Posted in

Interesting Take on Gun Laws – No More Than Three?

by Zero Ponsdorf••22

Don’t Panic YET! The story is from Australia.

Three guns and no more, say Greens

THE NSW Greens hope to reduce gun numbers in the state with new legislation it is putting before parliament.

“It is simply wrong that individuals can accumulate an unlimited number of deadly weapons with next to no scrutiny,” says Greens MP and firearms spokesman David Shoebridge.

Under the legislation, registered holders would be limited to a maximum of three guns.

It follows a spike in gun theft, gun ownership and gun crime in NSW.

“Less guns in society mean less opportunities for gun crime,” Dr Shoebridge said in a statement.

Just the usual drivel on the surface, it seems, but I’m trying to grasp the rationale here?

I don’t live in New South Wales. And I haven’t explored the background of the story either, I’m simply puzzled by the concept.

Is it “the toe in the door” for further gun control? If they are successful down under could we see something similar here? Our Second Amendment only guarantees the Right to keep and bear arms. No mention of a number.

Not really on topic, but the notion does raise an Exit question: If you could only have three, what would they be?

You might also like

Warrantless, unannounced searches on UK gun owners

Dumbest, most pointless crap ever

Pat Boone Ain’t No Chuck Norris, But…

22 thoughts on “Interesting Take on Gun Laws – No More Than Three?”

  1. “If you could only have three, what would they be?”

    Easy, the two I have and the one I want: Springfield XD, .40 subcompact; Mossberg 500…and a Kimber 1911.

  2. I think Aussie gun laws are already almost as Draconian as British ones, with ridiculous storage requirements and limits on the amount of ammo you can possess. If memory serves, they’ve also got some areas with knife bans using the same contorted logic used against EBR’s; if they look scary enough, they’re banned.

    And I’d have to stay with what I have: my Rock River AR, Mossy 500, and G23.

  5. Hmmmm…Three? Per household or person?

    Sounds like per person. That would allow me… 12 weapons in my household. I think that’s a good start.

    Plus training ammo amounts, and a ‘combat load’ (ok, sh!t load) of regular ammo.

  8. ““Less guns in society mean less opportunities for gun crime,” Dr Shoebridge said in a statement.” Its the exact opposite numbnuts.

    From above”Is it “the toe in the door” for further gun control? If they are successful down under could we see something similar here? Our Second Amendment only guarantees the Right to keep and bear arms. No mention of a number” Jonn, I could have sworn that in Australia, personal firearms ownership was practically outlawed. The NRA was using Australia and the UK as examples for what could possibly happen here, a few years ago. In fact I remember it was the Conservative PM Howard, who pushed the legislation ironically.

  10. If I could only have three, I’d keep the following (two of which I currently have and are named):
    Kimber Ultra TLE-II (The Precious)
    Ithica model 37 (Baby)
    and since I imagine private ownership of a .50BMG would be outlawed under the 3 gun limit, I’ll take a Remington 700 XCR in .308

  11. Way to go Greens. We finally have someone talking about some serious responsible behavior collectively speaking.
    To be clear it should be one gun per adult (over 18) in the household. Each gun should be kept in a locked safe with a trigger lcok on it in addition. Ammoo of course in a seperate locked safe. As a clarification people should be allowed to own more guns but they that is only OK as long as the extra guns are stored at a shooting range. Another reasonable percaution is that anyone who has the keys to a collective gun storage facility must be licenced by the government.
    That of course means that somewhat reasonable like me would be deciding who does and who does not get a licence.
    Give me a L!
    Give me an I!
    Give me a B!
    Give me an E!
    Give me a R!
    Give me an A!
    Give me a L!
    Now what does that spell!!?
    I will be the one to tell!!
    BRILLIANT!!!!

  12. Well, as a few of you around here know from witnessing such things (Lilyea, Mr. Wolf, TSO), it would be traumatic in the first order if the HHC had to limit ourselves to 3 each and in fact, the stash has grown by 2 since August.

  13. Heck, I’m already at my limit, and planning on exceeding it.
    Mossberg 590A1 “Ol Painless”
    Beretta model 96 “Baby”
    2 Glock 19s “Mine and Household Six’s”
    Bersa 380 “Ankle Bitter”
    Marlin 22 “Varmint”

  16. What happened to the “Infringement” part of the 2nd amendment?

    But if I could only have 3,
    1911
    Remington 870
    Ruger Scout

  18. Remington 870 Express Magnum
    Saadi Arms AKMS
    Kimber 1911 Warrior

    Luckily the country hasn’t turned into berzerko land just yet so I can keep my Sig 229 and Savage model 10 FP. #11: Troll much?

  19. I just picked up a new Ruger 10/22 for training some folks, and added a nice 4x scope. I’ll remove it to train them with iron sights first, then re-add the scope. After that, then move to the Colt AR-15/M4 variant I have built out with some custom touches- EOTECH holo-sights (as well as Magpul iron)and Magpul grips. Its a sick setup…

  20. No actually I perfer trout lines. Perhaps they are called something else where you live. In any case they are much more energy efficent.
    Now such fishing methods are truely illegal unless you are recongnized as a Native American but when you own a nice stretch of riverbank who is going to know?
    Short of that I perfer just casting from shore or a boat.
    There are many ways to do it and trolling is fine as long as someone else has to steer.
    Sneer if you want but I will take a Mepps over a Mossberg 24-7.

  21. Was only able to troll when I was on ship in 2006. The lines were makeshift, didn’t catch much. I’d like to try the TNT method. Aside from that I prefer the ugly stick and a decent 5lb test.

Comments are closed.