No, it didn't. Home invasion is a serious problem there. I also find it convenient that Australia's statistics aren't compared with the U.S. on a per capita basis. The fact is that the vast majority of gun violence in the US occurs in the cities that have the strictest gun control. My individual rights are not up for debate, and I don't care about your feelings about it. I will take responsibility for my safety instead of screaming at a government to keep me protected from the scary people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
As if government actually can protect you from the scary people.
I read an article today about the deputy who took a defensive position and waited, while he listened to children being killed. Just swell. And he apparently earned a 6 figure salary right up until we discovered that he didn't have what it takes to defend children. I always end up wondering who was responsible for this person. Didn't he have a boss? Why isn't it the boss's fault too? For instance, did we ever hear who Pvt Manning's boss was? Why does he still have a job? What the heck IS a manager or supervisor, if their employees are bozos? I mention the article because I learned a new term from it. "Check-sucker".
We're going to count on check-suckers to protect our children? Nu uh. I think not.
Meanwhile, the problem solvers are all hysterical about which firearms we should "ban". It's so pathetic that it's frightening.
I provided at least one of those per-capita stats you are looking for in this post. What Australia did, is working, if you're willing to see it.
I'm willing to view violence for what it really is instead of blaming inanimate objects for human behavior. I also will not comply with a buyback or turn-in order. I'm interested in how you plan to deal with people like me who will not give up our rights. Please give details.
You'll retain the right to bare arms. Just not any arms you want to bare. I'd imagine if you kept your semi-auto and auto firearms hidden then they would be out of circulation so in effect you'd be getting with the program.
They wouldn't be hidden. What's next.
I'm sure they can figure out an appropriate penalty for reneging your social contract.
Who is they? Who will be sent? The constitution is the social contract, who is reneging? I want you to say it. I want you to admit that you want the police to use AR-15s to take mine away.
Yes, our Constitution says it's the job of the Supreme Court to determine what's constitutional and what isn't. If they determine it's constitutional to ban auto fire weapons, are you going to do what the Branch Davidians did? I just watched the Waco series on TV. What a sad, pathetic tragedy, and both sides were at fault. I'd certainly opt for elimination of social benefits for those who opt out of our social contract before advocating the use of violence like the ATF and FBI did.
Is there a principle for which firearms would be banned? All semiautomatics? Only scary semiautomatics? Only rifles? How about semiautomatic handguns? Is there some sort of principle involved? Which weapons would I lose the right to bear, and for chrissakes, why? What difference does it make?
It all sounds like a utopian pipe dream to me.
You'll notice that this conversation ended when I asked what the plans are for confiscation. I have yet to get someone on the left to admit that they will have to use the guns they want to ban to confiscate them from Americans who will not give another inch. They expect existing military and law enforcement to do it for them, and they are in for a rude awakening. You'll be lucky to get 20% to even carry out the order. Even then, a good SWAT team can only carry out 6 or 7 raids a day before they need to rest. Once the word gets out, the communities they rely on for support will turn against them in a hurry. Here's a news flash: regardless of what the media portrays, the majority of Americans in the "flyover" states will not tolerate the loss of liberty being demanded by large metropolitan cities. The last election should have been a clue.
I recently heard that there are already 15 million AR-15s in the country. And the deputy had a Glock 40. So, the Supreme Court will magically declare both of them exempt from the Constitution? Then all the law-abiding folks would lose their weapons, while the policemen protect us from the law-breakers just like they did in Florida.
Sure. Uh huh.
I still can't grasp the gun-banners' logic.
I also have to agree about the civil disobedience. Confiscation ain' gonna fly in huge swaths of the country. City folks simply don't understand. The 2nd Amendment is foundational stuff. It's not about hunting - it's about freedom. We don't sit like mice and wait for the authorities to show up around here.
That's what sickens me about this Florida event - what an epic failure of authority - and still they want to rely EVEN MORE on the check-suckers, leaving us defenseless.
I can't grasp their mindset - it makes no sense. We've always had guns, always had semiautomatics. How does taking them from law abiding people help? And what the heck is "them" anyway?
Why did it work in Australia?