Posted on 01/27/2016 6:41:54 PM PST by Kaslin
Nobody wants to take your guns. That's what most mainstream pro-gun control Democrats say ad nauseam at various rallies. There's also the "I support the Second Amendment, but…" that advocates of gun control say prior to offering some pie-in-the-sky policy proposals that usually venture into bans on so-called assault rifles, limiting magazine sizes, or an all-out ban on semi-automatic firearms. That's essentially a gun ban.
Both Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama have praised the Australian-model of gun control, which the National Rifle Association decided to explain at length in a recent video. It deals with gun buybacks, confiscation, and bans. Oh, and personal protection isn’t a sufficient reason to own firearms down under.
Australia Means Bans & Confiscation.
The clip also includes the president invoking the United Kingdom as well. According to the Library of Congress, their laws are just as strict, and unconstitutional if applied here in the U.S:
Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission. Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason. The secure storage of weapons is also a factor when licenses are granted.
[…]
There are a number of firearms that are prohibited in Britain. It is an offense to possess, purchase, acquire, manufacture, sell, or transfer these prohibited weapons without the written authority of the Defence Council or Scottish Ministers.[40] The Defence Council or Scottish Ministers can attach any conditions that they believe are necessary to any authority permitting ownership to ensure that a prohibited weapon or ammunition is secured and will not endanger public safety or the peace.[41]
Prohibited weapons include military style weapons, firearms disguised as other objects, and
a) any firearm which is so designed or adapted that two or more missiles can be successively discharged without repeated pressure on the trigger;
(ab) any self-loading or pump-action rifled gun other than one which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges;
(aba) any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall, other than an air weapon, . . . a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus;
(ac) any self-loading or pump-action smooth-bore gun which is not an air weapon or chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges and either has a barrel less than 24 inches in length or . . . is less than 40 inches in length overall;
(ad) any smooth-bore revolver gun other than one which is chambered for 9mm. rim-fire cartridges or a muzzle-loading gun;
(ae) any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus;
(af) any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas
cartridge system;
(b) any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid, gas
or other thing; and
(c) any cartridge with a bullet designed to explode on or immediately before impact, any ammunition containing or designed or adapted to contain any such noxious thing as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above and, if capable of being used with a firearm of any description, any grenade, bomb (or other like missile), or rocket or shell designed to explode as aforesaid.
It's no wonder why the firearms industry is on "alert" this year. Any gun owner or Second Amendment supporter who hears a politician praise UK or Australian-style gun control should look at someone else. Moreover, it's grossly unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean Democrats, anti-gunners, and their allies in the liberal media will push a like-minded agenda. Right now, Democrats are trying to lay the groundwork for people to sue gun manufacturers out of existence. It has no chance of passing, but the fact remains; we have to be vigilant regarding the protection of our gun rights and heritage.
When someone says: “There is no reason to own a gun . . .”
The statement itself IS the reason to own a gun. No one has the right to tell what I can or can not own within the bounds of the Constitution.
Australia had a death by shootings problem?
i didn’t know that.
i thought they were a rugged folk. they just handed over their guns?
That’s pretty much how it went down. Sad.
Some years ago. A mass shooting Down Under.
I can’t believe how easily the Aussies handed over their weapons.
I have a hunch there are many numbers stored away from authorities.
God help us if we come to this...
Well, this should garner some feedback from some of the experts on the firearms confiscation and destruction that occurred in Australia. Did I mention they don’t have a 2nd Amendment?
Yes we know.
Mine was a very tragic camping accident. I sent my tent incorrectly and too close to a cliff. A heavy wind arose and carried the tent and all of my beloved firearms over the cliff, never to be seen again. :(
I suppose they were conditioned to obey. But that is just a guess.
I suspect it’s the English colonial mindset.
They never had a war of independence and are more trusting.
Will Hillary, Obama and the rest of the dems lead by example and give up their guns and body guards?
I will persevere, FRiend. ;)
Correct, they would lose their healthcare and annuity if they refused.
How can a thinking human being willingly become a slave and think it proper?
The European mind-set has always baffled me.
Cough, cough. You’re joking aren’tcha?
Yes, in the late 1980s and early to mid 1990s, Australia had a spate of single gunmen spree shooting massacres. It's generally held to have started with the Hoddle Street Massacre of 1987 and ended with the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996. They were distressingly commonplace.
i thought they were a rugged folk. they just handed over their guns?
A lot of guns were sold to the government in the late 1990s as part of a buyback, but it was only a minority of the firearms in the community. The gun laws were tightened at that time, but not to the extent that some people seem to think they were. And, yes, law abiding gun owners tended to follow the law. Unlike the US we did not have any constitutional protections and so the laws could be passed. Gun owners tended to focus on trying to make sure they weren't as bad as was originally proposed (the original proposal was for close to a total ban).
Are the Aussie still talking banishing swords?
Interesting that gun crime in Australia is on the increase and a Muslim terrorist had no problem getting a gun to carry out a hostage taking at a Sydney coffee house in December 2014 where two people were killed. Only law abiding Aussies were disarmed. Our Second Amendment is more that just self protection. Our Founding Fathers knew that tyranny was easy to start when the population could not have armed resistance. The British soldiers on their way to Lexington and Concord in 1775 were sent on a mission to seize and destroy a cache of arms held by the colonial militias.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.