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.
They didn't confiscate all firearms, they had two buy back programs for certain types. They regulated WHO can get a license, and that includes firearms licences for a legal reason, such as hunting, sport shooting, pest control, collecting and for farmers and farm workers.
Guess how many school shootings Australia has had since they instituted these laws in 1996?
One, at Monash University inn 2002. Two died, 5 were injured. In the USA that is called Tuesday.
"And gun owners do not refer to the weapons as 'semiautomatic' but the more exact 'autoloaders'.
NOT in my hunting experience in my lifetime of over 30 years of hunting.
Must be a colloquial thing.
In my part of the world, yes, they are called "Semi-automatic" or often, "Semi". No one uses the term auto-loader. In fact, none of the clients that come duck hunting in Canada I've guided ever used the term "auto-loader", so I think I have a pretty good sense of what terms are used.
Like these, all semis:
And I support training, screening, and licensing of gun owners. It hasn't restricted any of my activities, or those I guide in the fall.
We have a problem keeping guns out of the hands of mass killers. I like the idea of raising the legal age to 21 or even 25. It won't stop a criminal but it will probably stop a nutter. At the very least we need to keep our kids safe while their in school.
They didn't confiscate all firearms, they had two buy back programs for certain types. They regulated WHO can get a license, and that includes firearms licences for a legal reason, such as hunting, sport shooting, pest control, collecting and for farmers and farm workers.
Guess how many school shootings Australia has had since they instituted these laws in 1996?
One, at Monash University inn 2002. Two died, 5 were injured. In the USA that is called Tuesday.
Excuse me, but do you not realize what's being done to Australia and Australians, right now? In case you didn't know, Australia has been turned into a totalitarian nightmare, and the entire nation seems to have been sold out-from-under the Australian People, to a hostile foreign power. The changes began, right after the guns were confiscated.
Now, the populace is helpless to do anything about it.
Excuse me, but do you not realize what's being done to Australia and Australians, right now? In case you didn't know, Australia has been turned into a totalitarian nightmare, and the entire nation seems to have been sold out-from-under the Australian People, to a hostile foreign power. The changes began, right after the guns were confiscated.
Now, the populace is helpless to do anything about it.
Ah, but you are forgetting, its being done under the guise of SAFETY!
Thats how it will happen in the US too...(see all the concern for school safety?)
" and it applies to weapons that are hand held and in common use."
Really?
Provide fore us WHERE they defined "weapons that arehand held".
They did NOT ban warships or cannons which PRIVATE CITIZENS owned at the time.
Pretty had to hold a cannon or warship in your hand.
President Thomas Jefferson BOUGHT, with FEDERAL MONEY 2 SEMI-AUTOMATICS and gave them to TWO civilians, Lewis and Clark.
I'll go by their ACTUAL quotes and actions NOT, what any court says.
As we know, many judges are POLITICAL.
I'm fully aware that: "They did NOT ban warships or cannons which PRIVATE CITIZENS owned at the time".
I'm just referring to what the actual ruling said. I'm not an associate justice on the Supreme Court. I didn't write the opinion. Why are you blaming me? Perhaps you should take the time to read the ruling before commenting. It's not a matter of agreeing with the ruling or not? IT IS WHAT THEY RULED!!! If you want to own your own warship or cannon take it up with the court. Obviously many judges are political often times they'll do the bidding of those who appointed them. Unfortunately their rulings carry the force of law whether we agree with them or not. Don't blame me, BLAME THE SYSTEM.
For what it's worth I agree with you. But for some reason you just love to argue just for the sake of arguing. Either that or you just don't take the time to comprehend what some people are posting and just jump to conclusions.
Quote:
”Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that can not be HAND CARRIED--It's to keep and 'bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."-- "The 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."--- Antonin Scalia (Heller vs DC) www.law.cornell.edu/suplt
Quote:
The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment: Understanding the ...
Aug 13, 2019 · The Court ruled that only weapons “in common use” like handguns are protected by the Second Amendment https://libertarianinstitute.org/art...t-cases-guide/
EVERGREEN PARK, Ill, -- A Chicago police sergeant is facing dismissal for allegedly opening fire on a group of thieves who stole her SUV outside of an Evergreen Park grocery store last October.
I'm fully aware that: "They did NOT ban warships or cannons which PRIVATE CITIZENS owned at the time".
I'm just referring to what the actual ruling said. I'm not an associate justice on the Supreme Court. I didn't write the opinion. Why are you blaming me? Perhaps you should take the time to read the ruling before commenting. It's not a matter of agreeing with the ruling or not? IT IS WHAT THEY RULED!!! If you want to own your own warship or cannon take it up with the court. Obviously many judges are political often times they'll do the bidding of those who appointed them. Unfortunately their rulings carry the force of law whether we agree with them or not. Don't blame me, BLAME THE SYSTEM.
The govt pays the SCOTUS justices salaries for petes sake...Of course the SC is going to side with the govt.
Its a huge conflict of interest.
It would be like a company paying the salary of the judge in a corp trial...it would never be permitted, because its a conflict of interest.
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.
