You willnever get a ban on private gun ownership ....which is what you are talking about...in the US, Just will not happen.

You mean white sub-neanderthal banjo-pickers?

Israel announced yesterday that it has successfully tested a new laser-based Iron Beam defense system. Reportedly, they can be used against mortars and missiles. Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett was quoted as saying, “This may sound like science-fiction, but it’s real. The Iron Beam’s interceptions are silent, they’re invisible and they only cost around $3.50 apiece."

When emptyg heard about it she tweeted:
Yeah relax everyone. By the way, Marj, do you think these lasers could be deployed on New York City subway trains? Just askin' for a friend. ;)

Can't disagree, on the face of it.
It will be another 20, 30 years before we've moved back toward a national push for it.
By then, we'll either be a theocracy where they're locked in... or in The Purge, where everyone will need a few. :D

Besides... it could only happen with an OZ style buyback, for 10 or 20 billion dollars, and no one is gonna get that passed.

Rather than everyone get torqued over the dollar figure of a buyback, consider matters from the standpoint of the per capita cost. For instance, assume for the moment a similar gun-to-citizen ratio. If the payout per gun averaged the same, then the higher total payout in the more populous nation would be nicely amortized by the concomitantly higher GDP.

Anyway, for the foreseeable future it's all moot. Where Oz had a fire lit under its collective arse over Port Arthur, in the US even numerous school massacres--Sandy Hook most notably--did not move the populace. In the same way that a nation can be judged by how it treats its poor (the US is risible), it can be weighed by how it deals with instruments of death designed specifically to kill efficiently (the US is obscene to a pornographic degree.)

Marjorie Taylor Greene Reports Her First Fundraising Loss

So when idiots donate to her, 75% goes to fundraising costs. Aside from the political considerations, I would never give to charity that spends that much on fundraising. Morons!

She's not a Grammar Nazi, just the regular kind.

I can see the response now from the faithful.

MORONS.

I'm sure she's one of the "good people" on that side.

And the Dems spend that money on raping and murdering fetuses!

Seeing the photo above reminds me I need to clean my toilet.

I hope you have better taste than they do, since they appear to be aiming to clean their guns with American flags.

I was thinking that her hair would make a good toilet scrubber. I don't own a flag.


Maybe I can use an RNC banner.

On that last, I'm reminded of a comment by the late great (yeah, socialist too) Norman Thomas back in the 60's regarding student protests, that if you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag, wash it.

:thumbsup:

I wish we could "like" posts here.

In the fishing forum I attend we can do that. There's no negatives either. Just "like", thanks", "laugh".

There is no contest to see who can get the most or anything. It's mainly a convenient way to reply without actually needing to post, like I'm doing now. I think it's cool. Maybe this forum software is too old.

This is true on some other forums I am on. But I think this issue has come up, and it might not work so well where contention is inherent, as it does on things like discussions of cameras and machine tools.

The subject comes up from time to time but is usually "voted down" when it does.
I for one, wouldn't hate having a "like" button, and I think it's even been mentioned the forum software would support the function, but for now, it's a no go.
But hey, we do have that handy "nominate" button at our disposal, which is close.

If I like something, a quick two thumbs up is easy.

By whom?

I would vote for a "like" button simply for the fact that once in a while, someone will claim widespread support for their arguments, simply because everyone on the forum hasn't posted to disagree with them.

It has to be pointed out that silence =/= assent.

Justice slowly grinds on.

Federal Judge Refuses to Block Effort to Disqualify Marjorie Taylor Greene from Office Under 14th Amendment ‘Insurrection’ Prohibition (lawandcrime.com)

:thumbsup::thumbsup: Hopefully, this will succeed and others will face the same thing. But, I doubt it.

I am not so sure a total ban on private ownership of weapons is even desireable.

Maybe the act is getting old.....

For the record, the post Port Arthur gun crack-down was on semi-autos primarily, although they accepted any arms at all. Plenty of old long-arms were handed in too. (Hand-guns and automatic weapons were very strictly controlled already.) The Prime Minister of the country at the time who promulgated and pushed this law with such haste was one of our most reactionary right-wing semi-fascists named John Howard. Not exactly a bleeding-heart, gun-hating, socialist/commie "lib" in any sense of the word.

What's funny is how people (like Alex Jones) go to great lengths to imagine that mass shootings are a manufactured phenomenon to justify oppressive gun control in the US. It seems like lately it causes a large movement against additional legislation, including much that would have been far less controversial before.

I have long since decided not to enter such discussions, but ... can't help it:

Please explain why you are not sure of that? What purpose does private gun ownership serve? (Hunting and target shooting for sport is well handled in countries that otherwise ban private guns.)

Hans

It is a last resort against tryanny. The gun nuts are right about that.
I am in favor of reasonable controls but a total disarming of the population...no.

emptyg lost her cool during a local TV interview. Tennessee-based news station WTVC interviewed Greene via Zoom. They referred to the legal action filed aiming at prohibiting Greene from holding office. The reporter, Ilene Gould Tweeted:

Here is the link to the video of Greene angrily denying everything. "This is a scam!"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I suppose the countries I use as reference have a credible defense against tyranny in their constitutions. Still, what do you imagine private arms could actually do against a tyranny, except make the mayhem even worse??

Hans

Oh, I think we're into a bit of a derail here.

Hans

No, it's not. This isn't 1776 when the weapons individuals owned were pretty much equivalent to what armies had. There were no tanks, bombers, fighter jets, missiles. Unless you advocate private ownership of tanks, bombers, fighter jets, and missiles, individual firearms ain't gonna do jack S.

Crazy in, crazy out. Her blatantly obvious attempt at misdirection by implying Omar and Kamala (whose name she mispronounced) had been involved in an insurrection just goes to support how stupid and knee-jerk she is. What an ass.

A group of Georgia voters are seeking to disqualify Greene from running for reelection citing her role in the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol and a provision in the 14th amendment which disqualifies anyone who has engaged in rebellion or insurrection against the United States from holding office. Greene has called the January 6th rioters "patriots," and those arrested "political prisoners." She has also talked about the need for a national "divorce."

In the Tennessee TV interview Greene is asked if a lawmaker took part in a riot or insurrection should they be disqualified from seeking election. She begins by asking, "You mean like Ilhan Omar or Kamala Harris?" The interviewer says, "No. you are accused of...." but Greene cuts her off, saying, "I'm not accused of anything."

The trouble is, for the demographic Greene plays to, that comment, "You mean like Ilhan Omar or Kamala Harris?" would probably bring them to their feet cheering wildly. The same demographic which is okay with Greene posing with a rifle alongside images of AOC, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, but when Jimmy Kimmel joked, "Where's Will Smith when we need him?" that's a violent threat of the kind not to be tolerated.

Remember?
ETA: Matty boy didn't have a problem with the rifle ad, did he?

Pretty much what I had planned to retort with. Amazing that otherwise thinking individuals can delude themselves into believing that in the age of the nuclear missile a rabble of gun toters could do anything meaningful against a tyrannical government.

Actually, as events have shown, the bulk of the armed rabble are more likely to side with tyranny! Thus doubly putting the lie to the delusion.

The latter is a very important point.

Hans

I don't know whether to be scared or impressed by the trolls on the Right's inability to know and/or care how utterly stupid they look when they try to look "badass."

Privateering was a common practice, so private citizens owned their own warships which were the most potent weapon systems of the era.

There was nothing at the time preventing someone from owning a field cannon either. I imagine many didn't for the same reason people don't own tanks or jet aircraft today, it's expensive and wildly impractical.