6 ms·

So after this law, the honest people cannot have Flipper Zeros, and the criminals will simply continue breaking the law and acquire one.

nonethewiser 3y ago
Welcome to the gun control debate.
- blindriver 3y ago
  Except gun ownership is codified into the US Constitution. That’s why is impossible to get rid of, unfortunately.
  - defrost 3y ago
    That's hardly the issue, gun ownership is part of Australia also - the difference being that there it is regulated. The debate in the US is largely about what constitutes well-regulated and is a mess as States are not aligned.
    - loopdoend 3y ago
      There is no legal right to gun ownership in Australia.
      - defrost 3y ago
        Complete utter nonsense - I'm an Australian gun owner, all legal. My neighbour here in the Australian wheatbelt enjoys ULR shooting at 5,000 yards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE Perhaps you might like to do some actual fact checking before being utterly wrong in public? W.Aus Firearms Act 1973 (current): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a278.html https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l... W.Aus Firearms Regulations 1974 (current): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_s4446.html https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l...
        pseudo0 3y ago
        I think his point was that Australia does not specifically enumerate a right to bear arms. That makes it much easier for politicians and judges to erode liberties in the name of safety or "think of the children". Eg. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have done mass firearm bans or confiscations in recent years, while the US has largely resisted similar efforts to restrict civil liberties.
        defrost 3y ago
        The 1973 Act is the part in which we the citizens of W.Australia grant the right for our elected and employed politicians to form regulations wrt firearms. That can be repealed, if so there is no right for our government to make firearm regulations. The 1974 Regulations are the evolving regulations, the fine detail about what the licence requirements are, the purchase and sale requirements are, the various classes, storage requirements, and conditions for disqualification. These can be changed. Their point was nonsense. We have a "Washminster" system of government, it's a bit like the UK Westminster system and a bit like the US Washington system .. only it was formed after looking at the shortcomings of both. > Australia [..] done mass firearm bans or confiscations in recent years Awww, you read the US NRA dot points on Australia then? Twenty eight years ago Australia took out the (then) mass shooting world record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi... The response here was to unify gun regulations across all states and territories. At the time the bulk of the Australian population had gun regulations .. Queensland (then low population), Tasmania, and Territories (low population) did not. Once regulation was uniform and gun licencing was taken seriously there were a lot of guns that people didn't want to licence ("we have the three we mainly use and another three out the back that grandad used in the war") - so there was a federally funded buy back scheme "cash for guns" to encourage handing in unlicenced weapons for cash, this resulted in pictures of skip bins full of "confiscated guns". There are still semi automatics being bought, sold, and used in Australia - these are licenced for feral pig control use. You cannot get a semi automatic to barrel polish and strut the street in the city with, you can get one if you're going to kill a lot of pigs. You can get a licence to drive a three trailer prime mover (road train), you are still not permitted to drive these fully loaded on a large number of urban roads.
    - 15155 3y ago
      The "well-regulated" nonsense is long-settled jurisprudence.
      - defrost 3y ago
        Is it? Will it remain so? What other nonsense is in the US Constitution and Ammendments?
        15155 3y ago
        The nonsense is the commonly-parroted layman's interpretation of what "well-regulated" means. Even Ginsburg agreed: "well-regulated" as written in the Constitution does not mean "restricted." The English language has changed some since 1791! This is settled jurisprudence since at least 2008.
    - blindriver 3y ago
      You can’t compare Australia to the U.S. on many levels. Australia is less than 10% the population of the U.S. Its easy to get to the majority of 20 million people to agree to something. It’s impossible when you have over 300 million. And the U.S. has a wide history of different states with different attitudes. Also gun laws are codified in the constitution in the U.S. that’s not the same way in every other country in the world. I wish I could remember who said it, but to paraphrase, Constitutional rights are God-given rights as viewed by Americans. Every other country has government-given rights which can be taken away whenever the government wants. That’s not the case in the U.S. and why it’s so much more entrenched and impossible to get rid of.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - theultdev 3y ago
    Unfortunately? Just above we can see a clear point that criminals will still have guns. They won't turn them in. You'll only take away the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. My wife carries a gun because she is smaller and weaker than most men, she needs it to protect herself.
    - blindriver 3y ago
      Unfortunately because I wish there were no guns at all. But I’m a pragmatist. I know gun ownership will never go away in the U.S. so I own guns as well.
      - 15155 3y ago
        How would you prevent folks from machining, 3d printing, or casting their own? Firearm technology is centuries old.
    - hylaride 3y ago
      But if they’re harder to get, fewer will have them. You can very much get an illegal firearm in Australia or the UK if you really want, but firearms crimes are significantly less because they’re not readily available. I don’t think we (Canada or anybody) should necessarily ban guns, but I don’t think the US should have the 2nd amendment (as it’s now interpreted anyways) either.
  - firebat45 3y ago
    And the Constitution is immutable, right? What would you even call a ratified change to the Constitution?
    - 15155 3y ago
      For purposes of repealing or altering the Second Amendment, yes, the Constitution is effectively immutable. But of course anyone is welcome to attempt to get a majority of state legislatures onboard to ratify a new amendment. Analogous terms are encoded into most state constitutions - probably have to knock those pesky provisions out as well.

nonethewiser 3y ago

Welcome to the gun control debate.

blindriver 3y ago
Except gun ownership is codified into the US Constitution. That’s why is impossible to get rid of, unfortunately.
- defrost 3y ago
  That's hardly the issue, gun ownership is part of Australia also - the difference being that there it is regulated. The debate in the US is largely about what constitutes well-regulated and is a mess as States are not aligned.
  - loopdoend 3y ago
    There is no legal right to gun ownership in Australia.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Complete utter nonsense - I'm an Australian gun owner, all legal. My neighbour here in the Australian wheatbelt enjoys ULR shooting at 5,000 yards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE Perhaps you might like to do some actual fact checking before being utterly wrong in public? W.Aus Firearms Act 1973 (current): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a278.html https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l... W.Aus Firearms Regulations 1974 (current): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_s4446.html https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l...
      - pseudo0 3y ago
        I think his point was that Australia does not specifically enumerate a right to bear arms. That makes it much easier for politicians and judges to erode liberties in the name of safety or "think of the children". Eg. Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have done mass firearm bans or confiscations in recent years, while the US has largely resisted similar efforts to restrict civil liberties.
        defrost 3y ago
        The 1973 Act is the part in which we the citizens of W.Australia grant the right for our elected and employed politicians to form regulations wrt firearms. That can be repealed, if so there is no right for our government to make firearm regulations. The 1974 Regulations are the evolving regulations, the fine detail about what the licence requirements are, the purchase and sale requirements are, the various classes, storage requirements, and conditions for disqualification. These can be changed. Their point was nonsense. We have a "Washminster" system of government, it's a bit like the UK Westminster system and a bit like the US Washington system .. only it was formed after looking at the shortcomings of both. > Australia [..] done mass firearm bans or confiscations in recent years Awww, you read the US NRA dot points on Australia then? Twenty eight years ago Australia took out the (then) mass shooting world record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australi... The response here was to unify gun regulations across all states and territories. At the time the bulk of the Australian population had gun regulations .. Queensland (then low population), Tasmania, and Territories (low population) did not. Once regulation was uniform and gun licencing was taken seriously there were a lot of guns that people didn't want to licence ("we have the three we mainly use and another three out the back that grandad used in the war") - so there was a federally funded buy back scheme "cash for guns" to encourage handing in unlicenced weapons for cash, this resulted in pictures of skip bins full of "confiscated guns". There are still semi automatics being bought, sold, and used in Australia - these are licenced for feral pig control use. You cannot get a semi automatic to barrel polish and strut the street in the city with, you can get one if you're going to kill a lot of pigs. You can get a licence to drive a three trailer prime mover (road train), you are still not permitted to drive these fully loaded on a large number of urban roads.
  - 15155 3y ago
    The "well-regulated" nonsense is long-settled jurisprudence.
    - defrost 3y ago
      Is it? Will it remain so? What other nonsense is in the US Constitution and Ammendments?
      - 15155 3y ago
        The nonsense is the commonly-parroted layman's interpretation of what "well-regulated" means. Even Ginsburg agreed: "well-regulated" as written in the Constitution does not mean "restricted." The English language has changed some since 1791! This is settled jurisprudence since at least 2008.
  - blindriver 3y ago
    You can’t compare Australia to the U.S. on many levels. Australia is less than 10% the population of the U.S. Its easy to get to the majority of 20 million people to agree to something. It’s impossible when you have over 300 million. And the U.S. has a wide history of different states with different attitudes. Also gun laws are codified in the constitution in the U.S. that’s not the same way in every other country in the world. I wish I could remember who said it, but to paraphrase, Constitutional rights are God-given rights as viewed by Americans. Every other country has government-given rights which can be taken away whenever the government wants. That’s not the case in the U.S. and why it’s so much more entrenched and impossible to get rid of.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- theultdev 3y ago
  Unfortunately? Just above we can see a clear point that criminals will still have guns. They won't turn them in. You'll only take away the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. My wife carries a gun because she is smaller and weaker than most men, she needs it to protect herself.
  - blindriver 3y ago
    Unfortunately because I wish there were no guns at all. But I’m a pragmatist. I know gun ownership will never go away in the U.S. so I own guns as well.
    - 15155 3y ago
      How would you prevent folks from machining, 3d printing, or casting their own? Firearm technology is centuries old.
  - hylaride 3y ago
    But if they’re harder to get, fewer will have them. You can very much get an illegal firearm in Australia or the UK if you really want, but firearms crimes are significantly less because they’re not readily available. I don’t think we (Canada or anybody) should necessarily ban guns, but I don’t think the US should have the 2nd amendment (as it’s now interpreted anyways) either.
- firebat45 3y ago
  And the Constitution is immutable, right? What would you even call a ratified change to the Constitution?
  - 15155 3y ago
    For purposes of repealing or altering the Second Amendment, yes, the Constitution is effectively immutable. But of course anyone is welcome to attempt to get a majority of state legislatures onboard to ratify a new amendment. Analogous terms are encoded into most state constitutions - probably have to knock those pesky provisions out as well.