these are just the best.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Churchill said that Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities. I think 2-3 more school massacres will probably do it. :-(

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, April 26th, 2013 2:31am PDT - promote requested by dag.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

*related = http://videosift.com/video/John-Howard-on-Gun-Cntrol

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

*related=http://videosift.com/video/John-Howard-on-Gun-Cntrol

John Howard on Gun Control has been added as a related post - related requested by dag.

Churchill - my favourite historical figure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn04zRd3yQ

Australia and Mexico are the #1 and #2 best arguments against gun control that the NRA can ever hope for. If you're in favor of gun control keep reminding us about them and see where it gets you.

I'm not so sure. Even if gun control were passed here, it would probably be as watered down and worthless as our Democratic Party full of PINOs.

Against????? How do you figure?

Because up is down and black is white.

In Australia, the government passed a law banning practically all guns then confiscated (read 'buy back') and destroyed them all. News photos showed guns in giant trash compactors and being sawed in half with sparks flying. This is the argument against anyone-especially this administration-who say "we don't really want to take your guns." Mexico is easy. Guns are completely outlawed there and so we see the population as helpless against better armed criminals. All the NRA has to do to defeat even the most simple legislation is bring these two examples up and you're done. That's why there is no hope of compromise.
--i'm not making an argument for or against. I'm only trying to make a correct observation of the condition.

to be..."fair" conservatives will rally against anything a foreign country does, no matter how beneficial it is. Not on the merits of the actual idea of course, simply because it's a foreign nation is all that is needed for conservatives to poo poo on it.

So he's right, but for the wrong reasons.

For conservatives to *ever* consider gun control, there would probably have to be an american city that enacted some huge gun control enforcement successfully.

or like @dag said, but I think he's being generous. Personally I don't think any real change will happen till no less than a dozen more big mass shootings.

or we abolish lobbying.

or republicans lose big in 2014.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Republicans will lose big in the next election - I'm calling it now. What I've observed is that Obama is not very good at getting things done, but he's great at making sure everyone knows where to lay blame when things fail.

I'm glad I asked, since @zor's argument wasn't what I expected It actually has a certain logic to it, if you look at it from the right angle... it just presupposes that the American public are ruled by fear and laziness and won't investigate the claims too closely.

The funny thing is that it was a conservative government that introduced the bill here... but since what we are talking about is uniform national firearms control, having a single city enact controls is meaningless: In fact parts of Australia had controls similar to the final legislation already, but if you can just go for a drive and avoid the controls, then they are (as people keep pointing out) not terribly effective. Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with their follow-up argument that it also means they can never be effective.

Yeah... the argument for the past couple of months has been "No one is saying we want to take everyone's guns away. We just want sensible controls." And now the argument is, "we just have to do it like Australia, to make it work! ...where they took everyone's guns away."

I'm a libby-lib McLiberston, and I'm in favor of closing the background check loopholes and whatnot, but pointing to Australia as an example of sensible gun control legislation is not helping the case.

two separate arguments, two separate responses.

Conservative: You're taking our guns.
Liberal: No, we're not. We just want sensible controls"
Conservative: Gun control won't EVER work
Liberal: No, here are some countries that have it and it works.

The degree of gun control is obviously debatable, but to say it doesn't work is an outright falsehood.

I imagine the main difference is the overall difference in paranoia in our country vs others. That and no NRA lobby strangling the wishes of the public.

Strictly speaking, I wouldn't want to have Australia's or Japan's system of gun control either.

As usual, I think a hybrid is possible. As usual, the argument gets framed as two extremes. total gun confiscation vs total unfettered access. Neither would work for America. As usual, the problem isn't really the laws, the problem is enforcement, but the NRA has done everything they can to make enforcement next to impossible too.

People like to throw out false analogies between cars and guns...so let them eat those words. We license cars and periodically re-test for competency. So do something similar for firearms. Perhaps some sort of home safety audit. prove you've got your firearms locked up safely. With rights come responsibility after all.

Sorry grampa, but if you can't see worth a damn, you're a liability, not a boon, with a weapon.

How many times have we seen on a sift someone who does treat weapons with respect and safety and another sift with some fucking idiot putting Evolution-into-Action with a firearm. If you can demonstrate proficiency and safety, most people wouldn't care how many weapons you have.

Even the NRA should be for this since they like to claim they care about safety. /sarcasm