Really? I am aware of but one and I have lived here a few decades. So....enlighten me, and the rest of Australia. Go right ahead.
You dont know half as much as you imagine you do, about the USA. They are called (brace for it....) Democrats and the media I have my guns, i hope it triggers you.
No...you have been lecturing about the issue. You were asked this: After you posted this: So.....stump up...... show her where to access that database......or apologise. Up to you 'mate.'
Just pick up most any USA newspaper yourself. But, I will humor you with a couple examples from the local rags, the York daily record and the York Dispatch. I believe it was 2006 when the township autocrats in some local fiefdom of a township decided on their own to ban guns in their township. Considering there are something like 500 townships and other small government bodies in PA not to mention school districts, that action had the ability to mean hundreds of different gun laws throughout the state. The state legislators knew that would cause chaos and signed a state preemption law that forbid any local government from creating gun laws. The local rag of course threw a fit saying it was "common sense gun control" to allow each local government to create their own laws. Another time after an AR was used in a shooting the rag editorial staff printed an editorial using all the usual loaded words like rapid fire and high powered when referring to the 5.56mm round. Other than this, search for yourself, it's plainly obvious to most anyone that the MSM is biased to the Left and thereby will almost always be biased against guns.
I am not doing your homework for you. You made the claim: MSM = main stream media. Local 'rags' don't qualify. So.....want to withdraw that silly claim?
No, of course not. You claim crap all day long, do I ask you to prove every fricken thing you post? It's such common knowledge, just ask Lefties on this board if most MSM is anti-gun. At work it's hard to get links through the filters to stories. I can only post this link, I can't bring it up to verify what it says, many other links like it. https://www.guns.com/news/2013/03/27/top-ten-examples-of-media-bias-against-gun-owners-video oh, here's one.....but...but...Fox! https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/the-bias-against-guns-what-the-media-isnt-telling-you
Nope. "Lefties" here did not make the claim. Guess who did, and failed to substantiate it? Lesson learned?
To pretend that the MSM isn't anti 2A is beyond silly. And every single Democrat as well. And you want to be taken seriously?
You are right, my attempts at levity in the context of the thread and in text format fail and are simply cutting. My apologies, it’s not my intent. None of my examples of how reporters could ascertain NRA membership have anything to do with powers of search. All one would need would be the person’s name which in the US is readily available almost immediately. The only method I’ve mentioned that would come anywhere near a problem legally would be grooming sources inside law enforcement. But it’s so common I don’t think anyone cares at this point. It’s seems people in all branches of government are giddy at the chance to leak information for reasons of ego, political gain, or just inability to keep a secret. I hear a lot of people say the criminals’s name should not be released to avoid copycat attention seekers. While I see the point I don’t see it as consistent with the principles of freedom it seems we both value. What’s your opinion here? Back to the privacy issue. Is there still privacy in Australia? Here, between videos surveillance and mobile devices I don’t see that privacy really exists at all. Seems much more intrusive than a reporter asking questions about someone at the local watering hole. Thoughts?
The United States has regulated dangerous weapons -- called "destructive devices" in American law -- for more than 80 years. Source. While it's technically possible to own a fully automatic weapon in the US, in practice it is very difficult to do so, although the 'bump stock' modification gets around this. In any case, automatic weapons are mainly useful in organized 'fire-and-maneuver' situations, whereas the main concern in America is defense against home invaders, and repelling, in a situation where the police are ineffective, reparation-seekers, as these Korean-Americans did. It's not completely crazy to envisage the possibility of a future in which 'law and order' has broken down to such an extent in the US, that homes with firearms will be in an advantageous condition. It's happened many times in our past. However, in this case, to be really safe, the gun-owners should be organized on a neighborhood level. There are simple preparatory steps regarding communications, logistics, defensive barriers, medical capacity, that need to be thought about and prepared for in advance. This shouldn't be done explicitly as a rightwing gun club, but rather as an inclusive neighborhood civil defense operation.
Oh yeah, that too! Good catch. Any decent snoop could determine whether or not a mass killer belongs to the NRA. I'm still waiting for antigunners to state which amendment to the Constitution gives them the right to own and drive vehicles which cause far more deaths, maiming, and injuries that guns. And why don't they blame the car manufacturers for it all. Oh well.
No, and neither may you hunt. Only the King and the Kings party may hunt the royal animals on the royal preserve. Now trouble us no more with your groveling, knave.
Democrats, socialists, and liberals. In other words, people who always want someone else to do it for them.
And yes, the MSM is anti 2A. To deny that is simply untruthful. The antis posting on here (Bowerbird and her friends) simply dodge that with the"but" statement: I'm not anti gun, BUT, I just want common sense gun laws, such as Universal background checks (which requires total registration of every firearm, wonder what that could be used for) No semi auto weapons (you dont NEED an AR15 to kill a deer) Deer hunting isn't mentioned in the 2A, but free state is. Free state would indicate using arms to KEEP it free. Mandatory liscensing. The only RIGHT that this is proposed for. Mental health checks yearly. (But dont violate any HIPPA laws) Limits on ammo purchases (take away the ammo, make the gun useless) Ban weapons of war (which would by definition ban every known weapon, as ALL types have been used through history. Force insurance for owners (which could then be price regulated by many means The list goes on. In short, if there is any possible way to own a firearm, no matter how draconian the regulations, the antis can claim they support the 2A, or gun ownership. The whole base of their argument is dishonest, and meant to obscure their true goal: Disarm everyone, or at least to the point that there can be no meaningful resistance to their agenda.