Threats of what? 'Commin' fer ye guns'? Australia is pointed to as an example of how gun control measures can work. They aren't saying to do it like we did here. They are saying that gun control measures can work. It isn't a threat. It doesn't involve police going door to door and looking in people's bedside tables. It is about looking at what measures could possibly work in the US, particularly in US society. Of course what we implemented here is not going to work in the US. Firstly, our outlook on these things is vastly different to that in the US. In other words, we are not paranoid about Government tyranny, nor are we paranoid that we need to maintain personal arsenals to keep the Government in check. We have elections for that. Well actually, you did.. Perhaps you should refresh your memory about how you word your arguments. Well, taken literally, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment appears to be quite broad. Especially when one considers the time the 2nd Amendment was actually written, the history and the events that occurred during and leading up to it. America has moved forward quite a bit. As such, it isn't exactly necessary to form militias to keep the Government in check. The last one that occurred, in a bird sanctuary in Oregon, was a complete disaster and kind of points to individuals wanting things for themselves and believing holding the Government hostage with their guns is the way to go about it. If anything, the actions of Bundy and co prove that the 2nd Amendment is somewhat outdated and frankly, can lead to dangerous situations, especially when one considers the paranoia of groups who form such militias and for the reasons they are formed. And that's just from an outsider's perspective.. as someone who lives in a democracy and who believes that in a democracy, the best way to effect change is through voting rather than through the belief that having guns will somehow keep the nuclear armed Government in check. Obviously you believe differently. To each their own.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ah yes. I forget. You hear 'gun control' and you seem to automatically picture armed tactical personnel breaching your defenses to come and 'take ye guns'. As such, you seem unwilling to even discuss the issue and instead prefer to abuse and accuse anyone who even attempts to discuss it. You take it prodigiously personally. As though we are literally threatening your right to defend house and home from the marauding hordes that require Americans to own military style weapons for "self protection". I get it. Believe me, I do. You mean the arguments against assault style weapons and high capacity magazines? What I have heard from American gun control advocates is better regulation as to who can own guns and restricting the types of guns people can own. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you? But wait, you hear 'gun control' and you think 'they commin fer ye guns'. I don't think there is anything wrong with assault weapon bans and bans on high capacity magazines. You need only look at States that have implemented even basic forms of gun control, such as requiring a license and seeing their gun homicide and suicides drop quite significantly as an example as to how even something as basic as having to get a license and a background check can be meaningful. Something like that on a Federal level could see dramatic drops. But no, it's best to just bathe in paranoia about all guns being confiscated. Because that makes sense.