According to perceived wisdom, the left is pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-regulation and anti-gun; while the right is anti-environment (a.k.a., pro-growth), anti-Big Brother, anti-abortion and pro-gun. As TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia have proven time and time again, those stereotypes need not apply. For example, hunters (who are known to use guns) are often vehemently pro-environment—if anti-fed. Go figure. Meanwhile, stereotypes don’t come to be without at least a kernel of truth. Case in point from the Land Down Under: “The Australian Greens are proposing a $350 million gun buyback scheme, which would also see a ban on the importation and possession of semi-automatic handguns.” This before the Australian tourist’s murder in Oklahoma by “bored” teens. abc.net.au report tells you all you need to know about slippery slopes. And something about the connection between gun control and climate control.
Shooting trees? That’s just WRONG, man.
Not in a DGU. 😉
Yeah – according to some younger drivers, trees can jump out and attack the front of your car.
Wait. Huh? I thought Australia was a gun-free zone. How can you buy guns back that no one is allowed to have? You mean banning guns doesn’t remove them from existence? I’m shocked. (sarc)
Actually you can own guns (both long and handguns) in Australia. No Semi-Auto long arms, unless you’re shooting feral pests. Or you can have a semi-auto shotgun for trap/skeet competitions if you can prove the recoil of U/O is too much. Pump Action shotguns are also restricted but not pump action rifles. All guns must be registered and you must have a gun safe, even for an air rifle.
If you want a handgun, you must be a member of a pistol club for at least 6 months and have attended a given number of shoots in that period (I think its at least 4 or 6?) and you need to be attending in order to keep the gun once you get it. There are some limitations, 10 round max. capacity, at least 4″ barrel length, and higher powered rounds such as .45 are restricted to certains competitions (I think silhouette shooting?).
As far as CCW forget it. Here you can’t even legally buy or carry pepper spray or anything like that.
As far as the previous “buyback” (1996), a LOT of guns were not turned in. Even before the event government said something like they expected 35% of people to not turn their guns in.
Its a good think we kicked old King George III in the nuts, twice. Governments that can give rights can take them. Fuck governments.
I’m sorry but i’m just going to shoot off topic because you used the phrase “slippery Slope.” The left has targeted our catch phrases and asserted them a fallacy while we weren’t looking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
But Eugene Volokh’s (AKA Genius) couldn’t even grasp the simplest of concepts and wrote an entire book on the subject and still didn’t manage to stumble on it.
The fact of the matter is – You can’t get more free than absolute freedom. The fact of the matter is also that gun legislation cannot be easy undone (slippery slope in one direction). Due to this reason, there is a latching effect on gun control moving in one direction but not the other.
Unless state and federal governments are going to pass laws that restrict gov from passing gun control laws (isn’t going to happen) this will continue to move in one direction.
I don’t understand why anti-gunners don’t understand this. It is easy to go in one direction but not the other… i.e. slippery slope.
The left didn’t do that, the slippery slope fallacy has been long taught in debate circles, and it cuts both left and right.
Maybe so, but I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone that believes there’s a “slippery slope” toward Freedom. It seems to be an uphill struggle against the forces of Statism, both the right and the left wings.
Although they are not perfectly analogous, I’ve been using a creeping normalcy as a replacement for a slippery slope argument — for this exact reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy
I’ve been called out on it a few times, although I was not using slippery slope in the fallous sense. I reword some of my arguments slightly to fit the definition of creeping normalcy, and don’t have to deal with the low-ball “YOU’RE USING A FALLACY” arguments.
What is this supposed to mean??
“Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.”
You guys don’t like names like… haisdvhoiea, or Project Engineer, District Manager, Anonymous?
Don’t read too much into it. It’s just a spam control measure that any self-respecting spammer would ignore. It just means use a “name” not “hermes bags for less” or similar.
I see… they still have circumvented it however as shown above:
Deborah Burris says:
August 22, 2013 at 17:56
my buddy’s step-sister makes ($)64/hr on the computer. She has been without a job for 9 months but last month her income was ($)14950 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more… Cafe44.ℂom
Yes, but it’s gone already! Shazam!
Oh, and just for the sake of “that’s interesting,” the IP address of that spammer resolves to Faisalabad, Pakistan.
the IP address of that spammer resolves to Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Ayman Al Zawahiri, does the rest of al Qaeda know that your sister is making $64 an hour on her computer?
Lefties want control no matter what the subject is. Hence gun control, environmental control, carbon emission control, birth control (abortion on demand
) and so on. Republican are not much better, all they want in financial control over all of our life’s, and over our bedrooms.
I am for lefty control. I think their mouths should be sewn shut.
Why do some people who claim to like the 2nd amendment seem to hate the 1st? And advocate violence in the name of doing so?
Freedom of Speech is just another pretty catch phrase if it also doesn’t protect speech that you don’t like.
Freedom includes the Creator-given right to be stupid – that’s what the Darwin Effect is for.
Hey Aussies, kiss my diggeridoo.
Ralph,
I believe that you comment should have been directed at the Aussie Green Party not Aussies in general.
Aussie Tree Huggers can start grabbing guns. Texas is a good place to start. Then when they finish up with that, they can come over to Florida.
***Sarcasm Warning***
As long as they’re aware they will be grabbing on to the loud end.
They will also have to be careful to not burn their hands on hot barrels and lose their footing on the piles of brass (not to mention flying lead).
This highlights part of the problem with the modern party systems. If you’re passionate about one issue then you’re stuck voting for one party, along with all its other bullsh!t.
I care about guns and money. But the parties with the duopoly on our government will only run candidates who also agree with the parties’ views on abortion, immigration, drug legalization, gay marriage, climate change, health care, monetary policy, motor vehicle regulations, NSA monitoring, etc.
Is there anybody out there who will just let us live our lives as we see fit?
They’re called Libertarians.
It’s definitely time for a third party.
+1
Libertarians, plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
Libertarians, voluntaryists, anarcho-capitalists … these are your allies in letting you “live your life as you see fit.”
A big problem today is that the political game is all about “giving people free stuff” (never mind what is taken away). Reward friends, punish enemies. Use the excuse that it’s “for the children” or “for the poor” or “for the environment” or whoever the latest victim group is.
Perhaps that’s one of the reasons that libertarians are often unsuccessful in the political world. The goal is not to reward anyone, other than those who are honest and put forth hard work (and earn their rewards themselves). Their goal is to get rid of most laws that exist, other than those that prohibit actions that directly harm others (e.g. murder, robbery, rape, theft, etc.).
Politics is all about coercion. Asking the government to do something is usually asking one group of people to coerce another group of people. Generally this is a lousy way to try to create and/or maintain a civilized society.
+1E+12
Remember that there is a federal election in September and that the Australian Greens are a minor, if vocal, party that hold 1 seat out of 150 in the House of Representatives and 9 out of 76 Senate seats. They will say anything that will get their name in the papers so that they are not forgotten on election day, as such, this is the most that has come out of their mouths this year!
They are so minor that both the major parties are not even entering into preferences with the Greens!
Bloody typical of the gun grabbing Watermelon Party – Green on the outside, red on the inside!
The trouble with the Greens is that they are using the drugs they want to legalize.
And they are in for a backlash in next Federal Election in two weeks. They have revealed their true intentions at state and federal levels as a party with a big mouth and ideas but failing in the implementation. They are presenting a 1920s socialist ideology wrapped in pseudo-envionmentalism. Many of their members are from former socialist and communist parties. Their only supporters tend to die-hard leftists, clueless tree huggers, and university students.
When it comes to firearms, even the European Greens wonder about the Australian Greens position. And even more hypocritical is their support for one of their own candidates hunting activities as “a cultural legacy of his forebears and assisting the environment”. Who watches the watchmen?
This is a group who have publicly stated that persons owning long-arms are directly responsible for handgun crime committed by drug dealers and outlaw motorcycle gangs. And the illegal importation of prohibited firearms is not an issue that should be dealt with by police and customs.
Question: Are most gun owners pro-life or pro-choice?
I’m a gun ownership, 2nd Amendment advocate, albeit at present time I’m unarmed )-; , and I believe that women have the same Creator-given, natural and civil right to self-ownership as all human beings. (IOW, one pregnant woman is not two people.)
I can’t understand the apparent correlation between anti-choice people and Bible-thuimpers, other than the fact that they believe that women are chattel property. But the Bible they’re so fond of beating everybody over the head with defines the beginning of life right off the bat, in Genesis 2:7 –
“Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” (emphasis mine) In other words, it’s a living being after it breathes the Breath of Life.
In fact, I remember a time when if an expelled fetus was found, say, in a dumpster, they’d check its lungs. If it had not drawn breath, it was a stillbirth; if it had. it was homicide.
They ask me, “Where would you be if your Mother had aborted you?” My answer is, “I figure that my ‘immortal soul’ would have found another suitable fetus to possess.”
Freedom is my Worship Word.
I like your brain.
Thank you. I don’t want to get all gushy, but you don’t know how much I appreciate positive feedback on my crazy Libertarian ideas. 🙂
Unlike those who say everybody’s crazy but themselves, I admit that I’m probably the craziest of the lot – the only difference I can discern is that I know I’m a nut case. 🙂
Lets all blindly trust the ‘Big Gov’ state. Take the shower, and sniff the Zyklon-B.
Comments are closed.