Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And just who is "they" and how do they intend to take them?
Look in the mirror. That would be YOU.
Australia had mandatory buyback programs in 1996 and 2003. Both programs were temporary and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government.
I don't have any official stats to trot out, but many of the recent ones I recall have resulted in police shooting the perp dead, albeit after the damage was already done.
It'd be a delusional school shooter who doesn't expect to be shot eventually by somebody, usually the police.
Of course they expect to get shot, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Anyone that goes on a killing spree can expect the police to eventually arrive and use deadly physical force to take them out. That is if they don't take themselves out first as many of these monsters have already done.
Australia had mandatory buyback programs in 1996 and 2003. Both programs were temporary and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government.
See that? That's how.
They could force it there. That would be unconstitutional here.
Australia had mandatory buyback programs in 1996 and 2003. Both programs were temporary and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government.
See that? That's how.
That is me.
Laughing at the idea with 19 trillion in debt no way possible to buy all guns.
ESPECIALLY when my state doesn't keep records lists or registries of firearms nor their owners... It's a felony actually.
So. How are they going to get them if we are mandated to forfeit them?
If I hand them a few and show them an empty safe. Obviously I appeased them.
What they don't know, is where all the rest are hiding.
Lost them in a tragic boating accident.
School shooters almost always get shot. They don't expect not to get shot. They just go anywhere crowded, and most fast food places during certain times of the day fit that bill.
The sooner you can get to the point where somebody is shooting back at them, the fewer people die. Take a look at the history of school shootings. When the good guy with a gun intervenes and starts shooting back, the whole thing ends pretty quickly. There are almost no exceptions.
I'd like to emphasize one that's right in my backyard. "Dixon High School: A 19-year-old student recently kicked off football team allegedly fired shots prior to graduation rehearsal. A school resource officer shot the suspect, who suffered non-life threatening injuries"
That happened about 25 minutes from where I live. Fatalities: 0. The fact that the good guy with a gun was already onsite kept it from turning into another Parkland, FL. Meanwhile, 17 kids died at Parkland because there was only one good guy with a gun and unfortunately he turned out to be a complete coward. Hence my solution: More properly trained and vetted people with guns in every school in America will make schools a much less tempting target -- especially if nobody knows which teachers and faculty are armed.
Australia had mandatory buyback programs in 1996 and 2003. Both programs were temporary and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government.
See that? That's how.
Australia doesn't have the right to own and bear arms codified into their nation's Constitution. We do. Doing a mandatory buyback program is unconstitutional. If that fact bothers you, you're welcome to advocate for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Now if you want to go down that road, the pathway going forward is very simple. 2/3 of both houses of Congress to get the ball rolling. 38 of 50 states must vote in favor. Simple and easy.
Australia had mandatory buyback programs in 1996 and 2003. Both programs were temporary and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government.
See that? That's how.
There's such a thing in the United States called "ex post facto" laws which are unconstitutional. Or are you willing to sacrifice those too in the name of public safety? In Australia they made it a crime to not comply with a law ex post facto. There's no way to argue your way around that.
Quote:
Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:
Art 1, § 9
This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Art. 1 § 10.
This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. ---https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto
Quote:
Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.
The prohibition of ex post facto laws was an imperative in colonial America. The Framers of the Constitution understood the importance of such a prohibition, considering the historical tendency of government leaders to abuse power. As Alexander Hamilton observed, "[i]t is easy for men … to be zealous advocates for the rights of the citizens when they are invaded by others, and as soon as they have it in their power, to become the invaders themselves." The desire to thwart abuses of power also inspired the Framers of the Constitution to prohibit bills of attainder, which are laws that inflict punishment on named individuals or on easily ascertainable members of a group without the benefit of a trial. Both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder deprive those subject to them of due process of law—that is, of notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY---https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ex+Post+Facto+Laws
Obviously the people of Australia were deprived of their property without the benefit of a trial. What this means is if they were to attempt that type of legislation in the United States every person who owns a firearm who refuses to comply couldn't have their property seized without the benefit of a trial. God knows that would tie up our criminal justice system for decades as tens of millions of Americans would refuse to comply. Just as a million or so refused to comply with New York's "Safe Act". New York is only one state.
Quote:
Massive noncompliance with SAFE Act | Hudson Valley One
hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive...
... state records obtained after a lengthy court battle show that a key provision of the New York Safe ... Massive noncompliance with SAFE Act. ... Do people have ...
That data shows massive noncompliance with the assault weapon registration requirement. Based on an estimate from the National Shooting Sports Federation, about 1 million firearms in New York State meet the law’s assault-weapon criteria, but just 44,000 have been registered. That’s a compliance rate of about 4 percent. Capanna said that the high rate of noncompliance with the law could only be interpreted as a large-scale civil disobedience, given the high level of interest and concern about the law on the part of gun owners.
“It’s not that they aren’t aware of the law,” said Capanna. “The lack of registration is a massive act of civil disobedience by gun owners statewide.”
Low assault-weapon registration stats suggest low compliance ... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...fe-act-weapons...
Jun 22, 2015 · ... NY SAFE Act, a total of 23,847 people have ... by New York area counties. (New York Daily News) ... people have complied with the law, that's ...
Mass Civil Disobedience in New York Against 'Safe Act' » Alex ... www.infowars.com/mass-civil-disobedience-in-new...
Molon Labe: Gun control law a total failure. Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com April 17, 2014 . The state of New York is refusing to say how many gun owners complied with a mandate to register their assault weapons under the Safe Act while a Sheriff says he will not enforce the measure, suggesting that just like a similar law in Connecticut, the ...
Nearly One Million New Yorkers Didn't Register Their 'Assault ... www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2015/06/24/...
Jun 23, 2015 · Nearly One Million New Yorkers Didn ... by the April 2014 deadline set by New York’s SAFE Act ... many people who have semiautomatic rifles and ...
I don't have any official stats to trot out, but many of the recent ones I recall have resulted in police shooting the perp dead, albeit after the damage was already done.
It'd be a delusional school shooter who doesn't expect to be shot eventually by somebody, usually the police.
Hmm, so like many anti-gun folks, you speak from ignorance and made up "statistics" that you really don't know. Of the last 10 school shootings, 90% of the shooters were NOT SHOT contrary to your made up statistics. I can't be bothered going back any further to do your homework on your so-far wildly inaccurate statement.
Of course they expect to get shot, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Anyone that goes on a killing spree can expect the police to eventually arrive and use deadly physical force to take them out. That is if they don't take themselves out first as many of these monsters have already done.
Its not about if they "expected to be shot", the previous poster claimed that they WERE shot, and its just tiring to listen to people make statements that have zero basis in fact when they try to argue such a serious topic.
Show me where it states this little prick was part of that program. What did he do prior to his shooting spree that would have warranted an arrest that did not happen due to the program. One does not get a rap sheet for being expelled from school or disciplined at school. And you are cherry picking in order to lay blame and assign this horrific incident to that program.
Sheriff Isreal and the Superintendent Runcie collaborated it.
After the shooting, it was revealed police had been to scumbags house over 30 times in the year leading up to that shooting.
Not only was he a part of that program, so were any "at risk" students.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
