threatening? :rofl:

PR for NRA-TV

It apparently is going to fight media attacks against the NRA on their own channel. Listened a little to it, its like Fox on steroids.

It's excruciatingly dumb and self-serving. They need to find a better actor too.

Oh, really? Well, lady, I've had enough of kids being shot. I know where my sympathies lie.

:up:

That is hilarious. A better example of Poe's Law I have never seen.

Irony
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/03/07/kennesaw-gun-law-orig.cnn

The most horrid part of this is that there is an NRA TV.

I'll improve on that and say the most horrid part is enough people watch it for it to be economically viable.

The States really is fucked up.

@Banno
I listen to you speak of the 'gun collection/turn in' that the Australian government implemented in your country, what a popular move it was and how much safer the Australian citizen is now.
I was curious as to how your government convinced the average Aussie to turn in their firearms. How you could convince someone who had the right to purchase a product, possess it, maybe even have used it, that they are no longer in need of having it.

I was under the impression that it was a voluntary collection and the Australian citizens that owned firearms were convinced that such a theory would work. As I dug deeper into this action, I came across some ideas, some facts and some enforcement that I was not aware of, nor is it offered up when the idea of the solution to the American Gun Control Debate would be to do what Australia did.

The Australian Law Banned and Confiscated Guns

"The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre, assuredly does not. It’s the most important detail about the main provision of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That’s like writing an article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual mandate."

I had no idea that the turn in was mandatory and you would be breaking the law if you did not comply. It makes me wonder who really wanted the guns off the street, the government? the average Aussie? possibly a mix of both? Am I wrong when I suggest that there were likely Aussies on both sides of the mandatory gun turn in? Has the Australian government done this to the Australian citizen with any other product or just guns?

For me, there has to be a willingness on both the governments position and the citizens, to work towards a solution and that just doesn't come across in what happened in Australia. Willingness on both parts comes across in the sound bites and the suggestion that if America were really wanting to solve the school shootings that America would do what Australia did.

What Australia did was not voluntary it was coercion and although that part is buried deep within the "Australian gun control fallacy" it appears in the art of the lead up to the confiscation.



By Christmas of 1996, the Australian citizen had to give up their personal firearm(s) to the government or be prosecuted and serve 12 months in jail for not complying. I understand the logic that if a government is going to impose a law, there is a consequence for those that break that law, it is pretty simple to understand. What I don't understand is why there is a shower scene of naked men in jail, on a poster promoting this movement that both the Australian government and the Australian citizen are supposedly in support of. Why not just a standard mug shot of the average Aussie that didn't comply? What do you think the choice of picture was meant to imply?

The quote below explains so much of how 2nd amendment is viewed by gun owners and the possible/probable scenario that would have to happen for America to do what Australia did.

"Let there be no doubt.Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that those who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naïve that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.” As though somehow those who daily espouse their belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they are so naïve."

I think what he is expressing is a fair reality of how things might work out but he doesn't go far enough into what would happen after word spread through the first "confiscation" community and how the government would be received from there on.

As I said a few days ago, I feel movement in my position but coercion is not the way to go about it here in the United States, under the Constitution we agree to. I feel like Australia took a mallet to something as delicate as a Starfish and we can do better, I just haven't figured out the way. But I am looking...

I feel like Australia took a mallet to something as delicate as a Starfish — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, a murderer took a gun to 35 of our citizens who were shot dead in real life. It was brutal and viscous, and there was nothing delicate about it. It wasn't a metaphor. The kind of thing that happens on the regular in the US. We stopped that.
Again, not a metaphor.

Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Isn't that how all contraband is seized (when the owner won't cooperate with the law)? I'm sure you don't have a problem with a force of arms being used to confiscate illegally owned drugs.

No, a murderer took a gun to 35 of our citizens who were shot dead in real life. They died and their hearts stopped beating. It wasn't a metaphor. The kind of thing that happens on the regular in the US. We stopped that.
Again, not a metaphor. — StreetlightX

I understand what you are saying StreetlightX and the passion behind it.
What I am actively trying to do, is what I expressed above in putting in a stop gap to look at the facts, ideas and trying to look at this from a different perspective, one that does not allow my emotion to lead me as is my nature.

Isn't that how all contraband is seized (when the owner won't cooperate with the law)? I'm sure you don't have a problem with a force of arms being used to confiscate illegally owned drugs. — Michael

Yes that is how contraband is seized, I am not arguing that is not how illegal drugs are seized. What I am trying to show is where the rub is between the two opposing sides. The fact that government guns would be used to confiscate citizens guns is a non starter.

The fact that government guns would be used to confiscate citizens guns is a non starter. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Why? If I'd illegally obtain a tank are they supposed to take it with sticks and stones?

There is emotion, and then there's talk about gun laws after a massacre as 'mallet to starfish'.

In the U.S. and I think in other countries, the government has the power of eminent domain, a/k/a condemnation. It's a process by which the government acquires private property for public purposes. The government must compensate the property owner for the fair market value of the property. I've been involved in several condemnation proceedings in my capacity as the World's Greatest Lawyer Living or Dead ("WGLLD").

The condemnation proceedings the WGLLD has been involved in have related to real property, that is to say real estate ("real property" has some potentially amusing philosophical implications). The power of condemnation isn't contingent on the consent of the property owner. Some common examples of the exercise of the power: acquiring property for transportation purposes, to install utilities and infrastructure, sites for public buildings. Here, the entity exercising the power must obtain an appraisal of the property, offer to pay for an appraisal obtained by the property owner, provide relocation assistance if needed (which sometimes means buying equivalent property for the property owner). There are rights of appeal regarding the legitimacy of the public purpose and the sufficiency of the compensation.

So, even here in God's favorite country there are instances where the government may "confiscate" property regardless of whether the property owner is agreeable, for a public purpose. It need only fairly compensate the owner for the value of the property.

As far as I know, that hasn't been applied to guns in the U.S. Perhaps that's how the Aussie government got them, though.

Why? If I'd illegally obtain a tank are they supposed to take it with sticks and stones? — Benkei

If you legally obtain a tank, why would anyone be trying to take it from you?

There is emotion, and then there's talk about gun laws after a massacre as 'mallet to starfish'. — StreetlightX

A massacre (which by definition is an illegal act) which was carried out by how many law abiding citizens?
I am in no way making light of any loss of life, I am looking to follow the logic of taking away other citizens rights because of how one person behaved. That is what I mean by taking a mallet to a starfish.

As far as I know, that hasn't been applied to guns in the U.S. Perhaps that's how the Aussie government got them, though. — Ciceronianus the White

I fear the day they try to apply "eminent domain" to forcefully confiscate a law abiding Americans' firearm.

I fear the day they try to apply "eminent domain" to forcefully confiscate a law abiding Americans' firearm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

They won't be law abiding if the law requires they turn them in and they refuse.

They won't be law abiding if the law requires they turn them in and they refuse. — Michael

I fear the result would literally be a civil war.

Illegally. :wink:

that's what the NRA wants you to think. Most likely people aren't that attached to their guns.

Illegally — Benkei

Holy crap! I really did read it as I wrote it "legally". If you illegally obtain a tank then you are a criminal and should be charged. But. BUT if you obtained the tank legally they shouldn't be able to take it from you. Now why you would want such a piece of metal is a bit extreme but if having a tank makes you sleep better at night? Then go for it. Protect your property and your right to own it.

that's what the NRA wants you to think. Most likely people aren't that attached to their guns. — Benkei

I am not sure you realize how attached people are to their guns.

I fear the day they try to apply "eminent domain" to forcefully confiscate a law abiding Americans' firearm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

But, it has for many, many years been applied to lawfully acquire the property of law-abiding Americans. Generally, the law does not say that a law-abiding citizen cannot be deprived of his/her property by the government. What it does say is that a law-abiding citizen cannot be deprived of his/her property by the government without compensation.

So, it's undoubtedly true that government may lawfully acquire privately-owned property by condemnation. That's simply the case. One can claim it shouldn't be able to do so, but one can just as successfully claim it shouldn't be able to tax.

Guns are property. If they're property, why can't they be legally obtained by condemnation like other property? What would make their condemnation unlawful?

It's an interesting question. As the right to own property seems to be a fundamental right, it isn't clear to me that the Second Amendment "right to bear arms" is a greater right and so less subject to the power of eminent domain, but I've never researched the issue. Maybe its been addressed by some court somewhere. If it isn't a greater right, then opposing condemnation in the case of guns would have to be on some other basis. It would have to be maintained, for example, that there is no legitimate public purpose which would be satisfied in condemning guns. Or perhaps it would be argued that guns are a special kind of property, a kind for which no compensation is adequate. That would be getting rather peculiar, I think, but some may actually believe that's the case.

As though somehow those who daily espouse their belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they are so naïve." — ArguingWAristotleTiff

As I said, the States are fucked.

Yes, the buy back was compulsory; yes, people went to gaol rather than hand back their guns There are also plenty of gun stashes out in the bush. Organised bad guys still get illegal guns and bring them in. People are allowed hunting rifles and pistols for legitimate use.

We do not give guns to teenagers and children.

We even have a Shooter's party in politics. Our equivalent of the NRA. They get 2.8% of the national vote.

We have problems with family violence that end tragically with bashings or stabbings. We have home invasions and aggravated robbery, more often with a machete than a machine gun.

We are not the United States. We are not trapped by our own rhetoric into believing that we are no more than an agglomeration of individuals, a temporarily paused anarchy.

We even have a health system that we can all use.