Hm, can you give some plausible hypothetical as to when we'd actually see this paying off? Pretty sure 99.9999% of gun owners today did not get a gun for this unlikely reason.
Not the government. Your militia. It's in the charter of your well regulated militia that they can check the members of the militia. Not to worry. It is not the government. It is your militia. The one YOU joined. I will write a proposal for gun control this week in honour of Baron Max specified for the USA and their constitution. It will take some time so it probably won't be today. It's theme: "Gun control and the second amendment: how to build an armed society in the spirit of the second amendment."
Wow, so you're setting the pace for the entire world now, huh? Since madanthonywayne has already reversed this particular piece of chauvinism on you, I'll skip to the point. The right question to ask is "at what stage do you engage in a meaningful conversation about the differences in gun legislation between the United States and <pick a demographic>?" And the answer is: "when someone suggests an explanation capable of producing some insights into the question." Another answer would be "definitely not in response to a facile poll, unconcealed bias or sophomoric condescension."
i also notice that in your original post, you single americans out. perhaps we should take a vote as to whether australia needs an equivalent to the department of homeland security....and when australians say "fuck no" (the obvious response), we should try to say that they are out of step with the rest of the world (most nations have a comparable federal organization...but it seems australia has nothing of the sort). or perhaps we could superimpose china's birth limitations on australia? it doesnt matter. you are just trying to stir some shit here. its obvious that you already knew the outcome of your poll, so why bother with it if you arent intentionally trying to cause trouble? playing word games is unbecoming, and you know it. as it sits, you specifically singled out americans, and havent had much to say here, other than "americans seem to be out of step with the rest of us"....dont say the poll isnt about america, if you are going to single out american citizens. im american, and so the only way the "hypothetical" poll could affect me would be if it took place where i live......its interesting that you dont require justification from people of other countries voting the way they do....but for some reason you "dont need to know shit about america" in your own words, to know why americans responded the way they did. its obvious that you dont know shit about america, or americans, by how high and mighty of a position you have taken here. i may not like buffalo, or madanthony, or whoever, but there is something to be said for people on polar opposites of the political spectrum agreeing about this, wouldnt you say? yeah, keep your ignorance, and ill keep my gun. we will see who can fight back "when the english are coming". pfffft...i cant wait for the bloated response i get. <-- NRA lifetime member
What makes you assume Australia has no Federal equivalent to the Department of Homeland Security TDI? I am just curious as to how and what you based your assumption on and then go on to make a blanket statement as you have with no factual basis whatsoever. In Australia, the Federal equivalent would be the Federal Police, just so you know.
i make blanket statements based on facts. ahem...its apparent to me that you dont understand how far reaching and invasive the DHS is. think "american gestapo". read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_security most notably this: also, read this: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/09/18/1189881513992.html in other words, australia doesnt have one. yet. now, i would like an apology for you implying i didnt know what i am talking about.
We do not have a department called "Homeland Security" because we have the Federal Police and the Armed Forces that already fill in that role quite efficiently and effectively. We just don't refer to them as "Homeland Security", which seems to be the new 'in' word in Governmental circles. Had you investigated Australia's security measures, you would have noticed that. "Homeland Security" is an umbrella organisation that was supposed to be more effective, but as even your link states, is a bit of a no show in that regard. As for your apology. You tend to demand that quite a bit from people. It won't be coming soon I'm afraid. I merely pointed out we had an "equivalent" and that you should have looked into it deeper. Just because it's not called "Homeland Security" does not mean it's not there.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
its obvious you dont know anything about DHS. it is a blanket organization to bring all law enforcement under one banner and set of regulations. australia doesnt have this. or has that changed since september 17? i seriously doubt it. its lots of fun when the fingers point at you, isnt it? australia DOESNT have an equivalent. you should learn about your government. you are being intellectually dishonest, and so is james. i have gotten nothing but rhetoric from you, while i have posted facts. 'nuff said. the point is, why should americans be ridiculed here for "not going with the flow"? we might as well just poke fun and try to piss off some african bushmen because they dont have the same laws as "the whole world". its arrogance of the highest degree to think that "americans have something wrong with them because they differ in opinion", and to say anything different is just arguing for the sake of arguing...and i wont have any part of that. post some facts about a far reaching, authoritarian police organization in australia, managed by the federal government, that can in any way be compared to the american department of homeland security, or stop arguing.
I do know what the DHS does TDI. I was merely pointing out to you (repeatedly it would seem) that Australia has the AFP, which does the counter terrorism work that the DHS does, as well border security, drug trafficking, people trafficking, fraud, transnational crime, IT crime, regional peacekeeping, etc.. which in effect makes it a sufficient organisation to fulfil the duties found under the DHS. The only thing it does not involve itself in is national disasters, which the DHS is also in charge of (and does not do a good job of it if Katrina is any indication). The main goal of the DHS is to prepare for and respond to disasters, primarily terrorist incidents, within the US, which the AFP is also in charge of (terrorism wise) in Australia. It is to Australians, a sufficient alternative to your DHS. Americans are ridiculed not for "not going with the flow". You are ridiculed because you expect everyone to do as you say while you do the complete opposite. And you do "poke fun and try to piss off" others because they do not have the same laws as you do. You still don't get it, do you? It is the arrogance of Americans that make it the butt of so many jokes and commentary. You have organisations like the NRA going to towns where there have been mass shootings to promote the right to gun ownership. You don't see anything wrong with that? Americans are perceived as having something wrong with them because you cannot even perceive the dangers of no gun control, even though guns kill so many of your populace. You have a mass shooting at a school and any calls for gun control is answered with "it's in our Constitution so it's our right". It's as though you are complaining of a pain in your eye while continuously poking a knife in said eye, but can't see a reason to stop injuring yourself. Why do you think the following is a bad idea in regards to gun control TDI? Don't you think it would be responsible and prudent to ensure the safety of the community to actually be accountable for buying a gun? Don't you think people should get a licence to own a gun? You need a licence to drive, but not to own a gun? You don't think guns should be registered? Do you really need to own an automatic weapon? Is it really that difficult to give a reason as to why you actually need a gun? Don't you think people who decide they need a gun should be made to undergo mandatory training in how to operate that gun safely? You hide behind your constitution too much without actually giving reasons as to why. There needs to be some form of accountability and responsibility in owning a gun. My father used to own guns. I grew up around them. I can tell you now his gun was licenced and registered. And he never complained about it. On the contrary, he complained it was too easy to get a gun, even with the checks and licensing and registration involved. No one is saying you should not own guns or be denied your Constitutional rights. What people are saying is that the prospect of gun ownership needs to be handled more responsibly and if that means you have to get a licence and have it registered, then so be it. After all, if you have done nothing wrong, you should have no fear in being able to obtain the appropriate licence or to have it registered. Instead of hiding behind the Constitution and claiming it as a right, how about you all think about what is wrong with having it licenced and registered? If you are a "good citizen", then it really should be no problem. And Madant, you claim that rights are restricted and limited, but you don't think the ability to get a gun should also have restrictions and limitations?
From the above comments, I can only assume that you don't know that in the USA, to buy a handgun, you MUST register that purchase with the state and/or federal government authorities. See, Bells, the people who want gun control in the USA want much more than just registration. Washington, DC, has the strictest gun control laws of any area in the USA ....and it has the one of the highest rates of crime with a handgun! Now the peaceful, law-abiding residents of Washington want to repeal that law so that they can own a handgun for self-defense. ...defense against the scumbag criminals who don't give one single fuck about any idiotic laws!! Baron Max
See Max, they just want all those terrible guns gone. They are KILLING people. THEY ALL HAVE TO GO. That is the goal of these people. First they start with hey lets get everyone to register them. Then hey why do you need an M60 *look up everyone who owns a M60 in the registry and confiscate it*. They Hey why do you need any automatic weapon *look up everyone who owns an auto in the registry and confiscate it*. And so on, till we are forced to invent some new martial art that works well against people that love to tell other people how to live.
Did I ever say that? I simply don't agree with Jim's specific proposals. Especially the idea that you have to prove a special need for a gun. You don't need to prove a need for something you have a right to. But if you're talking about preventing criminals or those certified as being insane from getting guns, I'm all for it.
No, that is not all you need. My response, and the response of most of the Americans here, is that you also need to know something about governments. An unarmed citizenry is subject to slavery at any time. But less dramatically, and more to the point, the procedures and intrusions involved in the disarmament of an unwilling and already armed citizenry require far more justification than some variable, multi-sourced level of street crime and gun violence. These intrusions are not compatible with civil liberties and ordinary freedoms. And anyone who can't see how large and significant the fourth step in the poll is - the one requiring the citizen to demonstrate to a government official a government-approved reason for owning a firearm - is not paying attention. That is not at all the same kind of thing as putting reasonable restrictions on the sale and use of dangerous stuff, requiring safe handling, etc.
The U.S. has a strong cultural tradition (some of it based more on folklore than reality) of gunslingers solving problems with firearms in the face the of an uncaring or absent government. It's hard for me to imagine the U.S. general attitude turning against guns as tools of self-defense the way they have in much of the rest of the industrialized world so long as the mythology (real or fictional) of the self-sufficient gun-toting man exists. That's not necessarily a bad thing. People who want guns in their lives can move here. People who hate them can move elsewhere. That said, i do not think owning firearms to defend yourself against the federal government is a good reason to own them. The U.S. government can make slaves of us right now. They have the tanks, grenades, rocket launchers, cruise missiles, spy satellites, gunships, fighter jets, nuclear weapons and a million trained soldiers, I don't think they're afraid of yokels with handguns. (The European Union has yet to enslave their unarmed population...) The people who are planning for the revolution need to take off the tin foil hats and realize that, if that fight were ever to come, we've already lost. That so many people are irrational, paranoid and armed is a recipe for disaster. Thank heavens they can't organize effectively (after all, if the gummint's commin' ta git ya, just imagine what that neighbor of yours plans on doing to you once anarchy sets in! He's probably plotting to steal your land and womens!) I'm far more alarmed by the more real possibility that they may be monitoring my phone calls than I am of the farfetched possibility that they might someday try to make me a slave.
Yeah, that's definitely the most egregious of the many examples of bias that James R has built into this thread. The other three suggestions are very close to existing American gun laws, or, in any case, would draw significantly more support among a poll of Americans. Inserting the fourth provision, which even people like myself (who have never even held a real gun) would oppose, and then labeling anyone who opposes any of the measures as "nuts" is nothing more than a convoluted form of trolling.
The point is not to prevail in a frontal confrontation with the American government (although such a scenario would probably lead to its dissolution, even if the yokels were initially crushed), but rather to raise the stakes sufficiently that the government has to think twice about actions that impact the rights of citizens. Also, the yokels have considerably more firepower than just handguns. There's plenty of fully automatic assault rifles out there in private hands. Says you. Mandatory conscription for all males is still standard in many of the EU countries. In Germany you can't even name your own children; rather, you get to suggest some names and then a civil servant tells you which ones are allowed. And all those new powers the US government is trying to sieze via the Patriot Act? They pale in comparison to the powers that European governments have had all along.
sufficient for australians...thats all well and good, but it isnt nearly comparable to the broad sweeping powers the DHS has. are you worried about attracting undue attention from customs agents when returning to your homecountry? i am. DHS is known for locking up folks for no reason for the maximum 72 hour period, just "to prove a point" that they can. as i said, how would you like it if i were to say that australians should follow the american example of fascist law enforcement, and if australians refused, they were ridiculed publicly (as james obviously intended with this thread)? i have nothing against australians, or their way of governing themselves. what im saying here is that james trying to stir shit up with a subject he knows will only bring argument and division is acting less like an admin, and more like Happeh. we all know how popular Happeh was.
Any one who is more scared of an automatic rifle(or Mac10 or whatever spray n' pray) over a good, well sighted 30-06(or similar) scoped rifle, needs to do a reality check.
