May 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

« I Always Have My Powerful, Black, Ersatz Penis With Me, Just in Case | Main | Remembrance »

December 16, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Australia went through a general confiscation after the Port Arthur massacre. Although our constitution does not, in any shape or form, protect the right to own guns it does mandate just compensation for any taking. We also did not have any general register of who owned what. We paid it. We found the guns. It can be done.

Really? Wow, I didn't know about that; I'll have to look up how that was done. There must have been overwhelming cultural acceptance of the need for confiscation, which (I can't imagine) we'd ever get to in the U.S.

Is the wikipedia article (sorry, I don't know why I can't post links right now) an accurate reflection of how it was done in Australia? It says that 85% of the public supported the new law, and that 631,000 weapons were confiscated.

I can't imagine American public opinion ever changing that radically. The latest poll (that I am aware of) showed only 26% in support of a handgun ban and that 47% have at least one gun at home. Handguns are the main focus of control efforts; a ban on semi-automatic rifles like the ones used in the last two mass murders would be even more radical.

The Wikipedia article is fairly accurate. Public opinion is not set in stone, and at least in part, it's a function of an almost universal silence by progressives who should know better. Some progressives argue, for instance, that what was done in Australia cannot be done.

yeah, but even if public opinion in the u.s. suddenly shifted, providing just compensation for 300 million guns is a lot more expensive than 631,000. like mithras, i can't imagine that confiscation as an idea would ever catch on here (even though i wouldn't be opposed to it). but even if it did, i really doubt that the public would be willing to pay the confiscation bill under the takings clause.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Support This Blog


Philadelphia Bloggers