So why do you think that UBC will stop criminals dealing in guns any more than criminals dealing with pornograpy?
Sister: it will help a bit.
There is no arguing with people who don't want to see the connections.
Last edited:
Using the recent law in WA as a basis, consider this analogy,
To combat drunk driving, we are now requiring you to take, and pass a blood alcohol test, each time, before you get behind the wheel of your car. you have to go to the hospital (without driving) to get the test. Doesn't matter that you have a driver's license. Doesn't matter that you have 3 cars. To prevent drunk driving everyone will have to do this. Oh, and the hospital can only charge a fee set by law.
And the hospital is under no obligation to give you the test, either.
My point wasn't that the Nazis instituted gun control, it was that when Hitler was elected, the framework was already there, waiting for him to use it.
And, yes, the GCA 68 was an almost word for word copy of the German 1934 law. We found out much later, but it turns out that the bills sponsor (Dodd?) had a copy of the German law, and a translation in his possession when he "wrote" the bill.
Don't think for a minute that it can't happen here. We are better protected in our rights than other nations citizens, thanks to our Constitution (bless the wisdom of the Founding Fathers) but we aren't "bulletproof", by a long shot.
To combat drunk driving, we are now requiring you to take, and pass a blood alcohol test, each time, before you get behind the wheel of your car. you have to go to the hospital (without driving) to get the test. Doesn't matter that you have a driver's license. Doesn't matter that you have 3 cars. To prevent drunk driving everyone will have to do this. Oh, and the hospital can only charge a fee set by law.
And the hospital is under no obligation to give you the test, either.
My point wasn't that the Nazis instituted gun control, it was that when Hitler was elected, the framework was already there, waiting for him to use it.
And, yes, the GCA 68 was an almost word for word copy of the German 1934 law. We found out much later, but it turns out that the bills sponsor (Dodd?) had a copy of the German law, and a translation in his possession when he "wrote" the bill.
Don't think for a minute that it can't happen here. We are better protected in our rights than other nations citizens, thanks to our Constitution (bless the wisdom of the Founding Fathers) but we aren't "bulletproof", by a long shot.
The problem with that analogy is that driving is not a right. Travel is the right. Much like Concealed Carry isn't a right, carry IN SOME FORM is the right (or probably is, SCOTUS has skirted an outright statement on that)
Free Speech is a right, and- generally- photographs are speech. - To combat child pornography, every time you take or transmit/transfer a digital photo, you have to show it to the desk sergeant at the local police station and get his permission. Especially those boudoir photos your wife took for your anniversary present. And you thought the i-cloud phone hacking thing was bad.
I understand about driving and rights, and I admit its not a perfect analogy. But I choose driving because it is something that people feel is a "right" and something with a direct DAILY impact on the average person.
The point was to take something that everyone does, all the time, and restrict it. They consider restrictions on our guns rights as an abstract matter, because it doesn't really affect their lives. DRIVING is something that does affect their lives. That's the only way they can see the impact of what these laws do to us, is to show something in their lives that the same sort of restrictions would impact.
The coffee drinkers don't care much when the govt, adds a nickel or a dime to the cost of beer and soda.
But add that tax on their coffee, and they scream bloody murder.
Because it affects them, personally.
The point was to take something that everyone does, all the time, and restrict it. They consider restrictions on our guns rights as an abstract matter, because it doesn't really affect their lives. DRIVING is something that does affect their lives. That's the only way they can see the impact of what these laws do to us, is to show something in their lives that the same sort of restrictions would impact.
The coffee drinkers don't care much when the govt, adds a nickel or a dime to the cost of beer and soda.
But add that tax on their coffee, and they scream bloody murder.
Because it affects them, personally.