Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday June 19 2017, @04:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the up-in-arms dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Australia has announced national gun amnesty, allowing people to hand in illegal or unregistered firearms to authorities. The move is aimed at curbing growing numbers of illegal weapons and comes amid an increased terrorist threat.

[...] The program starts on July 1 and within three months – until September 30 – anyone who possesses an unwanted or unregistered firearm, or a firearm-related item such as ammunition, can legally dispose of or register their firearm at "approved drop-off points in each State and Territory", without fear of being prosecuted, Justice Minister said.

Outside the amnesty period, however, those who are caught with illegal guns could face a fine of up to AU$280,000 (US$212,000), up to 14 years in prison and a criminal record.

“My expectation is it will probably not be the case that we will have hardened criminals who have made a big effort to get a hold on illegal guns would necessarily hand them in. The purpose is to reduce the number of unregistered and illicit firearms in the community,” Keenan said, as cited by AAP.

[...] Earlier this month, the authorities announced plans to build its first prison solely for militants with extreme views to prevent the radicalization of other inmates.

Source: RT


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @05:03AM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @05:03AM (#527738)

    Will keep you alive when the need for revolution comes!

    Hold those fly by night guns tight,
    and when the lawman comes for you,
    give him quite the f(r)ight!

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by FatPhil on Monday June 19 2017, @06:49AM (17 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday June 19 2017, @06:49AM (#527779) Homepage
    You seem to have overlooked the fact that when you have a functioning democracy, you don't need a revolution.

    Let me guess - you come from a country with either a non-functioning democracy or no democracy at all? And apparently you're happier that way. Why?
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday June 19 2017, @07:13AM (8 children)

      by kaszz (4211) on Monday June 19 2017, @07:13AM (#527788) Journal

      Democracies can be subverted and then you might need to have leverage.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday June 19 2017, @07:31AM (3 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday June 19 2017, @07:31AM (#527796) Homepage
        Democracies, unless set up to be unsubvertible right from the start will eventually subvert themselves. Duverger's Law being the most obvious example. However, once Duverger's Law has kicked in, you no longer have a functioning democracy. Cases in point - the US and the UK.

        There were hints in 1860, 1924, 1968, and 1992 that the US might be able to break free from its two-party stranglehold, but none came to fruition. Part of that is because of the insanely retarded "let's introduce enormous rounding errors in as many stages as possible" FPTP electoral college system that permits someone who receives 0.0001% of the popular vote to become the "democratically elected" president. And that's without any faithless electors - with those, you can get exactly *no* popular votes, and still become president! How that can be called a democracy at all boggles the mind.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 19 2017, @03:30PM (2 children)

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday June 19 2017, @03:30PM (#527959) Journal

          How that can be called a democracy at all boggles the mind.

          There's a difference between a (direct) democracy and a representative democracy. In direct democracies, the people vote directly for things. In representative democracies the people mostly vote for representatives who decide things. The Founders of the U.S. thought direct democracy was a VERY bad idea, based on historical precedent. So, they separated the people from directly voting on a number of things -- they could directly elect representatives to Congress, but senators would be elected by state representatives acting on behalf of the people. These are still democracies, since the people still have a voice in their governance (unlike, say, in an aristocracy or traditional monarchy, where the ultimate decision was left in the hands of officials who were not chosen directly or even indirectly by the people.)

          The Electoral College is similar measure, originally intended to be a group of folks who may know more about regional or national candidates than the average voter, back in the days before parties, political campaigns, etc. were an issue and most of the country was isolated and rural. So, the people delegated their presidential vote to representatives, just as they delegate their votes on legislation to Congress, etc.

          The Electoral College stopped functioning as intended after a few early elections, and it's basically been a complete fiction of sorts since around 1828 when most states adopted policies binding electors to parties based on majority votes in each state. What's truly ridiculous is that most states now even omit the names of electors on the ballots, when that's what you're actually voting for. No one was actually voting for Trump or Clinton last election -- they were actually voting for a slate of electors to represent them. That's a fundamental misrepresentation of the process.

          Anyhow, I agree with you that the Electoral College is completely dysfunctional and should be abolished, as well as your concerns about the problems with the two-party system. But democracies historically have always degraded... which is why the Founders actually tried experiments like the Electoral College. That WAS one of the safeguards built-in to try to prevent the democracy from "subverting" itself.

          • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 19 2017, @03:34PM

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday June 19 2017, @03:34PM (#527961) Journal

            Oh, and I should also point out there are MANY parliamentary democracies around the word where a "prime minister" or similar leader is chosen by a legislature, again -- people elect representatives who ultimately choose the leader. The Founders of the U.S. considered options to have Congress elect the President, which would have basically moved the U.S. in that direction too. But the Founders were concerned with corruption and wanted independent folks to select the president, rather than "political insiders" like Congressmen. Ultimately that experiment failed (and failed quickly), but that was the intent... which makes sense in theory, though it never really worked in practice.

          • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday June 19 2017, @10:45PM

            by Bot (3902) on Monday June 19 2017, @10:45PM (#528191) Journal

            > representative democracy

            oxymoron detected.

            --
            Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @03:02PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @03:02PM (#527939)

        The muslims are certainly trying here.
        They scrape in millions with their halal tax.
        Recently they have started killing people and attacking police with inpunity.

        • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday June 19 2017, @04:09PM

          by Wootery (2341) on Monday June 19 2017, @04:09PM (#527975)

          Oh look at that, more lazy trolling posted as AC.

          If you already know you're wrong, why bother posting at all?

        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 19 2017, @05:27PM (1 child)

          by kaszz (4211) on Monday June 19 2017, @05:27PM (#528036) Journal

          Halal tax on what? Is there any law to enforce that?

          There will be no Impunity as long as the three alphanumeric agencies are operative. There might be a continuous occurrences of smaller events but nothing really big. Speaking in terms of probability.

          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday June 19 2017, @09:50PM

            by Gaaark (41) on Monday June 19 2017, @09:50PM (#528170) Journal

            It's that tax on screaming "Halalalalalalalalalal" just before pushing the button on the bomb strapped to their chest and saying "Death to infidels!"

            I hear it's hard to collect on that tax, though.

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @07:42AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @07:42AM (#527800)

      You seem to have overlooked the fact that when you have a functioning democracy, you don't need a revolution.

      An armed population is the primary manner in which a democracy continues to be a functioning democracy.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by unauthorized on Monday June 19 2017, @09:35AM

        by unauthorized (3776) on Monday June 19 2017, @09:35AM (#527822)

        I'm not against private gun ownership, but this is, to use the technical terms, fucking stupid.

        The primary means to ensure the continuation of a democracy is through political will. There are many democracies which function just fine without guns, and is a certain well-armed democracy which functions poorly even with guns. Tyrannical overtake is hardly the only threat to democracy.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday June 19 2017, @09:19PM (1 child)

        by bob_super (1357) on Monday June 19 2017, @09:19PM (#528157)

        > An armed population is the primary manner in which a democracy continues to be a functioning democracy.

        Don't need to ask your nationality...
        The only armed thing that preserves a democracy is having police and military who only serve the people.

        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:49AM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday June 20 2017, @02:49AM (#528302) Journal

          And we can see all over the world, even here at home in the US, how the police don't serve the people. Secondly, how many military dictatorships exist at present? Many.

    • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Monday June 19 2017, @10:42AM (3 children)

      by art guerrilla (3082) on Monday June 19 2017, @10:42AM (#527845)

      say wha ? ? ?
      PLEASE let me know where ONE 'functioning democracy' (yeah, let's see what definition that entails) exists on this dog-forsaken planet of grubby greedtard zillionaires running the show ? ? ?
      ONE functioning democracy...
      unless you proscribe the meaning of 'functioning' and/or 'democracy' to such a watered-down state that it has no meaning, there are ZERO functioning democracies...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @11:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @11:48AM (#527856)

        functioning democracy, Athens. They foolishly decided to turn on their more militarily prow former allies, Sparta, and in turn got their asses kicked and their no longer functioning democracy crushed. But that is what happens when a group of overly successful and complacent fools get full of themselves: They make bad decisions and after grabbing everything else, they grab the tail of a dragon.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday June 19 2017, @02:51PM (1 child)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday June 19 2017, @02:51PM (#527930) Homepage
        Anywhere with a plethora of parties, proportional representation, and accountability (or as the US calls it, "checks and balances") would fit.

        There are a bunch of them, I live in one. Being a small country where everyone knows everyone, and it's very hard to get away with corruption and lies for any length of time helps. OK, the fact that a huge minority of the people who live and vote locally are ignorant wastes of biomass means that I'm not super happy whither the demos is giving the kratos, but I accept that they so voted.

        Maybe you should get out and see more of the world, there's lots of varied countries out there.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @08:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @08:10PM (#528116)

          maybe you shoud a new interpretarion framework. Democracy has been a facade for imperiaslism for a couple of centuries now. fuck off with your fantasyland BS