Gun Control & RKBA

beevul: You either have balls of solid rock, or a complete lack of self awareness, or both.... I'll just say that I find it hilarious in a sad sad way to read your quibbling....

Beevul again demonstrates his pathetic approach to rebuttal on DU - juvenile ad hominem.

beevul: .. you use the term 'gun buyback' to describe the government confiscating with compensation, guns that never belonged to that government in the first place.

This is a red herring from beevul. 'Gun Buyback' is an appropriate light morphing to describe the aussie govt buying back prohibited guns from gun owners. It differentiates with clarity from 'confiscation' in that confiscation does not generally involve compensation.
Confiscation, as per icon's wiki link: In modern, e.g. English law, the term embraces forfeiture in the case of goods, and escheat in the case of lands, for crime or in default of heirs . Goods may also be confiscated by the state for breaches of statutes relating to customs, excise or explosives. In the United Kingdom a confiscation order is a court order made under part{s} of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requiring a convicted defendant to pay a specified sum of money to the state by a specified date.

Any confiscation was done against scofflaws refusing to turn in their newly prohibited illegal firearms (approved by the populace in general). The gun buyback was not considered confiscation since it was generally done by citizens voluntarily & willingly,returning those newly prohibited firearms for COMPENSATION.

Confiscation (from the Latin confiscatio "joining to the fiscus, i.e. transfer to the treasury&quot is a legal seizure by a government or other public authority. The word is also used, popularly, of spoliation under legal forms, or of any seizure of property as punishment or in enforcement of the law.

The aussie govt did not transfer those prohibited firearms to the treasury, they destroyed them.
Since aussies generally surrendered newly prohibited firearms willingly for compensation, there was generally no 'seizure of property .. in enforcement of the law', which only occurred when scofflaws did not willingly surrender them.

link in previous post: More than 640,000 prohibited firearms were surrendered nationwide as part of the buyback program. In addition, it was reported that about 60,000 nonprohibited firearms were voluntarily surrendered without compensation.

The national amnesty and buyback scheme, which was introduced in the aftermath of Port Arthur, saw 640,000 firearms surrendered at a cost of $304 million, http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s41333.htm

$304 million divided by 640,000 = $475 per firearm, tho admin costs are surely involved somehow, making the compensation per firearm less.

link: The buyback was accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registration of firearms.

Which got solid support from the Australian people.

beevul: Oh, and I have some news for you james: When a tragedy happens, blaming the people that didn't do it, is a sinister dirty deed.

Utterly specious sophomoric reasoning from beevul - to regulate drones, is a sinister dirty deed? What exactly did john howard do to aussie residents when he proffered & enabled his buyback scheme in 1996? They predominantly agreed with him, he would've been held remiss NOT to do something such as he did. He deprived them of nothing as a whole, nothing.