Didn't see anything that said only 15% of Australians complied. (That seemed to be in reference to another law in Connecticut?)
I said that earlier in the thread. Then someone posted that only 15% of Australians actually complied with the law.
In terms of what may be legally owned, it hasn't. A Colt 1911 is no less deadly than a Glock. A semi-automatic 5.56 is no more deadly than a .30-06.
We can put a man on the moon but removing guns from our society would be just too hard?
I don't believe we could currently put a man on the moon.
Can you explain how Australia was able to accomplish exactly this? Its amazing to me how people constantly say "gun control is impossible!" despite there being literal examples of exactly what they say is impossible happening.
Let me guess though, Australia and/or the US are magical and special and so whatever worked there would never work here because reasons. Probably the same reasons why literally every other liberal policy that has been successful elsewhere could never work in the US. (magical reasons)
Gun lovers were so worried that Obama would take them away that they bought LOTS of guns for cash at gun shows with no background check or record of the sale and buried the guns and ammo in sealed cases. You won't find them by searching houses.
Will the Oathkeepers actually participate in that or would they say that it is unconstitutional?
The weather in Australia is the start of spring. Their ski season is just ending, ours starts in about two months.
Gun lovers were so worried that Obama would take them away that they bought LOTS of guns for cash at gun shows with no background check or record of the sale and buried the guns and ammo in sealed cases. You won't find them by searching houses.
Will the Oathkeepers actually participate in that or would they say that it is unconstitutional?
The weather in Australia is the start of spring. Their ski season is just ending, ours starts in about two months.
I would like to see a total gun elimination like in many other countries. The best way to get people to turn over their guns is to include a tax refund for turned in guns.
Have a listing of the various guns and give a good tax refund for their particular gun. Most people would much prefer to have cash for guns they don't use or have stored in their closet. Heck if the government wanted to offer me a few hundred dollars more than what I paid for my Glock, I would probably turn it in. Obviously, it won't bring in all the guns, but each year it would get closer.
I would like to see a total gun elimination like in many other countries. The best way to get people to turn over their guns is to include a tax refund for turned in guns.
Have a listing of the various guns and give a good tax refund for their particular gun. Most people would much prefer to have cash for guns they don't use or have stored in their closet. Heck if the government wanted to offer me a few hundred dollars more than what I paid for my Glock, I would probably turn it in. Obviously, it won't bring in all the guns, but each year it would get closer.
We can put a man on the moon but removing guns from our society would be just too hard?
The point is that 15% applies to guns already in circulation. For new guns, the compliance rate is 100%. Walmart isn't going to break the law and sell you guns under the table.I said that earlier in the thread. Then someone posted that only 15% of Australians actually complied with the law.
The point is that 15% applies to guns already in circulation. For new guns, the compliance rate is 100%. Walmart isn't going to break the law and sell you guns under the table.
The point is that 15% applies to guns already in circulation. For new guns, the compliance rate is 100%. Walmart isn't going to break the law and sell you guns under the table.
Up in Canada, there's a weird situation where guns illegally exist, but they're never sold or purchased. You would never sell someone your unregistered gun because that's a very serious crime, and most gun owners are not criminals. At the same time, you can't buy ammunition for your unregistered gun because you need a license to get ammunition, and people with illegal guns are the same people who have no interest in buying a license. Illegal guns just sit in the closet collecting dust.
It goes back to what Chris Rock said. We don't need gun control. We need bullet control. If you need a license to buy bullets, that would stop 90% of the problem.
I won't give mine up, neither will most others who have them. It'll be open season on the politicians and officials who try to take them.
See, in Auz, and all the other countries that once had an armed citizenry, the right to keep and bear firearms was never a specific, enumerated right, something that was "hardwired" into their national law. Here they are, and nothing short of an all-out war, meaning the deaths of 100s of thousands (if not millions) of people will remove them from the public's hands. Add to that states that will not comply with any federal order to disarm the people living in them, because their state constitutions have outlined the right to own guns.
If you want another civil war, that's the way to do it.
This is a deeply psychotic mindset. I hope someone can show you how totally batshit insane you sound.
Seriously, what is wrong with people who say things like this.
Just use the same methods that have successfully removed illegal drugs.:hmm:
Except whenever municipalities try a cash for guns program it turns in to a red neck swap meet because the offers are laughable. If you want americans to stop being obsessed with guns, start by not talking about them, or making new laws, or insulting gun owners as this only fuels the fire.
Considering our government was explicitly complicit in bringing drugs into America, it was almost a failure from the start.
Your sarcasm meter seems to be failing, but that is typical I guess.
It's in the bill of rights. I'm sure you take the first seriously. The second ensures the first. I'm willing to do what it takes to keep my rights.
The second in no way ensures the first. That's a childish and psychotic way of viewing governance. Go look at all the countries around the world that are awash in weapons and look at how often people are killed for having unpopular opinions.
"The second guarantees the first" is one of the stupidest phrases in modern politics. Facepalm.
The second in no way ensures the first. That's a childish and psychotic way of viewing governance. Go look at all the countries around the world that are awash in weapons and look at how often people are killed for having unpopular opinions.
"The second guarantees the first" is one of the stupidest phrases in modern politics. Facepalm.