Actually what has been shown is that you're incapable of having a reasonable adult discussion, but that's not news to most people on this site. You've always been this way. You don't think Hillary Clinton wants to take our guns away after watching a video of her saying we should definitely consider doing just that. In Australia what they did was make almost all guns illegal and then had a mandatory buy back of the newly illegal guns. Why can't you just admit that is what she wants? We might actually have an ounce of respect for you if you did. also, adults call each other names all the time, but feel free to pretend they don't. that probably works well for someone like yourself who lives in fantasy land.
Some day when your mother's ex-boyfriend breaks into her trailer you're going to wish you had laws like this on the books out there on the prairie.
Well we don't want crazy bitches making false accusations to screw with people either. There should be a way for an innocent man to get his guns back if false accusations are made. There should also be some kind of punishment if a women is caught lying.
I'm not sure how one would even determine what is a false accusation or not in this case. It's not an accusation of crime, all you have to prove to the judge is that you are afraid for your safety. How would it be possible to determine that its just a crazy bitch making false accusations? restraining orders, especially civil, aren't often challenged all that much. If the judge or whatever isn't all that concerned he'll make it very temporary. But how is someone supposed to know whether or not someone is truly concerned for their safety? not to mention if you think its BS and it turns out to be true the Judge would get his ass thrown into the fire. We can't go around challenging temporary restraining orders or else people who have legitimate concerns for the safety wont speak out. It would be especially worse if these people knew they could get in trouble themselves if the judge decides its just a false accusation.
She said she was not aware of all the particulars but said it would be worth a look to see if it could be done here, "It would be worth doing it on a national level", "The Austrailian example is worth looking at". Although it was called a buy back program you could end up in jail if you did not comply so in effect it was confiscation. Put 2 and 2 together and any rational person would conclude she thinks it would be worth a look to see if a confiscation program similar to Australia's could be done here. Not that I think it would actually have a chance in hell of happening and this is just another issue that she flips back and forth on and says whatever she has to to try and get elected but go ahead and claim that she didn't say she wanted to confiscate weapons because she did not use the exact words, "I am going to confiscate your weapons".
The hyperbole around Australia's gun control efforts and actual gun ownership there is pretty much out of control. Before the effort started in 1996 7% of Australians owned a gun. After it was concluded 5% of Australians owned a gun. That's not mass confiscation, that's a buyback program of certain types of weapons. The weapons banned were some semi-automatic rifles, and self-loading rifles and pump-action shotguns. The ban was a result of a mass shooting in Port Arthur in which 35 people were killed and 23 people were wounded by somebody wielding a Colt AR-15 Carbine and a Daewoo USAS -12 Automatic Shotgun. Australians were prohibited from owning the 3 categories of weapons above and a buyback program was instituted to get the existing weapons out of circulation. New regulations on registration of all guns, including background checks were legislated. The homicide rate has dropped over the following 20 years but not by a huge amount, only about a third or so. There is some controversy as to whether or not the drop in homicides is related in any way to the gun control acts of 1996. Of course there are lots of interested parties out there who would like to skew the numbers one way or the other and there are organized campaigns on both sides to do so. What is clear is that the number of spree killings has declined following the legislation. From 1981 to 1996 there were 14 shooting sprees in Australia in which at least 4 people were killed by one or more assailants wielding guns. From 1997 to 2016 there were 6 mass murders of 4 victims or more of which 1 included the use of firearms. Australia has done a very good job of lowering the rate of a phenomenon that was happening about once a year and turning it into a once every 3 years thing. There were 112 firearm related deaths in mass shootings between 1981 and 1996, There were 5 in that category from 1997 to 2016. If you add in cases where 3 people were killed by a firearm wielding mass murder there are 2 additional incidents from 1997 to 2016 in which 6 additional people were killed including the gunman in a murder-suicide. So, facts are wonderful things. Lobbyists are very good at making you not look at the facts. The GOP would be much better off if it's positions on important topics like guns and global warming were dominated by the facts and not the lobbyists. Think about it.
The result or effectiveness of the legislation isn't what is being discussed. It's the mechanics. They made a crap load of guns illegal, then forced people to sell them to the government if they owned them. This is what Hillary believes we should consider. Mocking people for thinking the government is coming for their guns is fun on the internet but when the odds on favorite for our next president says we should consider doing it, understand why people think that's what they want to do.
I don't have any problem at all with the notion that society, as expressed by elected government, should be able to regulate the types of weapons that citizens are allowed to own. You can argue that there should be limits on what government can proscribe but having the limits include weapons capable of murdering many people without reloading is not where you should be looking.
I have 5 guns. I think, but I'm not sure, that all 5 would be made illegal and required to sell back by this legislation. Even the little .22 I got when I was 16 years old, since it's a semi-automatic rifle. I don't think I have anything too crazy either, just different tools for different jobs. Thankfully, I don't believe Hillary would ever be able to accomplish what happened in Australia here. So personally, I'm not concerned about the government "coming for my guns" for that reason. But I'd probably never support someone with that ideology. I am not arguing about what the government should be able to do though. I'm only pointing out that Hillary says she wants to do exactly what people are being mocked for thinking the government wants to do. It's pretty disingenuous of them, don't ya think?.
This is a ridiculous argument. You can't take a pressure cooker into a theater and shoot a dozen people with it.
I absolutely don't think Hillary Clinton "wants to take our guns away" after knowing about that town hall meeting and seeing the video. She just says a similar program to the cash for clunkers program aimed at guns is "worth considering" which means looking into in detail to see if it may help the situation here. She also states she is not familiar with the specifics of the program but does equate what she knows of it to voluntary gun buyback programs that occur on a smaller scale here all the time. AT NO TIME DOES SHE SAY WE SHOULD CONSIDER TAKING GUNS AWAY! What kind of poor reading and listening skills would prompt you to draw that conclusion? Perhaps this is a characterization you have been exposed to elsewhere or perhaps it is just more paranoia. Mature civil adults do not call each other disrespectful names, maybe you need to spend time with a better class of people and brush up on those listening and reading skills.
Is it your suggestion that most mass murders committed with guns are the result of a long-planned terrorist plot that targets specific victims for a purpose? Again, just because somebody can make a bomb and kill a bunch of people with it doesn't mean everybody should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.
Well I guess we learned to add differently. You see a two and a two and I see a bunch of disconnected ones. Yeah, she said she was not familiar with the specifics of the program and equated it to periodic gun buyback programs on the local level here and the cash for clunkers program - both voluntary programs. How you can jump to the conclusion that she is looking for a confiscation program is beyond me. Is there any indication anywhere that she wants to confiscate any firearm? I can't find it. And you're right - there's not a chance in hell of a confiscation program happening here. There is no collective will to accomplish that, no political ground to be gained and then there is that pesky second amendment thing. But you guys can go on with following the lead of organizations like the NRA which also produces videos that want you to fear your lifestyle is in jeopardy.
My first suggestion would actually be that the people doing the mass murdering probably won't show up to the buy back location. But that's just another flaw in the plan. My point is however, that if we are going to make something illegal because of a small fraction of the population using it illegally to do harm to others, why stop at guns?
100%! Why people are so complacent as to not investigate the reality of a situation important to them baffles me. Simply taking the words put out there by those with a selfish interest at face value is a path to destruction. Critical thinking, critical listening, critical reading and doing ones own investigation to find out who is bullshitting whom is more important and much easier today in our world of instant information. Trust no one!
Because guns actually contribute to many more mass murders than any other item in modern society? Think about it.
