Welcome to the gun control debate.
The debate in the US is largely about what constitutes well-regulated and is a mess as States are not aligned.
My neighbour here in the Australian wheatbelt enjoys ULR shooting at 5,000 yards.
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/l...
W.Aus Firearms Regulations 1974 (current): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/l...
That can be repealed, if so there is no right for our government to make firearm regulations.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_(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.
Rights are by definition not "pending repeal of statute."
The point being, reasonable countries view gun ownership as a privilege that can be lost, instead of a right that cannot.
When in history did we ever need, oh wait...
After Regulations were agreed upon, these were codified.
The base right as that citizens of the state can have weapons, the agreed regulations (that can be overturned) are citizens with violent criminal records, domestic assault allegations, unqualified in handling, not willing|able to safely store cannot have weapons - these are our background conditions.
The US also has background checks for sale and possesion - they're just weak on enforcement.
The US is an oddity is they felt after the fact of constitution that they had to whack on an ammendment to spell out common law for firearms - but not for explosives, poisons, motor vehicles, etc.
You do not have the right to own a firearm in Australia regardless of whatever mental gymnastics you want to perform.
- The fact that a forcible confiscation (governments cannot "buy back" something they never owned) campaign could happen at all means you do not have this right. "Give us these items or go to prison or die when we come to take them" - some right you have there!
- If you cannot own remotely the same articles that your police do, you do not have a right to bear arms. You have a privilege to own a limited set of items under a limited set of circumstances - all of which would be useless for mounting violent resistance.
This is repeated a lot and shows that at bottom, gun ownership ideologues are violent thugs, they all promote using violence to impose their political views dressed up as a fight for "rights".
Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.
The entire purpose of the Second Amendment - at least in the United States - is to enable violent resistance against tyranny. Not hunting, not culling predators, not sport, not home defense.
> Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.
"We need to restrict something that prevents further restriction."
You need violence, firearms, and "violent thugs" to go around disarm people who possess them - this in Australia is the threat of prison time.
Pot, meet kettle?
This is plain bullshit, the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking.
You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.
You're repugnant.
The most left-leaning members of the United States Supreme Court disagree with you legally on this point, just as much they would agree with you in principle.
> You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.
Where did I "justify violence?" The Second Amendment is quite clear and contains its own justification.
Again, you need violence to disarm people - so you're really not "against violence" - you're just against those using it that you don't agree with.
> You're repugnant.
Come and take them.
That doesn't make the least bit of sense, but I can see you were desperate to say that, ie "I'm armed, there's nothing you can do!"
But the idiocy of the armed is the delusion that they are safe. A person can kill another person at a safe distance, at their convenience. Having a gun doesn't help you at all.
Maybe one day you'll start thinking for yourself and come to your senses.
But I doubt it.
What other nonsense is in the US Constitution and Ammendments?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.