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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Monday June 19 2017, @09:45AM (8 children)

    by unauthorized (3776) on Monday June 19 2017, @09:45AM (#527825)

    An armed populace is a deterrent to illegitimate tyrannical suppression of civil freedom, not to legitimate elected bodies making terrible laws.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Interesting=1, Informative=2, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 19 2017, @10:06AM

    It's both, just not to the same extent.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by c0lo on Monday June 19 2017, @01:01PM (6 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19 2017, @01:01PM (#527874) Journal

    Is there any difference between the two? 'Cause I don't see any in the effects.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by unauthorized on Monday June 19 2017, @01:51PM (5 children)

      by unauthorized (3776) on Monday June 19 2017, @01:51PM (#527901)

      The difference is that the later is done with the consent of the governed, begrudging as it may be. Violence is never an acceptable response to a political force acting in such a way.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19 2017, @02:01PM (4 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19 2017, @02:01PM (#527907) Journal

        Violence is never an acceptable response to a political force acting in such a way.

        Neither in the first case. Civil (and civilized) disobedience is a much effective way.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Monday June 19 2017, @02:32PM (2 children)

          by unauthorized (3776) on Monday June 19 2017, @02:32PM (#527919)

          Civil (and civilized) disobedience is a much effective way.

          It didn't work for the anti-war protesters during the Vietnam conflict. I don't object to the notion that civil disobedience is preferable to civil war, but the former is not always a viable solution.

          Neither in the first case.

          Oh really? So suppose ikanreed's paranoid delusions are true and the United States is overtaken by literal jackboots-and-gaschambers nazi types in the near future. Authoritarians being what they are would have no problem marching down your streets and kidnapping some your friends over arbitrary criteria such as skin color, and shipping them off to some camp and never to be seen again.

          Would you contest that this would be an extremely tyrannical action? And if you don't, would you say that violence is unacceptable in this circumstance?

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19 2017, @03:24PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19 2017, @03:24PM (#527956) Journal

            Civil (and civilized) disobedience is a much effective way.

            It didn't work for the anti-war protesters during the Vietnam conflict.

            I believe it did. In any case, even letting aside some remarkable music festivals and exquisite cuisine massacrees [wikipedia.org], it had more effects than the Weather Underground.

            And if you don't, would you say that violence is unacceptable in this circumstance?

            Yes. Because it will achieve nothing but more deaths.
            A general strike will, however.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @01:29PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @01:29PM (#530000)

            We already do that. Naura and PNG. Don't enter our country without notice and agreement. Or be shipped to somewhere safe outside our border.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @02:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19 2017, @02:55PM (#527933)

          Tell that to the French.