The gun confiscation redux: law makers caught on hot mic.

a reply to: Jefferton

Did you miss the part where they talk about wanting to???

They didn't, don't, and hopefully won't, because we (most of) the people won't let them. We join organizations like the NRA, and other pro-2nd amendment groups so as to make sure our voices are heard by the correct ears.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's going to happen, either...that does not, however, change the fact that some, most assuredly, want to.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You really couldn't sound any more ignorant here...I think its time to back away from the keyboard lol.

I think its time you lot considered if your constitutionally gauranteed penis enlargements are really worth so many deaths each year?

"My wife and daughter just died at a music concert....well at least I have my shiny AR-15".

Its pathetic.

What's pathetic is when you're losing the argument so badly you have to lie to yourself and pretend the other guy is a pussy to make yourself feel better.

Grow up.

originally posted by: chrismarco

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If they wanted to take your guns why did they not do it after Sandy Hook???

The Obama Administration had the ability from 2009-2011 to take the guns...why didn't they? They had total control of congress back then...just something to chew on...I'm sure there are factions within the house that want to legitimately take guns but as a whole they will not...

They get votes and money from uninformed members of their base on this issue. They don't want to solve it. They voted down a GOP bill last year that would have enhanced the background check system by mandating more reporting of mental health issues. This is something the Democrats have said we needed for years, the background check system is useless if info that will cause a reg flag isn't fed into the system.

We also want our little freedom of speech and won't let Antifa, BLM or any other group shut us down.
Demanding the right to shut down others is NOT in the Constitution.
Yes, I have always known there were some in Congress who would be happy to confiscate every last gun from the public's hands. Of course then only criminals and the government will have them and I have increasing difficulty telling them apart.

a reply to: RazorV66

The logistics of confiscating guns from everyone in the USA would be a nightmare of epic proportions, let alone the gun owners that would fight back.
There would be standoffs in every city, town and area of the country.

It seems to have worked well in Australia (at least for the automatic/semi-automatic weapons). It seemed like people just handed them in without any fight. - National Firearms Agreement

They confiscated 650,000 firearms but the owners were paid for them.

Not all of them right now but little by little.
a reply to: Shamrock6

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If they wanted to take your guns why did they not do it after Sandy Hook???

They have repeatedly tried since the 30s to.

They do want to.

And they've had varying degrees of success.

Machine guns banned well any made after 1986.,

The Clinton Era Assault Weapons ban that lasted only a decade.

Feinstein's 2013 failed attempt at reintroducing it.


The background check that didn't exist for over 200 years until the Clinton era.

originally posted by: gladtobehere

The proposed "solutions" are always the same: take away more rights and freedoms.

I think the idea is to take away the right of people to take away the freedom of others to live without being shot.

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: RazorV66

The logistics of confiscating guns from everyone in the USA would be a nightmare of epic proportions, let alone the gun owners that would fight back.
There would be standoffs in every city, town and area of the country.

It seems to have worked well in Australia (at least for the automatic/semi-automatic weapons). It seemed like people just handed them in without any fight. - National Firearms Agreement

They confiscated 650,000 firearms but the owners were paid for them.

This is the program Obama was touting when he said we should look at Australia.

So yes, they do want to ban and confiscate.

Yes do not let them take your guns.

Do not let the MSM fool you. Since Australia tightened it's gun laws we've been over run by aliens robot overlords. That we walk down the street safely and free and have had no mass shooting since 1996 is all a lie.
(If only we had guns, especially a few assault rifles we could of prevented so many murders here, including mass shootings)

Life as we knew it no longer exists. It is like Mad Max made real!

Seriously no civilized society can survive without guns. It all falls apart without them.

Guns are NOT the problem. People are. We should be campaigning to ban the real cause of the problem. PEOPLE!

Vote 1 destroy all humans. (Sorry that is what my alien robot overlords are telling me to say, please don't tell them the secret is out.)

ARGH! they have found me...... if only I had a gun!!!!!....... I can only stab so many with a knife.... the horror!


See you same place, same time, next week, for the new major shooting that will not surprise anyone.
Maybe we can discuss more on how the issue is one of mental illness, not gun law and compare apples to oranges some more.

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
Yes do not let them take your guns.

Do not let the MSM fool you. Since Australia tightened it's gun laws we've been over run by aliens robot overlords. That we walk down the street safely and free and have had no mass shooting since 1996 is all a lie.
(If only we had guns, especially a few assault rifles we could of prevented so many murders here, including mass shootings)

Life as we knew it no longer exists. It is like Mad Max made real!

Seriously no civilized society can survive without guns. It all falls apart without them.

Guns are NOT the problem. People are. We should be campaigning to ban the real cause of the problem. PEOPLE!

Vote 1 destroy all humans. (Sorry that is what my alien robot overlords are telling me to say, please don't tell them the secret is out.)

ARGH! they have found me...... if only I had a gun!!!!!....... I can only stab so many with a knife.... the horror!

See you same place, same time, next week, for the new major shooting that will not surprise anyone.

Maybe we can discuss more on how the issue is one of mental illness, not gun law and compare apples to oranges some more.

From the Australian Institute of Criminology:


The ban was in 1996 as I recall? Just curious, what's with the spike in 1999? I mean, it's the gun's fault, and everyone knows once you institute a ban no one will be able to kill by other means.

For those of you with brains, you can see, there's a general downward trend in Australia's homicide rate (and that did continue after 2007, well after the ban). Why would it spike up after the ban, and then continue to fall over a decade after the ban? By the early 2000s shouldn't all of the gun deaths be pretty much eliminated, and therefore the murder rate be way down? If guns were the problem, shouldn't it just have fallen immediately the next year and stayed down? How are people continuing to kill?

But I'm sure those victims' families take comfort in the fact they weren't killed in a mass shooting. Who cares if people continue to be murdered by other means? At least those evil guns are under control.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Yeah, I am a citizen, and I would definitely like to own some military grade weapons. How can I get some - o - those ?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If they wanted to take your guns why did they not do it after Sandy Hook???

Because they couldn't. Only reason

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
Yes do not let them take your guns.

Either get the government to take away all the guns.

OR.

Make it mandatory that the government supplies everyone with bullet proof body armor, and we all go out our house protected lake SWAT everyday.


After all, if you live near to a nuclear power plant, the government supplies you with Iodine tablets for protection against radiation, just in case there's an incident.

They don't ban the Nuclear Facility.

They just provide the tools to protect yourself.

Why not the same with guns? It's just as dangerous.

originally posted by: face23785
*snip*

Oh look cherry picking. Cherries are my favourite vegetable after straw like you get from inside straw men.
Delicious!

So how about you share all the mass shooting data from those stats there?

How about you show everyone where it shows mass shooting have been increasing since 1996.

Does getting rid of guns get rid of criminals or criminal actions?

Does murder and rapes vanish with guns?

NO

But let me tell you, there can be as many murderers now......
(I won't mention checking immigration rates or anything else like that that may coincide with the data and be an influence, you know causes and effects because apparently I am not 'those of you who have brains' and well we shouldn't let facts get in the way hey? Just present whatever makes our point right or wrong.)
....as there was then. But you know what else there is? More #ing people alive than there would of been.

You think our Martin Bryant or your new Casino Shooter Boy would of killed as many as they did with a kitchen knife or by punching them?

Good job on trying to twist # into something it's not to justify your entitlement to guns or whatever point it is you're trying to make there.
That's some MSM American politician level manipulation and distortion of facts right there.

You should get into 'murican politics being such a pro at bull#ting bro.

My point:
1996 Australia: 1 murderer = 35 dead 23 injured
2017 Australia: 1 murderer = one or two dead and injured.

But yeah, you keep your guns. Or defend gun owning United Statesians, because we've seen how well owning guns has prevented murderous killing sprees so far.

When I see a local shooting on the local news these days, it's an armed robbery, drug dealers and mafia types shooting each other, and generally with an illegal firearm. Generally one person shot or injured.

When I see a shooting in the U.S at least a household worth of people has died.

We've had nothing on the scale of what the U.S has every other week in 2 decades. Not even close. So take your facts put them in a pipe and smoke them.

P.S I used to be a fire arm owner and enjoyed shooting.
But I am happy to know me giving up guns there are more Australians alive today than would of been if we kept our heads in the sand and not removed easy access to the mass killers tool of choice.

lol, god you gave me a chuckle trying that bull crap. Good example of why this world is going backwards and how the average human works though.

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

How is it cherry picking? I posted a graph showing the murder rate several years before through about 10 years after the ban. That's not cherry picking, so don't lie. When your start your post with lies, I'm not inclined to read the rest of it. Wait mass shootings? Yes, there have been a few since, see here. Interestingly, there are plenty of mass murders on there using other weapons. The graph I posted previously actually proves that if you ban guns, people will just continue to kill by other means. Are you ok with that as long as it wasn't with a gun and it wasn't in a mass shooting? Do lives only matter to you if their deaths can serve a political agenda?

Every death is tragic. Banning guns does not reduce murder. Statistics prove this. People will kill if they want to kill, with whatever they can get their hands on. The most deadly mass murder in the history of the US involved no guns, it was called 9/11. Deadliest mass murder in the UK? Bomb. France, guns (which were already banned coincidentally), followed closely by a truck.

These people don't give a # what laws you pass. The only Aussies that turned in their "assault weapons" were people who obey the laws, who don't commit murder. You accomplished nothing, as shown by the overall murder rate. You just made yourselves feel better because those individual murders don't get as much media attention.

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If they wanted to take your guns why did they not do it after Sandy Hook???

Shhhh. That *logic* has no place in an irrational conversation.

Their goal is to divide us with this issue and to increase fear until the public DEMANDS/BEGS them to take them. They aren't going to just do it, they will make us think it's our decision.

a reply to: face23785

Show us some body counts.

It's not about how many do what, it's how many are dead at the end of it is my point.

Yes yes, every death is tragic to those related to it, pretty bleedin' obvious that.
Be a sick person who partied after finding out their daughter was just shot by some psycho.
Not sure what the point of bringing that up is.

Thing is again. How many mass shootings has Australia seen since tightening our gun laws after Port Arthur?
When someone commits murder here in Australia now, do they still rack up the same scores?
Simple answer NO.

Highly unlikely you're gonna see 50 people killed and hundreds injured in this country any time in the forseeable future, especially not from firearms any ways.
But you know what you will see? Another mass shooting in the U.S within the next couple of weeks.

But yes, lets stick to we need guns because one person dying is as bad as 10's or 100's of them being slaughtered.....

Might not be able to rid the world of all the psychos out there. They will always exist, but we can always limit the damage they can do. Which is better than living in denial and letting it continue.

Aside from a bomb or finding a way to cook up some mustard gas. You'll hardly find many ways anyone in the general public can slaughter so many so quickly than fire arms.

How many bullets in a clip does one need to stop a home invasion? How many guns does a single person need to own to be safe?

How many people will die before you limit the tool that allows it to be so?

Meh, why am I even bothering. Entitlement and a lifetime of brainwashing will never be swayed by facts and logic.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
***
…The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

You can expect congressional staffs to disintegrate with just a few shootings, and expect elected officials themselves to resign well before a quarter of their number are eliminated, leaving us with a boxed-in executive, his cabinet loyalists trapped in the same win, die, or flee the country circumstance, military regime loyalists, and whatever State Governors who desire to risk their necks as well…
***

BOB OWENS..rip

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

I did actually, you're ignoring it. You are hopeless. You're determined to stay ignorant on this issue and pretend info that contradicts your narrative doesn't exist. The truth is there for you to see. Only you can keep yourself misinformed.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Does anyone else think that giving a whole load of military grade weapons to the same people who voted for George Bush (twice!) and Trump are probably not the best idea?

Its a bit like letting a wife beater work in a women's refuge.

Sorry but I have to be honest and stand by my convictions on this one.

You lot having carte blanche to own pretty much any killing tool you want with very little in the way of restoration or regulation is dumber than two planks of woods.

Your whole concept of a second amendment is broken, the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves to see the horrible situation your obsession with these tools of death has caused. Over 600 kids killed or injured last year thanks to guns, 600, thats mental! All because the you guys have this irrational fear that the redcoats are going to turn up and ensalve you all or your government is going to turn against you all.

If there were not so many people dying form it, it would be hilarious!

What?

How many kids died to school yard fights, or drinking and driving, or domestic abuse? Well over 600, yet you choose to draw a line in the sand at 600? There are 345,000,000 people in the country. Accidents will happen, no matter what the rules are. To only have 600 out of 75,000,000 is an absolutely fantastic number. What is mental there? For reference, there are 11,000 children born every day in the united states.

It's ill to speak for those who aren't here today, but I somehow would imagine the founding fathers would be using your number as a demonstration that the second amendment is actually safe, since that's what the metrics actually show.

Now if there were 1,000 kids in the country and 600 died, that would be a mega problem, but when there are 73,000,000 children, 600 is so close to zero, it's incredibly rare. You might be one of those people who says "Well even one is too many" and if you are, I have to say then you would have to believe cars should be illegal, knives should be illegal, fast food should be illegal, doctors should be illegal, schools should be illegal, police should be illegal, wheel chairs should be illegal, stairs should be illegal, fireworks should be illegal, refrigerators should be illegal, lakes and oceans and boats and skis and rocks to climb should be illegal as well....

Like there isn't "so many people" dying from the second amendment, you just don't understand math and ratio's and proportions, i.e. rarity. If you're trying to build a safety bubble environment, you're basically saying you can't do anything, because that's the only way to keep kids safe.

Kids die playing high school football, should that be illegal too?

38,000 people die of gun violence a year, while 3,700 people die in automobile accidents A DAY. Where is your call to remove your right to drive?

In 2012, there were 1.2 million violent crimes in the united states, that's 1.2 million situations in which self defense is justified and resulted in victim hood because they didn't have a way to defend themselves. That's in just one year. How about in 16 years [1999-2015] there have only been 198,760 gun homicides. So you have 1.2 million victims in ONE year because they lacked defense, and only 198,760 gun murders in SIXTEEN years, perpetrated almost entirely against people who did not have guns.

Looks like the second amendment is not broken, it looks like it's more then working, and would work better if more people participated and stopped being afraid to own a firearm.