07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 124125126127128 ...
tools
  1. Fairclough's Avatar
    This is a quick reply as I have a law tutoring session with my lecturer for next 45 minutes so I will explain in more the depth later.

    The idea of a registry to monitor where guns are, e.g are they in the safe where people say they are. This allows gun sales from individuals to be followed more carefully. I know a few murders have said they buy them and people do report them stolen but like the same guy said it can spook sellers. secondly it ensures the guns of deceased fall in the correct hands. We had an issue similar where our guns weren't be re licenced after someone died and due to registry this picked up the error. Allowing the authorities to notify the descendants they have 3 months to get a licence, re register and to meet storage requirements before the crown starts prosecution of those who failed to abid by the law..

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-25-2013 10:57 PM
  2. JHBThree's Avatar
    This is a quick reply as I have a law tutoring session with my lecturer for next 45 minutes so I will explain in more the depth later.

    The idea of a registry to monitor where guns are, e.g are they in the safe where people say they are. This allows gun sales from individuals to be followed more carefully. I know a few murders have said they buy them and people do report them stolen but like the same guy said it can spook sellers. secondly it ensures the guns of deceased fall in the correct hands. We had an issue similar where our guns weren't be re licenced after someone died and due to registry this picked up the error. Allowing the authorities to notify the descendants they have 3 months to get a licence, re register and to meet storage requirements before the crown starts prosecution of those who failed to abid by the law..

    Posted via Android Central App
    A gun registry probably wouldn't fly constitutionally here.
    TheLibertarian likes this.
    08-25-2013 11:01 PM
  3. jdbii's Avatar
    Jerry as your rational here can you answer my following questions to whether you would support this. Just a yes no for each. I don't support all of these but will like to see where our views differ.

    1. Background checks.
    2. National arm registry.
    3. Mandatory 1 hr wait.
    4. Proof of Genuine need for a weapon.
    5. Heavy restriction of automatic and semi rifles e.g only farmers can use low powered semi's with limited rounds for cattle.
    6. Gun liscense trial period, e.g required to go the range for a year before being allowed to bring a hand gun home
    7. Limitation on the amount of use-able guns one may own.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Subject to passing constitutional challenges then:

    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Yes
    4. Yes for hand guns
    5. Yes
    6. Yes for hand guns
    7. No
    TomsAndroid and Fairclough like this.
    08-25-2013 11:28 PM
  4. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    What is the purpose of the 1 hour wait? That's an hour of my life I wont get back.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    08-25-2013 11:34 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    What is the purpose of the 1 hour wait? That's an hour of my life I wont get back.
    Arbitrary. Photos take 1 hr (not really anymore, but that used to be a thing) and thus so should everything else? No clue here, I've heard of 3 or 7 day waiting periods, but not an hour.
    08-26-2013 01:14 AM
  6. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    If someone passes the background check, I fail to see why to make wait anytime.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    08-26-2013 01:29 AM
  7. Fairclough's Avatar
    1. Background checks.
    2. National arm registry.
    3. Mandatory 1 hr wait.
    4. Proof of Genuine need for a weapon.
    5. Heavy restriction of automatic and semi rifles e.g only farmers can use low powered semi's with limited rounds for cattle.
    6. Gun liscense trial period, e.g required to go the range for a year before being allowed to bring a hand gun home
    7. Limitation on the amount of use-able guns one may own.

    2. Would need to hear the reason. If it sounds like it would actually keep people who shouldn't be buying guns from legally buying them, then yes. That's a very big if, because both sides of our current government would surely do something very stupid with this data. If the people ever vote the stupid out of Washington, My opinion may change here.

    All but number one affect me. I've never committed a crime that affects my right to own a firearm, I should not be restricted because other people have.
    Let me be clear -- these gun nuts you see talking and posting on the Internet (not singling out anyone here) do not speak for me, my wants and wishes, nor my rights. Only I do that.

    I'm a firm believer that everything should be done to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them. Deciding who shouldn't have them, and how to keep them from getting them, is a tough nut to crack. But it's pretty obvious to me, as a gun enthusiast who is also not a right-wing nut job, that the solutions proposed by either side aren't going to work.
    You might be curious to why I chucked some odd ones in there, some where obviously proposed in the US system and some in our own. It is a misconception under gun restrictions that 'all' guns are banned, enthusiasts like yourself are actually allowed guns. Although our system is time consuming, paper wise, it allows to 'filter' out the 'nuts' people as such. I know you said no to what some of what we have, I respect that's your view and we're all entitled to one. Here we have we're you apply for a gun liscense, eg I am enthuastists I want to go shooting. You prove who you are with paper work. Than thats all sweet, to filter the loones out we than have a condition that these "enthuastist" lets say shooting enthuastists go to the range x times a year and that they cannot take their gun home straight away (for the obvious person wanting it to kill.) Than you apply to get a more powerful weapon etc.

    Now as for collectors, which i believe L2R might fall under - they aren't restricted to a class. They can own any gun without a license, granted it cannot ever be used as a again as a weapon (and the authorities make sure of this). However if they want a working gun they have to follow the standard procedure.

    As for Auto's and Semi's these are restricted to the Tactical Response Group (our Swat), Military and low powered semi's with limited bullets for farmers.

    Our opinions on Washington are similar - except I view its as the costs of running an election campgain in these states compared to here, ours allows the "average joe" to run and generally our politions are a bit younger, all with ether law or commerce degrees basically - the occasional ***** does join though. Now to hit the #2 on the head why for a register.

    A Register primary aim - is to know who has guns and what guns. This allows the tracking of them, in between people sales as so forth, to prevent an unlicensed person obtaining one. Yes people do sell them illegally and say their stolen (according to one murder) but as he said it might spook the sell in majority of cases. Secondly this is from our own issue here - we had a time frame were guns weren't being collected from some deceased. Thus who ever was in procession of it had a gun without being licensed, through our registry it showed this error which was happening. Thus our Authorites gave the families of the deceased in the time frame where they weren't being collected, a few months to hand them in or to register them under their name other wise prosecution starts. Just one measure to make sure guns are in the correct hands.

    2) Absolutely NOT, not only because registration leads to confiscation. But because it's none of their business what firearms I own.
    3) Nope, I'm there in the store and so is the gun, why should I have to wait?
    4) Nope, I should not have to justify my purchase to anyone. (except my wife)
    5) Again automatic weapons ARE already heavily restricted here. Semi-auto rifles like the ar15 are not, and they do not need to be.
    6) nope, again this would be a type of registration which would lead to confiscation.
    7) Nope in a big way, what about personal collections of mine that exceed 350 working firearms?
    2. Read Above
    3. Look at Matt's post and there are some beliefs this can spook straw buyers.
    4. It stops people using it for crimes.
    6. Actually opposite, its a period where when you first get a gun its held at site (the range) for enthusiasts than they can take it home after a time period. This helps prevents those who are lying about being enthusiasts get a gun.
    7. Read my bit about collecting. Though I suspect you want all your guns to work.
    Subject to passing constitutional challenges then:

    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Yes
    4. Yes for hand guns
    5. Yes
    6. Yes for hand guns
    7. No
    Congratulations, you have interoperated most of Aus gun Law.
    What is the purpose of the 1 hour wait? That's an hour of my life I wont get back.
    Often, a time period is used to spook Straw Buyers and prevent people who are on a "in the moment" rage.
    08-26-2013 01:41 AM
  8. Serial Fordicator's Avatar

    Often, a time period is used to spook Straw Buyers and prevent people who are on a "in the moment" rage.
    The problem is, is some people are just dumb. When purchasing a gun, you have to do a background check here. If you lie, it's a felony. I talked to a salesman at my favorite gun store and I said I doubt a felon would be dumb enough to lie. He told me, "You'd be surprised." He's had to call the atf on a couple of people.
    08-26-2013 01:56 AM
  9. Live2ride883's Avatar
    There was a news story about the DoJ prosecuting felons who try to purchase a firearm, and out of 44,000 attempts they DoJ only prosecuted 44 cases.

    Going by this it looks like the government is more interested in pulling guns from law abiding citizens than they are felons/criminals...
    08-26-2013 02:16 AM
  10. Fairclough's Avatar
    To be honest when it cost the crown tens of thousands to bring forward a case, they have to be selective and prioritise, hence why no one gets pinged for illegal downloads.

    However, if they restrict they wouldn't really have to deal with that crime as often. Thus saving them money.

    Posted via Android Central App
    08-26-2013 05:45 AM
  11. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    But I think that's the point. The felon knows he's not allowed to have a firearm. If the law had lets say a 20 year sentence for obtaining or trying to obtain a firearm, that 44, 000 maybe cut to 10,000. These laws aren't enforced properly and sentencing is too weak.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-26-2013 05:55 AM
  12. llamabreath's Avatar
    What is the purpose of the 1 hour wait? That's an hour of my life I wont get back.
    They probably have a camera streaming live feed, straight to the gov't, focused in on the applicant's sweat glands for that hour.

    08-26-2013 06:11 AM
  13. llamabreath's Avatar
    08-26-2013 08:16 AM
  14. msndrstood's Avatar
    No comment on the massive NRA database?



    Sent via Note II
    08-26-2013 08:44 AM
  15. llamabreath's Avatar
    No comment on the massive NRA database?



    Sent via Note II
    You don't think there are all kinds of databases on us already? Why do you think smartphones are so cheap these days?

    08-26-2013 08:58 AM
  16. msndrstood's Avatar
    You don't think there are all kinds of databases on us already? Why do you think smartphones are so cheap these days?

    Of course there are, that was my point pages back. Everyone is afraid of the big bad government having a database on gun owners when the NRA, a corporation, has a bigger database than any NRA member ever thought. My husband ditched his membership last year when they went ballistic on background checks.

    I'm trying to understand the thinking of people here. I ask questions or make a statement and its just ignored or bashed rather than discussed in a manner that will help fund solutions.

    Sent via Note II
    jdbii likes this.
    08-26-2013 10:03 AM
  17. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Of course there are, that was my point pages back. Everyone is afraid of the big bad government having a database on gun owners when the NRA, a corporation, has a bigger database than any NRA member ever thought. My husband ditched his membership last year when they went ballistic on background checks.

    I'm trying to understand the thinking of people here. I ask questions or make a statement and its just ignored or bashed rather than discussed in a manner that will help fund solutions.

    Sent via Note II
    The difference is the government's intent. We already know their desire for gun control. The logical conclusion is that the government would/could use it against gun owners. With the government, you compromise a little and they take it all, little by little.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-26-2013 10:21 AM
  18. msndrstood's Avatar
    The difference is the government's intent. We already know their desire for gun control. The logical conclusion is that the government would/could use it against gun owners. With the government, you compromise a little and they take it all, little by little.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    And you know for sure what the government's intent is? What about Google, MS, FB, Twitter, the NRA etc? In fact, your data and information is in cyberspace for anyone to access with the right tools. What about the data mining companies that gather data that affects your credit score? It's not just about guns. These companies aren't government entities and what they collect can affect your life in ways you can't imagine. The gun rights of Americans are protected by the second amendment. There is zero protection from corporations.


    Sent via Note II
    08-26-2013 10:34 AM
  19. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    [QUOTE=msndrstood;3023223]And you know for sure what the government's intent is? What about Google, MS, FB, Twitter, the NRA etc? In fact, your data and information is in cyberspace for anyone to access with the right tools. What about the data mining companies that gather data that affects your credit score? It's not just about guns. These companies aren't government entities and what they collect can affect your life in ways you can't imagine. The gun rights of Americans are protected by the second amendment. There is zero protection from corporations.

    Many government officials have openly said this. At least with a non-government entity you theoretically have the ability to sue them for their conduct. I also never said I like the fact that all of these entities such as Google have that much right to my information.



    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-26-2013 11:12 AM
  20. msndrstood's Avatar
    Any luck with suing Google or FB? Unless you are another corporation, you can never afford to sue these corporations for your privacy.

    I guess I'm just different in that I don't see the government per se as the bogeyman. Now the radical members of Congress, that's a different story.

    Again, I point out that none of this was an issue when the Patriot Act was passed in 2003. It has only become an issue in the past few years. We were fed the 'it will keep us safe' line. Why is it different now. Is safety not an issue any longer?



    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-26-2013 11:41 AM
  21. msndrstood's Avatar
    Most people that understood what was going on felt that way while Bush was in office.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
    I don't think that's the answer. People who were unwilling to give up their rights to habeas corpus and warrantless wiretapping were very vocal. However, they didn't have the backing of such entities as the NRA. So when there is any, and I mean any mention of gun control, suddenly it's a breach of our 'God given rights'. Even though I'm pretty sure God didn't carry a gun.

    I'm just trying to understand the difference from 2003 and 2013. What has changed in10 years?

    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-26-2013 11:49 AM
  22. Live2ride883's Avatar
    To be honest when it cost the crown tens of thousands to bring forward a case, they have to be selective and prioritise, hence why no one gets pinged for illegal downloads.

    However, if they restrict they wouldn't really have to deal with that crime as often. Thus saving them money.

    Posted via Android Central App
    When they (Government) are not willing to prosecute the laws already on the books, it makes no sense to pass new ones.
    08-26-2013 12:03 PM
  23. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I don't think that's the answer. People who were unwilling to give up their rights to habeas corpus and warrantless wiretapping were very vocal. However, they didn't have the backing of such entities as the NRA. So when there is any, and I mean any mention of gun control, suddenly it's a breach of our 'God given rights'. Even though I'm pretty sure God didn't carry a gun.

    I'm just trying to understand the difference from 2003 and 2013. What has changed in10 years?

    Sent via Note II
    Here is the difference. Very few people knew what the patriot act really was. Because of its misuse more and more as time goes on people on a larger scale understand it more. The patriot act ironically is like the gun and many other tools, it can be used wrongly.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    08-26-2013 12:21 PM
  24. msndrstood's Avatar
    Here is the difference. Very few people knew what the patriot act really was. Because of its misuse more and more as time goes on people on a larger scale understand it more. The patriot act ironically is like the gun and many other tools, it can be used wrongly.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    It was pretty extensively debated at the time. I knew what was in it, but then I made it a point to find out.

    For the average American, how has the Patriot Act impacted their life differently now than 10 years ago?

    I don't think it has.

    Sent via Note II
    08-26-2013 12:30 PM
  25. msndrstood's Avatar
    When they (Government) are not willing to prosecute the laws already on the books, it makes no sense to pass new ones.
    What laws specifically and why do you think that is?

    Sent via Note II
    Fairclough likes this.
    08-26-2013 12:31 PM
4,617 ... 124125126127128 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD