Obama prepares order on guns

[The Fool]

Wedded.

And no, of course not. That's the point: If I have the option to keep my stuff, then it isn't confiscation.

Why? Is that what you're proposing? I have the option to sell what I want to sell, and keep what I want to keep? And if I choose not to sell, the government isn't going to come and, say, confiscate it?

Because if that's what you're proposing, then I don't see any risk of confiscation. On the other hand, if you're proposing to take my stuff and give me money in exchange, then my response is, "no sale". Keep your money, and I'll keep my stuff. And what happens then, in your proposal? Do you keep your money? Do I keep my stuff? Or do you take it anyway?

Welded

Glad you agree it's not confiscation as far as the Australian model is concerned
I have explained this before but can,t be certain yo were there. You can keep your guns. You really can...they are not grabbed stolen confiscated. The law changed and you were required to meet new and much more annoying requirements. Often involving filling out annoying forms, participating in the activity you say you need the guns for....claim you are a skeet shooter and you have to actually shoot skeet. tougher storage security requirements...it was NRA/libertarian hell.

It did cause me to say **** it and sell some of my guns but I lived on.

 

[tyr_13]

You have claimed I posted something and when I ask you to quote me you fail to do it, you just claim you have.

You didn't ask me to quote you, you asked where you had done so. I had already said where you had done so (post 242 by the way) and how what you had argued amounts to that. If you want to you can address what I've said, but this dodge is tedious.

Here is an example of a slippery slope fallacy..

"Because the only purpose of registration is to make it easier for confiscation or banning later on."

Which no one here has said.

Do your best to redefine the term if you wish

Which one, slippery slope fallacy or confiscation?

Australian laws included confiscation. Stop living in this weird denial. Why is it a problem to admit that?

 

[TJM]

Australian laws included confiscation. Stop living in this weird denial. Why is it a problem to admit that?

I could be wrong but I think it's probably a great matter of national pride for the Australians that a majority of them turned over their firearms for the greater good. To them confiscation was never considered.

To us of course it's hogwash - it was a mandatory buyback. Confiscation. Plain and simple.

 

[Cleon]

I could be wrong but I think it's probably a great matter of national pride for the Australians that a majority of them turned over their firearms for the greater good. To them confiscation was never considered.

To us of course it's hogwash - it was a mandatory buyback. Confiscation. Plain and simple.

And honestly, I love our resident Aussies, but the more they try to pretend it was "voluntary" the less respect I have for their arguments.

 

[The Fool]

And honestly, I love our resident Aussies, but the more they try to pretend it was "voluntary" the less respect I have for their arguments.

you have option A or option B.

If you find option B intolerable please don't try to convince me it doesn't exist.


Not one person in Australia had a gun confiscated. Not one. If you can find one show it to me.

Option A....hand it in


Option B....keep it and obey the new laws.


I really don't care if the new law is intolerable to some. I really don't. But I am not willing to join in with the slogan chanting.

Confiscation is compulsory. Compulsory means no other option. Other options make the use of the term sloppy or dishonest, take your pick.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"For the greater good" vs. "I'll keep my guns regardless." Interesting.

 

[Cleon]

you have option A or option B.

If you find option B intolerable please don't try to convince me it doesn't exist.

Yeah, and income taxes are voluntary contributions.

Look, if you want to support a "voluntary" buyback followed by a near-total ban, go for it, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

[theprestige]

you have option A or option B.

If you find option B intolerable please don't try to convince me it doesn't exist.


Not one person in Australia had a gun confiscated. Not one. If you can find one show it to me.

Option A....hand it in


Option B....keep it and obey the new laws.

Did the new laws include a ban on some firearms that had previously been allowed? If not, then I withdraw my complaints of confiscation.

If so, can you provide a listing of the firearms that were banned under the new laws?

Thanks in advance!

 

[The Fool]

Yeah, and income taxes are voluntary contributions.

Look, if you want to support a "voluntary" buyback followed by a near-total ban, go for it, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Only if you promise to use the word confiscation according to its accepted definition.

Is income tax money confiscation? No sure on what comparison you are trying to make.

 

[The Fool]

Did the new laws include a ban on some firearms that had previously been allowed? If not, then I withdraw my complaints of confiscation.

If so, can you provide a listing of the firearms that were banned under the new laws?

Thanks in advance!

Many licensing requirements were increased on many types of guns but none that were not previously outright banned were banned as far as I know. You have to realise that it was only really over the top guns that were banned outright in the first place things like automatic crew served military weapons. You could even own these if you jumped through enough hoops and had storage and security facilities like Fort Knox. You can own a tank if you meet the requirements.

The problem that I see is American citizens claiming it is their right to bear arms when what they really want is the right to bear arms without annoying paperwork and storage and other annoying red tape.

If you love your gun and I am not taking the piss by saying that, I was once seriously in love with a revolver.

If you love our gun, fill in the annoying forms buy the stupid gun safe, jump through the hoops. True love knows no bounds.

 

[The Fool]

You didn't ask me to quote you, you asked where you had done so. I had already said where you had done so (post 242 by the way) and how what you had argued amounts to that. If you want to you can address what I've said, but this dodge is tedious.

frankly I am not able to see the connection between your claims of the opinions I state on this forum and the text I post.

For example you claim post 242 Is an example of me diverting the issue to the Australian buyback when the post is a reply to a direct question on the Australian buyback scheme...read the damn post.

If people want to think that registration and licensing is introduced only to facilitate a future apocalyptic gun ban then they are free to do so but I wish they would post the claims in the conspiracy theory forum instead.

Which no one here has said.

What? The claim that registration is to allow for future confiscation is a standard chant. You seriously can,t find it? Have close look at post242 that you sited yourself !

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

frankly I am not able to see the connection between your claims of the opinions I state on this forum and the text I post.

For example you claim post 242 Is an example of me diverting the issue to the Australian buyback when the post is a reply to a direct question on the Australian buyback scheme...read the damn post.

If people want to think that registration and licensing is introduced only to facilitate a future apocalyptic gun ban then they are free to do so but I wish they would post the claims in the conspiracy theory forum instead.


What? The claim that registration is to allow for future confiscation is a standard chant. You seriously can,t find it? Have close look at post242 that you sited yourself !

Inasmuch as you seem to be a strong defender of the Australian NFA, just how successful has it been?
I'd like more than the typical, "Really successful, mate!", that appears to be the standard answer to this question.
How much did the gun violence rate drop after the act, as compared to the already noted drop before the act?
As hypothetical example, let's say that it was declining on average 2% per year over the last 20 years before the NFA, then it dropped 3% per year on average after the passage of the NFA. That would appear to lend strength to your position.
OTOH, if the decrease remained relatively stable, then you don't seem to have much of a case.

 

[tyr_13]

frankly I am not able to see the connection between your claims of the opinions I state on this forum and the text I post.

For example you claim post 242 Is an example of me diverting the issue to the Australian buyback when the post is a reply to a direct question on the Australian buyback scheme...read the damn post.

If people want to think that registration and licensing is introduced only to facilitate a future apocalyptic gun ban then they are free to do so but I wish they would post the claims in the conspiracy theory forum instead.

The red herring was not talking about the buyback at all, but about sidestepping the registration point at all and focusing on your insistence that mandatory buy back (and it was for many people, not all) is not confiscation. I already explained that in a post you've already quoted.

What? The claim that registration is to allow for future confiscation is a standard chant. You seriously can,t find it? Have close look at post242 that you sited yourself !

Yeah, my reading comprehension shows that your words don't match Wildcat's.

You: "Because the only purpose of registration is to make it easier for confiscation or banning later on."

Wildcat: "IMHO the reason the Dems don't is because they really want registration for later confiscation once they get enough votes to outlaw whatever guns they declare are inherently evil."

To be more to the point there is a world of difference between 'the only purpose' and 'the reason'.

 

[tyr_13]

I could be wrong but I think it's probably a great matter of national pride for the Australians that a majority of them turned over their firearms for the greater good. To them confiscation was never considered.

To us of course it's hogwash - it was a mandatory buyback. Confiscation. Plain and simple.

I just don't see why it makes it less a point of pride that so many complied with the confiscation and that so many more turned in guns that they could have kept. Does it having an element of confiscation really negate that?

 

[tyr_13]

Only if you promise to use the word confiscation according to its accepted definition.

Is income tax money confiscation? No sure on what comparison you are trying to make.

YES! What is the issue here? Most people voluntarily comply with it, but you don't have a meaningful choice to keep it. It being confiscation doesn't make it bad or wrong. What it is not, is theft.

Many licensing requirements were increased on many types of guns but none that were not previously outright banned were banned as far as I know. You have to realise that it was only really over the top guns that were banned outright in the first place things like automatic crew served military weapons. You could even own these if you jumped through enough hoops and had storage and security facilities like Fort Knox. You can own a tank if you meet the requirements.

The problem that I see is American citizens claiming it is their right to bear arms when what they really want is the right to bear arms without annoying paperwork and storage and other annoying red tape.

If you love your gun and I am not taking the piss by saying that, I was once seriously in love with a revolver.

If you love our gun, fill in the annoying forms buy the stupid gun safe, jump through the hoops. True love knows no bounds.

Class D firearms (semi-auto rifles holding more than five rounds for example) can only be had if one is a government agency, or certain occupational shooters. Almost all owners of these had no meaningful choice but to turn them in.

Now you'll play the silly game of claiming that anyone who wanted to keep them could have gotten a job that requires it, joined the government organizations who use them, or even more wrongly, that the deactivated models that collectors can keep count as a meaningful choice to keep them. This will be outstandingly unconvincing to all but the already anti-gun people.

EDIT: Oh, and airsoft guns were banned.

 

[Ranb]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_in_airsoft#Australia
Why all the hate towards airsoft in Australia?

Ranb

 

[The Fool]

The red herring was not talking about the buyback at all, but about sidestepping the registration point at all and focusing on your insistence that mandatory buy back (and it was for many people, not all) is not confiscation. I already explained that in a post you've already quoted.






Yeah, my reading comprehension shows that your words don't match Wildcat's.

You: "Because the only purpose of registration is to make it easier for confiscation or banning later on."

Wildcat: "IMHO the reason the Dems don't is because they really want registration for later confiscation once they get enough votes to outlaw whatever guns they declare are inherently evil."

To be more to the point there is a world of difference between 'the only purpose' and 'the reason'.

Oh dear, you can split the difference between "The only purpose" and "the reason" quite impressive.

To be honest there is only so many times I can explain things so it's probably better you return to attempting to fit the word confiscation as many times as possible in your posts.

 

[fuelair]

Obama prepares order on guns .

OK, how many is he ordering and is he trained properly in using them???

 

[The Fool]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_in_airsoft#Australia
Why all the hate towards airsoft in Australia?

Ranb

Yes it's a real shame, they look so cool and playing with them is fun. Not tryin to take the piss. They are masterfull replicas and I have enjoyed many paintball games and would probably like air soft as it seems largely the same.

Downside is that sometimes police shoot children that have them and sometimes they are used for armed robberies but that may not be reason enough for not allowing them where you are. Where I am the downside is considered too much.

I notice you using the word hate? Is that going to become a chant for gun control issues?

Confiscation is getting a bit tattered as attempts to redefine it run into technical issues caused by facts.

Hate is much more resilient as a slogan.

 

[The Fool]

Obama prepares order on guns .

OK, how many is he ordering and is he trained properly in using them???

Does he want to upsize the fries? There are many complex issues to consider.