It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama cites Australia’s gun confiscation program as example for US

page: 11
16
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

What you fail to recognize is that our actual government can't do much of anything. Say the US economy collapses tomorrow. First off, the military (mostly) will desert. They're not going to come after most Americans. I'm sure there will be some that stay, the sadists and psychopaths. The vast majority, however, will desert. So we don't have much to worry about from our government directly.

What we do need to worry about is our government calling in other governments that will do the work for them. I sincerely doubt there will be enough people brought in from wherever to properly control our populace. They could call in China but I don't think they'd leave themselves that wide open.

Anyway, first there are the scum. The looters, those who take advantage of the situation and are just filth. We need to defend ourselves from them. After that, we have... Well, there's no accurate way to predict that. I doubt though that it will be pleasant. So what if it's a symbol that people want around? It's the same with religion. People feel safer with guns just like the religious feel safer with blessings and figureheads to pray to. I've lost interest in this post now.

As an ending though, if it's "delusional" to believe this than at least half of the American public are "delusional".

Also, are you aware of what the Japanese emperor said during WW2 about invading the US?




posted on Jun, 16 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Thanks for finding that. I think when I go to the range again this weekend, I'll take my cowboy carbines and bolt/pump rifles and a camera if only to prove a point.

It still won't satiate the die hard gun grabbers but maybe it'll strike a chord in the "we need to ban 'assault' weapons" people.
edit on 6/16/14 by Magnivea because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties


originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Kryties


Of course I care about ALL murders.


So when will decry the use of fire for those last 3 mass murders?


Still waiting.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: macman

Are you going to answer the question or not?


Nope, not because I don't have an answer but because of the ridiculous way you tried to put words into my mouth and literally made things up in an attempt to make your point.

I refuse to be a part of that trolling behaviour.


The member asks a perfectly legitimate question - why do you refuse to answer? I'd also like to know why you think guns are the only manner in which to massacre people.

I don't know why you find it so difficult to comprehend the simple fact that if an Australian wishes to kill people with a gun - they can and will.

Lie on the application, get the gun, shoot a bunch of people. Or just steal the gun - if you're going to kill people I'm sure a wee touch of theft isn't going to make a dent in the conscience.

It's simple pimple and the member and I and I'm sure a whole lot more members would like to know why you aren't screaming your guts up to ban everything else - or is it just that you've never handled firearms and they scare you?




edit on 17-6-2014 by BasementWarriorKryptonite because: Spelling error



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: NavyDoc

But then why did you even bring up mass murders? Certainly it wasn't an expedient way to make an emotionally based point was it?


Umm, maybe because the gun confiscation that is referred to in the title of this thread occurred because of a mass murder? I was speaking COMPLETELY on topic ffs!

Was that a serious question? No really...


So because of one mass murder, guns were removed from hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens. How does that make any sense?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: NavyDoc

But then why did you even bring up mass murders? Certainly it wasn't an expedient way to make an emotionally based point was it?


Umm, maybe because the gun confiscation that is referred to in the title of this thread occurred because of a mass murder? I was speaking COMPLETELY on topic ffs!

Was that a serious question? No really...


So because of one mass murder, guns were removed from hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens. How does that make any sense?


I am surprised the Aussies haven't taken the necessary steps and banned motor vehicles!
Douglas Crabbe


Douglas John Edward Crabbe (born 1947) is an Australian murderer currently imprisoned in Perth for a multiple murder which occurred when he drove his 25-tonne Mack truck into the crowded bar of a motel at the base of Uluru, on 18 August 1983. Five people were killed and sixteen seriously injured



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

Australia is not the same as the US. First the population is MUCH smaller. The US has several states with a larger populous than the entire country. We also have a lot of area, a lot of rural area. The controls that were put in place down unda there simply will not work.

Different experiment, different parameters, different set of controls, equates to a different outcome.


Since my point is being ignored by the Aussie jumping all over the space, I figured I'd quote myself(again)

How can a reasonable person try to compare the gun control measures in Australia to the gun control problem is the USA?
edit on 17-6-2014 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

So because of one mass murder, guns were removed from hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens. How does that make any sense?


Wrong. We introduced stricter laws that require registration and licensing and the passing of background checks. Also, the licensee is required to have a good reason to own one...EG: Sports like target shooting, pest control, recreational (in defined areas) and that kind of thing.

I could go out tomorrow and apply for, and get, a shooters license but I don't feel the need to. Many Aussies, who at the time of the ban owned guns, willingly handed them over and never went and got a license. The rest kept their guns, got them properly registered and passed their license tests.

I would appreciate it if Americans could at least keep the FACTS in sight, rather than just going around bellowing that we Aussies don't have guns and aren't allowed them - which is simply not true.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

I would appreciate it if Americans could at least keep the FACTS in sight, rather than just going around bellowing that we Aussies don't have guns and aren't allowed them - which is simply not true.


Sounds like you want Americans to kind of keep their nose out of the business of Aussies.

Guess the feeling is mutual.


So, when are you going to press for the need to restrict the ability of people to purchase gas and lighters?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

So, what keeps someone who demonstrated a "good reason to have one" from perpetrating a gun massacre?



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Because the law says so. Geez, even I could understand that.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Kryties

So, what keeps someone who demonstrated a "good reason to have one" from perpetrating a gun massacre?



Actually, I'd say "stopping a massacre" would be a good reason to have one, but defense of self and others is not considered a "good reason" by the anti-self defense crowd



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: NavyDoc

So because of one mass murder, guns were removed from hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens. How does that make any sense?


Wrong. We introduced stricter laws that require registration and licensing and the passing of background checks. Also, the licensee is required to have a good reason to own one...EG: Sports like target shooting, pest control, recreational (in defined areas) and that kind of thing.

I could go out tomorrow and apply for, and get, a shooters license but I don't feel the need to. Many Aussies, who at the time of the ban owned guns, willingly handed them over and never went and got a license. The rest kept their guns, got them properly registered and passed their license tests.

I would appreciate it if Americans could at least keep the FACTS in sight, rather than just going around bellowing that we Aussies don't have guns and aren't allowed them - which is simply not true.


No, you are incorrect. Certain types of guns were banned and were supposed to be turned in and no amount of licensing enabled you to keep them. Those guns were turned in and destroyed en mass. The types of guns you are permitted are quite emasculated and you don't simply just have to get a license and take a test as you suggest (this is untrue), you have to demonstrate "need" to have one and "because I want one" is not considered "need." Category C and D firearms, those that previously be owned by many people, are essentially out of reach.

What you are saying is that because you can read some harmless paperback books but most dangerous and big books with dangerous ideas are banned you, you still have the right to won books. That's a bit disingenuous isn't it?

Either you don't know the FACTS of your own countries gun laws or you are being intentionally disingenuous. Which is it?


edit on 17-6-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

I just think you guys are bitter that Slater has been dominating the surfing world for 3 decades. It took several gifts from the judges for Mick to win the WT last year.

Australia's gun control measures are not practical or even safe in the USA. I've given several reasons in this thread.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Kelly slater is a marvel of nature or possibly a terminator from the future.



posted on Jun, 17 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bellagirl
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog



and here are your figures:

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2011: 32,16318
2010: 31,67219
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

You posted US gun deaths including suicides which is why the number is so high, if you look at my numbers they only include gun homicides. You kind of proved my point about Australia and how non violent they were when it came to guns even before the extremely strict laws got put into place. Yes your gun laws did bring down gun homicides but even according to the Washington Post (majority of their articles support stricter gun control) the numbers are insignificant because of how low gun homicides were (before the ban) and because they were already going down even before the ban . America has something like 30 million guns already on the street, our gangs make Australian gangs look like wimps, we have a much more serious drug problem, and we have a higher crime rate.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Well so what is really being said is that Australia is simply a model for emotional overreaction and good sheep getting in line and turning over their weapons.

I suppose the pres wouldn't need armed secret service protection if we all turned in our guns here.

Truth is with the 2nd amendment we are not required to even entertain the notion or defend our reasons but simply do so out of the kindness of our hearts. If there were any real hope of overturning the thing the libs would have called for a constitutional convention to overturn the 2nd. It would be political suicide. So these notations about Australia and the like are like standing well away from the lions cage and running your flap.



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman

Sounds like you want Americans to kind of keep their nose out of the business of Aussies.


I never even REMOTELY said that. There you go putting words into my mouth again, you just can't help yourself can you?

I asked that Americans get their facts correct about Aussie gun restrictions. It was a pretty simple statement, not many big words so I am failing to see how you could misread or misconstrue that.

Unless, of course, you are simply trolling.




posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Again. Sounds like you should get your facts straight for the US.

It all goes back to not sticking your nose into other people's business.

So, let me ask the question again.
Since you are against all murder, when will you push to restrict all items that are used to commit mass murders?



posted on Jun, 18 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman

Since you are against all murder, when will you push to restrict all items that are used to commit mass murders?


Never, because I have something called "common sense" - you may wish to look into it.

Go back to salivating over your guns mate, hopefully in the next decade or two all you Americans will have shot each other dead anyways so the point will be mute.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join