America is a great example of WHAT NOT TO BE. The reputation grows daily. We are exceptional aren't we?

Sad but true Rosie, very sad and only too true.

So you've decided that Australia is your destination when you pack up and leave for good, right?  What's the time-line on that, please?
- 

Stay tuned? Are you planning something? Do we need to inform the FBI?

You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of fancy words can change this. Again, one doesn't bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.

  When gun control advocates say they want Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States. Which would be a direct violation of the Constitution. A federal law for confiscation, therefore, would require sweeping, national police action involving thousands of lawmen and affecting tens of millions of people. If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to "take" those guns out of Americans’ hands. I don't see that happening any time soon. Australia instituted a "buy back" program. What they don't tell you is that this buy back was mandatory.

  Let there be no doubt. Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that those who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naive that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.” As though somehow those who daily espouse their belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they are so naive.

  Many on the Left—and for this they are to be commended—have voiced their opposition to the increasing militarization of America’s police. Yet only a militarized police could enforce an Australian gun-control scheme in the United States. To take arms from men requires men with arms. There’s no other way to do it. When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws as its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence. Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.

  Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the first.