Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Xpost: Austrailian gun control... [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)21. First things first, James. We have unfinished business, you and I.
Which was it, a deliberate misrepresentation on your part, or substandard reading skills that inadvertently led to a misrepresentation of what I actually said?
Or are you above admitting it when you're wrong?
Do we need to plan on that little blurb being right at the top every reply I make to you, so long as it remains unaddressed?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=175246
You do realize we live in democracies, yes? or are you arguing that oz is adhering to some sort of tyranny of the majority?
Who 'we' james? The US isn't a democracy, its a representative republic. If we lived in a true democracy, somehow, I don't think you'd be very happy with it.
To my knowledge, Australia is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, which isn't quite the same thing as a plain old democracy.
How does it work in beevul-land, that over 90% support means law abiding people gave up their guns against their will? a few yes, aka lunatic fringies.
If government confiscates your guns, and you agree with it, they've still confiscated your guns. The definition of confiscation isn't dependent on whether the targeted populace agrees or not. Were you under the impression that it was?
And unless it was 100 percent minus 1 individual (since I used plural) that agreed with it, my statement stands as correct:
They indeed compelled otherwise law abiding people to give up guns against their will. I'd ask you how many people that has to happen to before it becomes wrong, but you and I both know that you don't see gun confiscation as wrong, regardless of how many agree or disagree within a target population.
I'd ask how that squares with our party platform, but we already know the answer to that. Every last pro-gun regular on DU is closer to the party platform than you are. So spare me the 'lunatic fringe' innuendo, until you have a stronger more stable relationship with a mirror, and your own innuendo ceases to apply to you.
What is it when you ignore that about 95% of aussies supported the buyback scheme?
I don't believe that 95% number to be representative of the truth. And again, the definition of confiscate isn't dependent on whether the target populace agrees or not:
con·fis·cate
take or seize (someone's property) with authority.
take or seize (someone's property) with authority.
Do you see anything there in the definition about it being dependent on whether someone agrees or not? Me either.
The Prime Minister of Australia was John Howard...a member of Australia's conservative party and a staunch ally of President George W. Bush during the Iraq War.
Swell playmate the anti-gun crowd has over there...A staunch ally of the worst, most despised president to ever walk the earth. What a nice feather to keep in their cap.
But after Port Arthur, the Prime Minister became the stongest possible advocate for sweeping gun control legislation.
Leave it to you, to portray things as if port Arthur happened after the Iraq war under *, hoping nobody would notice.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
125 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
it was undemocratic in that he didn't put the question to a formal referendum.
SwissTony
Sep 2015
#26
FFS, do you really claim that knife and gun are the same in a mass murder? Which would you....
Logical
Sep 2015
#31
Are you saying all confrontations favor or are equal to the capabilities of the victim?
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#56
"It's how we deal with them that determines what kind of society we live in."
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#58
No, but I think the fear of them should be dealt with in the appropriate way
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#59
It's definitely irrational if you think criminals don't strike in public.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#62
What is reasonable about demanding people not defend themselves outside their homes?
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#66
"If the US wants to remain credible in terms of basic societal norms..."
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#79
It's amusing that you can fabricate so many things about what freedom is or isn't and yet
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#96
It only makes a difference if you care about what kind of society you want to live in
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#72
Anyone living in the country should have equal rights in terms of self defense
Starboard Tack
Sep 2015
#106
Do you know how many guns have been confiscated from the total in the country?
Eleanors38
Sep 2015
#12
The pro-gun regulars also don't defend those who work against Democrats seeking reelection...
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#25
This is the same person that finds it acceptable to attack Dems seeking reelection:
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#38
So if some future president abolished voting but paid each voter $475 you'd be okay with that.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#47
"bring back to a more satisfactory state" Back to something that did not exist previously...
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#45
If the owners had no choice and the government did not own the property then it was confiscation.
Nuclear Unicorn
Sep 2015
#51
"Icon and I simply know how to read a dictionary..." No doubt James can also read quite well
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#53