SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 19 2017, @10:12AM (7 children)
You never served, did you? I have and I tell you right now there is no way in hell the US military could take US gun owners. For starters they'd be at a 100:1 numerical disadvantage. For another they'd be shooting at their fathers and brothers. For another, their adversaries look precisely like peaceful citizens, right until they don't. Go around a corner and they're peaceful citizens again. No, we do not have a military capable of subjugating its populace if said populace does not want to be subjugated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday June 19 2017, @01:46PM (3 children)
Don't kid yourself.
Deploy Alaskan troops in California, Massachusetts troops in fly-over-country, and Arkansas troops in New York, and tell them "They voted Hillary/Trump, they mocked Palin; they are responsible for the mess we are in and look, the fools a rebelling now, teach them a lesson".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday June 19 2017, @02:50PM (2 children)
Have to jump in here. The (Active) US Army isn't organized by state. A "unit" is made up of people from potentially all States and Territories. The Army considers it good to have diversity and different view points. Reserve and National Guard are inactive parts of the US Army that are organized by state. The National Guard is controlled by each State's Governor, not the President. I have no idea how fighting ready the Reserves are, tbh. But they would fit your criteria.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 19 2017, @10:57PM (1 child)
Actually the POTUS can take control of the National Guard "in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies" and override a Governor's authority.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/12/governors-lose-in-power-struggle-over-national-guard/ [tenthamendmentcenter.com]
So if the POTUS had to declare martial law due to "continuing terrorist threats" after something like, say a series of coordinated bombings across the US, he could do whatever he wanted with the NG units, including move them to different states.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 20 2017, @10:24AM
S'true but expect at least a quarter of the governors to refuse at least initially. You don't get to be governor of most states by being anti-gun.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday June 20 2017, @03:35AM (2 children)
It won't be a 100:1 numerical disadvantage. The way these things usually go is aprox. 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent. It'll be the army along with 1/3rd of the population against the other 1/3rd.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday June 20 2017, @04:30AM
I can't see how the 1/3 "against" (siding with the troops) will choose to illegally shoot and kill people in support of the government position. They will be seen by the soldiers as militants and killed on sight. If your original ratio is correct, then it will be like this:
1/3 for, and fighting; 1/3 against, sitting at home and watching TV; 1/3 neutral, helping neither side.
If the confiscation of guns is announced, a significant number of weapons will be "lost" or "destroyed" in many unverifiable accidents. For example, "man, I was so scared of my guns, I took a plasma cutter to them all, until nothing was left but glowing droplets of steel." How would a soldier prove the contrary? Many gun owners do not store the weapons where they live (because of young children, for example.) Where do they store them? That's a completely different question, and the answer won't be discovered until the soldiers search every nook and cranny of the whole country - which is not even remotely feasible.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 20 2017, @10:19AM
I'm curious, how much of the Army do you think will follow orders when told to violate their oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." when doing so means shooting their friends and family? Do you think people who signed up to carry guns for their nation are anti-gun-types?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.