12-27-2012, 09:21 AM
How Australia views the USA
12-27-2012, 10:28 AM
Eric,
It is an interesting debate and one that many Australia's are not aware enough to have. For too long Australian's have allowed their Government to "tell" them what to do. A classic example is the new laws that effectively remove the Magna Carta requirements for Government to prove a crime before siezing or confiscating property, etc. We have a socialist government in place. The true aim of a Government should be to reduce the liberty of its citizens as little as possible - but we now have Governments that try to tell their citizens what to do and believe that they know what is best for their citizens (without asking - or seeking a mandate).
The boom of social media and populist "petitions" only dumbs down the debate.
A Government that disarms its lawful citizens only seeks to remove any possibility of them rising against the Government.
As shocking as the events in America were, some of the questions being asked are being shouted down - why wasn't there better mental health care for the boy, why wasn't he cared for better, etc. THe guns were not the boy's, but his parents (from what little true information I have seen) that he only obtained after killing his father at home.
We allow thousands to die from alcohol and tobacco illnesses - but somehow become overwhelmed when one event happens. These are not as frequent as the media make out, but we want major structural and societial change based on singular events without debate. Just as there are many people who do not want guns, there are many more that actually do (in America - 2/3 of the eligible residents own guns).
How about the correct actions of the majority versus the minority. When I lived in the USA, in the first week of deer season in Penslyvania there was something like 10 fatalities - if you took this over the entire country - it is probably a much higher total - but still much lower than cars, alcohol and tobacco - let alone drugs.
Here in Australia - we have just banned tobacco advertising and today, there are groups calling for logo's and promotional "animals" to be removed from cereal boxes - we have gone nuts. We do not need this nanny state here - people need to be able to make their own choices and be accountable for them. If you want to eat crap and be obese - then that is your choice. This should not be some do-gooder community hysterical society trying to tell everyone what they should and should not do/eat/own/etc.
Sorry - you hit a raw nerve - Australia is not a paragon of democracy - far from it - we are almost a socialist / communist state that has far too much government interference.
I personally advocate one day per year where you can pay to hunt a politician. How much you pay determines how much of a head start they get. Perhaps then, they might listen to us and not simply screw us over.
Sorry I also forgot - look at suicide rates in Australia - more people die by their own hand here than on the roads - but what are we doing about it? How about a real debate where both sides get to be heard.
By the way - I personally do not own a gun, but have fired them and used them. A shotgun is great when there are snakes around (or should we let them kill us - like we allow Crocodiles and Sharks to do, because we are all now so tree huggy)?
It is an interesting debate and one that many Australia's are not aware enough to have. For too long Australian's have allowed their Government to "tell" them what to do. A classic example is the new laws that effectively remove the Magna Carta requirements for Government to prove a crime before siezing or confiscating property, etc. We have a socialist government in place. The true aim of a Government should be to reduce the liberty of its citizens as little as possible - but we now have Governments that try to tell their citizens what to do and believe that they know what is best for their citizens (without asking - or seeking a mandate).
The boom of social media and populist "petitions" only dumbs down the debate.
A Government that disarms its lawful citizens only seeks to remove any possibility of them rising against the Government.
As shocking as the events in America were, some of the questions being asked are being shouted down - why wasn't there better mental health care for the boy, why wasn't he cared for better, etc. THe guns were not the boy's, but his parents (from what little true information I have seen) that he only obtained after killing his father at home.
We allow thousands to die from alcohol and tobacco illnesses - but somehow become overwhelmed when one event happens. These are not as frequent as the media make out, but we want major structural and societial change based on singular events without debate. Just as there are many people who do not want guns, there are many more that actually do (in America - 2/3 of the eligible residents own guns).
How about the correct actions of the majority versus the minority. When I lived in the USA, in the first week of deer season in Penslyvania there was something like 10 fatalities - if you took this over the entire country - it is probably a much higher total - but still much lower than cars, alcohol and tobacco - let alone drugs.
Here in Australia - we have just banned tobacco advertising and today, there are groups calling for logo's and promotional "animals" to be removed from cereal boxes - we have gone nuts. We do not need this nanny state here - people need to be able to make their own choices and be accountable for them. If you want to eat crap and be obese - then that is your choice. This should not be some do-gooder community hysterical society trying to tell everyone what they should and should not do/eat/own/etc.
Sorry - you hit a raw nerve - Australia is not a paragon of democracy - far from it - we are almost a socialist / communist state that has far too much government interference.
I personally advocate one day per year where you can pay to hunt a politician. How much you pay determines how much of a head start they get. Perhaps then, they might listen to us and not simply screw us over.
Sorry I also forgot - look at suicide rates in Australia - more people die by their own hand here than on the roads - but what are we doing about it? How about a real debate where both sides get to be heard.
By the way - I personally do not own a gun, but have fired them and used them. A shotgun is great when there are snakes around (or should we let them kill us - like we allow Crocodiles and Sharks to do, because we are all now so tree huggy)?
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2012, 10:30 AM by craigawoodman.)
12-27-2012, 04:45 PM
12-27-2012, 04:56 PM
While I'm no fan of guns, and have never had any desire to own one, Craig, your description of the Australian government is sobering, and given that it come from first-hand experience, especially from someone of your intelligence, gives it a lot of credibility.
12-27-2012, 05:52 PM
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012...-tell-you/
I was kind of happy that no one started a gun discussion here after Newtown, my attention span is saturated...since it's here now, I suggest that everyone read this article from a self proclaimed leftist gun owner...it shines a very intelligent spotlight on the "assault weapon" issue.
Jay
I was kind of happy that no one started a gun discussion here after Newtown, my attention span is saturated...since it's here now, I suggest that everyone read this article from a self proclaimed leftist gun owner...it shines a very intelligent spotlight on the "assault weapon" issue.
Jay
12-27-2012, 07:32 PM
All I can say is let Obama and this administration try and take guns away from law abiding Americans. They will find the wrong end of a gun pointing back. More people are killed in America with a baseball bat. FBI Stats. The shooter in the Oregan mall shot himself after seeing a citizen with a CCW with his own gun pointed back at thim. Guns don't kill people any more than a fork makes you fat. People kill people and eat too much. The 2nd Amendment is paramount to the freedom of our country. Freedom from an overbearing government hell bent on taking our rights away bit by bit!!
12-27-2012, 08:49 PM
Thank you, Craig for your response to Eric. I for one could care less what Australia News has to report. They should look after their own Government on its take over of peoples rights.
Here we go again. Anytime a gun is used to murder someone or a group, The Newspaper people jump all over it like hungry wolves slathering at the mouth. On the TV there are two women that rake up all kinds of speculated garbage, try a person, convict and execute before the person has even had a fair trial. I thought the law was to presume a person was innocent until proven guilty. Have I missed a change in our laws? Our American Newspapers are losing money to TV and the INTERNET, so they have to sensationalize and blow everything way out of proportion. Yes, a terrible tragedy happened in Newtown by a mentally deficient person NOT the entire US of A. Our second amendment gave us the right to keep and bare arms. Some people really should not have any type of weapon. Our Government and State Governments have released crazed people back upon the streets because of a lack of funds (MONEY) to take proper care of them. Our jails and prisons have released convicted people back on normal citizens who do not break our laws. The States should enforce the laws already on the books, NOT keep adding more laws that will not be enforced, except on a whim from some power hungry policeman.
A case in point just happened a few days ago in Macon, GA,. An African American 49 yr old male was setting outside a Kroger store where he went to spend most of the day. He would greet people and helped take grocery bags out to cars if people needed help. He was not paid to do these things, he was just being kind. No one, not even the store, ever had any problems or complaints about him. A policeman said he was trying to serve a warrant on him when he acted up, or so the story goes. Who really is to know what went down. Anyway the unarmed man was shot 3 times and killed by the policeman. It is going to be really interesting on how things turn out. As usual the policeman has been put on leave pending the investigation results.
Yes, American has its share of internal problems. Our Politicians can not work together to stop our country from going down the tubes in a few days, so why should we think everyday people will do any better. I'll keep my guns thank you, just you try and take them away from me. I served over 20 years in the military and was trained how and when to use armed force and yes, sad to say, I have killed in self defense. I am not prowd of that and still have sleepless nights. I would have no qualms about putting down, in my eyes, a mad dog bent on hurting me or mine. Well, I have gone past my 2 cents.
How about a buck,
Larry
Here we go again. Anytime a gun is used to murder someone or a group, The Newspaper people jump all over it like hungry wolves slathering at the mouth. On the TV there are two women that rake up all kinds of speculated garbage, try a person, convict and execute before the person has even had a fair trial. I thought the law was to presume a person was innocent until proven guilty. Have I missed a change in our laws? Our American Newspapers are losing money to TV and the INTERNET, so they have to sensationalize and blow everything way out of proportion. Yes, a terrible tragedy happened in Newtown by a mentally deficient person NOT the entire US of A. Our second amendment gave us the right to keep and bare arms. Some people really should not have any type of weapon. Our Government and State Governments have released crazed people back upon the streets because of a lack of funds (MONEY) to take proper care of them. Our jails and prisons have released convicted people back on normal citizens who do not break our laws. The States should enforce the laws already on the books, NOT keep adding more laws that will not be enforced, except on a whim from some power hungry policeman.
A case in point just happened a few days ago in Macon, GA,. An African American 49 yr old male was setting outside a Kroger store where he went to spend most of the day. He would greet people and helped take grocery bags out to cars if people needed help. He was not paid to do these things, he was just being kind. No one, not even the store, ever had any problems or complaints about him. A policeman said he was trying to serve a warrant on him when he acted up, or so the story goes. Who really is to know what went down. Anyway the unarmed man was shot 3 times and killed by the policeman. It is going to be really interesting on how things turn out. As usual the policeman has been put on leave pending the investigation results.
Yes, American has its share of internal problems. Our Politicians can not work together to stop our country from going down the tubes in a few days, so why should we think everyday people will do any better. I'll keep my guns thank you, just you try and take them away from me. I served over 20 years in the military and was trained how and when to use armed force and yes, sad to say, I have killed in self defense. I am not prowd of that and still have sleepless nights. I would have no qualms about putting down, in my eyes, a mad dog bent on hurting me or mine. Well, I have gone past my 2 cents.
How about a buck,
Larry
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2012, 09:01 PM by Grandpa#3.)
12-27-2012, 09:30 PM
Just to be clear, my intention is not to make a point, take sides or get into a debate (as stated in my original post), merely to provide an Australian media perspective as a point of interest only. I am not saying that I agree with Australian Media's portrayal of the gun law situation, and yes, it is always somewhat sensationalist.
12-27-2012, 10:07 PM
Craigwoodman's views about the Australian political landscape would, I think, be regarded as of the extreme right by most Australians. Yes we are having too much of a dose of "Nanny" at the moment, but it nonsensical for anyone, even a West Australian, to suggest we live in an "almost Communist state. Democratic socialism??? Not really when we still have the ability to say what we want and go where we want to within reason. And Reasonableness is what any political debate has to be about in this fractured, multi cultural, pluralist world. If CW thinks we are subject to dictatorial powers what would he think if he was in Iran or North Korea! Or even one of the "new" democracies like Russia? And paying to hunt a Pollie??? Who's the nut-bag now.
Yes, I believe in an individuals' right to make decisions about how they behave and the corresponding responsibility to accept the consequences of those decisions, but that doesn't mean anybody should be able to drive 100 miles an hour through a shopping centre car park, or past a school at 3.30pm, or cut down a dozen one hundred year old trees on public land so they can see the ocean from their back porch.
That is what laws should be about; proscribing or limiting peoples' right to do what they want to on the basis of the risk to the safety of others or the amenity to the community as a whole. And to go back to CW's rant, that's what plain packaging laws for cigarettes are really about. It's not about the health benefits of stopping people smoking, it's about saving the government from the huge expense of treating smoking related illness. I personally don't agree with the laws because I think they are about gaining this government kudos from the health nazis and will have bugger all real effect.
And that's what most Australians don't understand about the gun debate in the USA. As most see it it's about proscribing the right of people to possess one particular type of weapon, assault rifles and high rate automatic guns, when there is no rational basis for them to own them. These firearms have the potential to wreak enormous damage and there is no necessity for them to be out there in the hands of the public. Yes, a rancher who has the need to try and control packs of wolves or wild dogs has a rational use for such a weapon, but why does anyone who lives in the city need one?
Tto suggest that this is an attempt to disarm the public in order to stifle democratic complaint, or to make it easier to impose a totalitarian regime in the US is delusional. Yes it infringes the first ammendment rights of those who wish to own such weapons, but the trade off is, or should be the public good in preventing (or at least reducing the likelihood) of another Newtown. I know I don't understand the visceral opposition of many in the US to this viewpoint, but the logic of the aim of reducing the risk from these weapons in the hands of unstable, mentally unwell, crazy, or just plain bad people seems to me to be unarguable.
The gun buy-back in Australia in the last years of last century removed these weapons from the hands of the public. There are still hundreds of thousands of firearms out in the community, both legally and illegally, but there has not been a mass shooting in Australia for more than a decade.
I agree with CW that much, much more funding and attention need to be paid to the resourcing of mental health services in the community at large. After all you could pay for scores of sessional mental health workers for the cost of keeping one nutcase in gaol for a year, and that's not factoring the police/legal costs of putting him/her there.
I'm not trying to offend and I apologise to those who are; but here in Australia this particular gun debate has been had, it's over, and the results speak for themselves
Yes, I believe in an individuals' right to make decisions about how they behave and the corresponding responsibility to accept the consequences of those decisions, but that doesn't mean anybody should be able to drive 100 miles an hour through a shopping centre car park, or past a school at 3.30pm, or cut down a dozen one hundred year old trees on public land so they can see the ocean from their back porch.
That is what laws should be about; proscribing or limiting peoples' right to do what they want to on the basis of the risk to the safety of others or the amenity to the community as a whole. And to go back to CW's rant, that's what plain packaging laws for cigarettes are really about. It's not about the health benefits of stopping people smoking, it's about saving the government from the huge expense of treating smoking related illness. I personally don't agree with the laws because I think they are about gaining this government kudos from the health nazis and will have bugger all real effect.
And that's what most Australians don't understand about the gun debate in the USA. As most see it it's about proscribing the right of people to possess one particular type of weapon, assault rifles and high rate automatic guns, when there is no rational basis for them to own them. These firearms have the potential to wreak enormous damage and there is no necessity for them to be out there in the hands of the public. Yes, a rancher who has the need to try and control packs of wolves or wild dogs has a rational use for such a weapon, but why does anyone who lives in the city need one?
Tto suggest that this is an attempt to disarm the public in order to stifle democratic complaint, or to make it easier to impose a totalitarian regime in the US is delusional. Yes it infringes the first ammendment rights of those who wish to own such weapons, but the trade off is, or should be the public good in preventing (or at least reducing the likelihood) of another Newtown. I know I don't understand the visceral opposition of many in the US to this viewpoint, but the logic of the aim of reducing the risk from these weapons in the hands of unstable, mentally unwell, crazy, or just plain bad people seems to me to be unarguable.
The gun buy-back in Australia in the last years of last century removed these weapons from the hands of the public. There are still hundreds of thousands of firearms out in the community, both legally and illegally, but there has not been a mass shooting in Australia for more than a decade.
I agree with CW that much, much more funding and attention need to be paid to the resourcing of mental health services in the community at large. After all you could pay for scores of sessional mental health workers for the cost of keeping one nutcase in gaol for a year, and that's not factoring the police/legal costs of putting him/her there.
I'm not trying to offend and I apologise to those who are; but here in Australia this particular gun debate has been had, it's over, and the results speak for themselves
12-27-2012, 10:13 PM
the reason we have the amendment is because the founding fathers saw the need to protect the security of a free state by deterring a tyrannical government. now more than ever i see this as wisdom, and if things don't change soon, we may see another revolution.
i'm all for personal choice, but if those personal choices result in me paying for it, then of course we should regulate those things. if somebody wants to smoke or eat like crap and get fat, fine, but it should result in their insurance rates reflecting the true cost, or flat out denial of coverage. it should not result in my insurance rates rising to pay for their bad choices. it has become far too easy for people to make bad choices, and lay the bill at somebody else's feet.
i'm all for personal choice, but if those personal choices result in me paying for it, then of course we should regulate those things. if somebody wants to smoke or eat like crap and get fat, fine, but it should result in their insurance rates reflecting the true cost, or flat out denial of coverage. it should not result in my insurance rates rising to pay for their bad choices. it has become far too easy for people to make bad choices, and lay the bill at somebody else's feet.
94 Midnight Metallic Blue Cab Porsche 968 w/deviating cashmere/black interior and WAY too many mods to list - thanks to eric for creating www.968forums.com
"It isn't nearly as expensive to do it right as it is to do it wrong."
12-27-2012, 10:20 PM
The gun situation in Australia has been discussed in a number of new articles and commentaries. If I understand a summary it would be that deaths/murders are much lower since gun restrictions were put in place, but other crimes are higher (assaults and property crimes). This seems like a good thing, since people survive.
In the US we have some 12,000 murders by gun a year, and some 35,000 automobile deaths (over half alcohol related). The consensus in the US seems to be that this is all acceptable and we should not bother striving to be a better country. The fact that is almost never publicised is that gun shot wounds are way up every year -- the reason the death rate isn't higher is simply because of improved first responder activity and improved surgical techniques.
I have still never heard a sound argument about the 2nd Amendment -- tell me exactly why we still need this constitutional "right". The reasons I've heard:
1. So the public can fight back against a totalitarian government? Sure that was fine 1791 when the government's army was the people and the government/army had no better weapons than the people. Obviously the public (individuals) should now be able to own nuclear subs, stealth aircraft, and armed drones.
2. For protection? That made sense in 1791 since there was no police, no marshalls, no national guard, no sheriffs, etc. Society matured and created policing organizations so individuals don't have to focus so much on self protection. Are there any people in the US still on the frontier fighting Indians?
3. To hunt and catch food: Yeah, sure.
4. For sport? The statistic I've never seen is how many hunting licenses are issued each year in the US. We have 300 million guns -- how many hunting licenses?
I have a gut feel. It seems like with fewer guns there will be fewer deaths. All the other issues and debates are just fluff.
Roland
In the US we have some 12,000 murders by gun a year, and some 35,000 automobile deaths (over half alcohol related). The consensus in the US seems to be that this is all acceptable and we should not bother striving to be a better country. The fact that is almost never publicised is that gun shot wounds are way up every year -- the reason the death rate isn't higher is simply because of improved first responder activity and improved surgical techniques.
I have still never heard a sound argument about the 2nd Amendment -- tell me exactly why we still need this constitutional "right". The reasons I've heard:
1. So the public can fight back against a totalitarian government? Sure that was fine 1791 when the government's army was the people and the government/army had no better weapons than the people. Obviously the public (individuals) should now be able to own nuclear subs, stealth aircraft, and armed drones.
2. For protection? That made sense in 1791 since there was no police, no marshalls, no national guard, no sheriffs, etc. Society matured and created policing organizations so individuals don't have to focus so much on self protection. Are there any people in the US still on the frontier fighting Indians?
3. To hunt and catch food: Yeah, sure.
4. For sport? The statistic I've never seen is how many hunting licenses are issued each year in the US. We have 300 million guns -- how many hunting licenses?
I have a gut feel. It seems like with fewer guns there will be fewer deaths. All the other issues and debates are just fluff.
Roland
12-27-2012, 10:21 PM
Point well taken, Eric, and nothing personal. I kind of get my hackles up when ANY newspaper tries to sensationalize and criticize when they have their own problems on home ground. Too many of our men and women have lost their lives helping everyone out, not to mention what it has done to those coming home. War is hell on everyone on both sides. The suffering seems to never end. These last few nut cases went out killing without rhyme or reason, just to kill. Makes anyone sick to their stomach.
Cheers,
Larry
Cheers,
Larry
12-27-2012, 11:20 PM
Thank you Roland, Point by Point:
I have still never heard a sound argument about the 2nd Amendment -- tell me exactly why we still need this constitutional "right". The reasons I've heard:
1. So the public can fight back against a totalitarian government? Sure that was fine 1791 when the government's army was the people and the government/army had no better weapons than the people. Obviously the public (individuals) should now be able to own nuclear subs, stealth aircraft, and armed drones. This is the exact reason that the 2nd amendment was created, to take down our own tyrannical government...when the time comes it is going to be one mother of a war since the government has been preparing against this for generations.
2. For protection? That made sense in 1791 since there was no police, no marshalls, no national guard, no sheriffs, etc. Society matured and created policing organizations so individuals don't have to focus so much on self protection. Are there any people in the US still on the frontier fighting Indians? When seconds count, police are minutes away.
3. To hunt and catch food: Yeah, sure. Maybe in the People's Republic of California there are no people who hunt for meat, I assure you that there are people in Pennsylvania who feed their families on what they hunt and gather.
4. For sport? The statistic I've never seen is how many hunting licenses are issued each year in the US. We have 300 million guns -- how many hunting licenses? I have never killed an animal for food myself, but I have participated in IPSC target competitions and yes, there are those of us who shoot a variety of weapons purely for sport. The only "animal" I would willingly kill is one who enters my home or threatens to hurt me or my family.
I have still never heard a sound argument about the 2nd Amendment -- tell me exactly why we still need this constitutional "right". The reasons I've heard:
1. So the public can fight back against a totalitarian government? Sure that was fine 1791 when the government's army was the people and the government/army had no better weapons than the people. Obviously the public (individuals) should now be able to own nuclear subs, stealth aircraft, and armed drones. This is the exact reason that the 2nd amendment was created, to take down our own tyrannical government...when the time comes it is going to be one mother of a war since the government has been preparing against this for generations.
2. For protection? That made sense in 1791 since there was no police, no marshalls, no national guard, no sheriffs, etc. Society matured and created policing organizations so individuals don't have to focus so much on self protection. Are there any people in the US still on the frontier fighting Indians? When seconds count, police are minutes away.
3. To hunt and catch food: Yeah, sure. Maybe in the People's Republic of California there are no people who hunt for meat, I assure you that there are people in Pennsylvania who feed their families on what they hunt and gather.
4. For sport? The statistic I've never seen is how many hunting licenses are issued each year in the US. We have 300 million guns -- how many hunting licenses? I have never killed an animal for food myself, but I have participated in IPSC target competitions and yes, there are those of us who shoot a variety of weapons purely for sport. The only "animal" I would willingly kill is one who enters my home or threatens to hurt me or my family.
12-27-2012, 11:51 PM
yeah - what he said - lol
there is a really good argument good that we should all carry guns. sure, there would be quite a few drunken gunfights, but we sure wouldn't have the rest of the mess if everybody carried a gun. crooks would be too scared of getting shot. i think people in general would behave a whole lot better. lol - i know i would have thought twice before doing some of the stupid crap i pulled when i was young and hot-headed, if i thought somebody had a gun. i'm not sure it's the best way, but it's a good argument.
why should the only deterrent against unwanted aggression be a nuclear one?
or
if it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for me
roflmao - and i'm a tree-hugging resident of the republic of california - how's that for contradiction?
there is a really good argument good that we should all carry guns. sure, there would be quite a few drunken gunfights, but we sure wouldn't have the rest of the mess if everybody carried a gun. crooks would be too scared of getting shot. i think people in general would behave a whole lot better. lol - i know i would have thought twice before doing some of the stupid crap i pulled when i was young and hot-headed, if i thought somebody had a gun. i'm not sure it's the best way, but it's a good argument.
why should the only deterrent against unwanted aggression be a nuclear one?
or
if it's good enough for the government, it's good enough for me
roflmao - and i'm a tree-hugging resident of the republic of california - how's that for contradiction?
94 Midnight Metallic Blue Cab Porsche 968 w/deviating cashmere/black interior and WAY too many mods to list - thanks to eric for creating www.968forums.com
"It isn't nearly as expensive to do it right as it is to do it wrong."
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2012, 11:52 PM by flash.)
12-28-2012, 12:14 AM
I'm with Jay. History has shown that the road to a government taking away your freedom starts with a government that takes away the law abiding citizens guns. If you try and take the guns you will start a revolution/civil war in this country. I agree with Flash completely on the health care issue. Why should my rates, as someone who takes care of himself, be the same as someone who smokes, is overweight, etc. If you don't take care of yourself, you should pay higher rates. Just like car insurance. You have more tix and wrecks, you pay a higher rate. Your fee should coincide with your chosen way of life. I would like to see limits on the food stamp program. If you are on food stamps, you should not be able to buy premade food at restuarants and crappy food at the store. Your choices should be limited. If you are on medicaid I believe there should be BMI tests so that you if you don't take care of yourself, you dont get free health care. If you smoke you don't get free health care. Why do I, as a responsible taxpayer, have to pay for irresponsible people to get free food and health care when they don't take responsibility for themselves. I honestly can't figure out how this country got so far down the nanny state road that it pays so well to not work or take care of ones self. This country has been it cool to be on government programs. They programs should encourage people to get off them, not encourage people to get on them. Heck, this administration is advertising our social programs in Mexico!!!!!
12-28-2012, 01:13 AM
Ok, let's try this. Who carries a gun in their 968 to fight against the government, for protection, or just shoot a coon and pick off some meat, or just shoot out the window for sport? At times I keep a tire iron or equivalent within reach of the driver's seat. But then I grew up as a teen hanging around (at times) various parts of downtown Newark or other northern NJ challenging places, and "socialized" in places in NYC you guys can't even imagine. And I still favor fewer guns.
I am certainly 100% in favor of individual freedom. Problem is that people in the US can't handle the responsibility of individual freedom let alone gun ownership -- we are becoming really stupid and too extreme, people assume they must associate with one extreme or the other, either democrat or republican, either conservative or liberal, either black or white, one religion or the other, pro gun or anti-gun, pro-life or pro-choice. We have lost our ability to understand new views, or conflicting views, or negotiating or finding middle ground (witness our national leaders!). We are so high on ourselves we can't even examine and adopt the ways of other countries (how horrific!). I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal -- oooo that is so bad, I don't fit.
People are so comfortable in positions that are --- comfortable -- and so afraid of change; as a result we don't advance or change and simply make a choice to just let things go bad -- like the economy, or murder rates. We cling to the past -- or guns -- or religion (quote from the president!). The constitution is completely flexible, there is no such thing as a guaranteed 2nd amendment right, we can change it at any time we want; that is by design by the founders of the US. If we support the constitution, then we support the fact that the 2nd amendment can be repealed. This country has lost its ability to think. We cannot handle all of the technology and changes and advanced weaponry we have created. Actually guns aren't the problem -- "uneducated people" is the problem, and education, not more guns, is the unacknowledged solution to the majority of our problems.
Roland
I am certainly 100% in favor of individual freedom. Problem is that people in the US can't handle the responsibility of individual freedom let alone gun ownership -- we are becoming really stupid and too extreme, people assume they must associate with one extreme or the other, either democrat or republican, either conservative or liberal, either black or white, one religion or the other, pro gun or anti-gun, pro-life or pro-choice. We have lost our ability to understand new views, or conflicting views, or negotiating or finding middle ground (witness our national leaders!). We are so high on ourselves we can't even examine and adopt the ways of other countries (how horrific!). I am a fiscal conservative and social liberal -- oooo that is so bad, I don't fit.
People are so comfortable in positions that are --- comfortable -- and so afraid of change; as a result we don't advance or change and simply make a choice to just let things go bad -- like the economy, or murder rates. We cling to the past -- or guns -- or religion (quote from the president!). The constitution is completely flexible, there is no such thing as a guaranteed 2nd amendment right, we can change it at any time we want; that is by design by the founders of the US. If we support the constitution, then we support the fact that the 2nd amendment can be repealed. This country has lost its ability to think. We cannot handle all of the technology and changes and advanced weaponry we have created. Actually guns aren't the problem -- "uneducated people" is the problem, and education, not more guns, is the unacknowledged solution to the majority of our problems.
Roland
12-28-2012, 01:17 AM
Flash and kzem, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT YOU DON'T GET IT. The government [communists, socialists, greenfreaks, whatever] are NOT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!!!
All they are trying to do is limit the damage you can do to yourselves and your fellow man by taking away your AK47's Uzis, and other automatic military grade weapons of mass stupidity.
You can all still carry 1911's or Berettas or .357 magnums in your back pockets, or keep a bunch of 12 gauge and bolt action elephant guns just inside the front door in case someone from the tax office knocks.
WHY DOES NOT OWNING A 35 ROUNDS PER MINUTE, 150 ROUND MAGAZINE, CENTRE- FIRE WEAPON MAKE YOU LESS SAFE, LESS FREE OR LESS AMERICAN????
All they are trying to do is limit the damage you can do to yourselves and your fellow man by taking away your AK47's Uzis, and other automatic military grade weapons of mass stupidity.
You can all still carry 1911's or Berettas or .357 magnums in your back pockets, or keep a bunch of 12 gauge and bolt action elephant guns just inside the front door in case someone from the tax office knocks.
WHY DOES NOT OWNING A 35 ROUNDS PER MINUTE, 150 ROUND MAGAZINE, CENTRE- FIRE WEAPON MAKE YOU LESS SAFE, LESS FREE OR LESS AMERICAN????
12-28-2012, 02:39 AM
Judge - if you have not lived in America or in South Africa and know how little life is valued and the need to protect yourself and those you love from indiscriminate crime - then please do not preach to those that do. Australia is a very different country to the USA and South Africa, same as Canada is very different to the USA. If you live in a country where criminals are usually armed - wouldn't you also want to be armed to off-set the balance - or should law abiding citizens simply be targets (well we are anyway by our Governments). Australia never had a large gun owning urbanised society - so there was a smaller demographic who were impacted (remember - Australia has one of, if not the highest rate of urbanisation of major countries) - so the rural voice is much smaller.
How about banning live Cattle exports. Animal rights groups want to impose First World animal practices upon Third or Developing World countries - so we remove a source of food from them and impact farmers and send many broke to appease some people in the city. Please. Why don't these people put their money where their mouth is and fund and operate at a loss, animal processing facilities to First World standards rather than getting the Government to ban animal exports. Why should our Government do something about animals exported to other Countries - it is not an area where we can make laws. It is OK for the Federal Government to tip off foreign Police about drug trafficers who now face the death penalty (which is against our Laws) - but an animal is a different thing. Please - hypocritical - you bet.
As for Australian Governments - they have far too much power. THere is no Conntitutional Bill of Rights for Australia - we are no longer convicts that are in the control of the State - we are supposedly Free People. Our rules and pandering to "special interest" groups is stupid in the extreme. As per most countries - we think the appearance of progress is a substitute for actual improvement. Our Politicians make more and more laws because they are not silling to enforce the current laws. So, you cannot now technically smoke in your own car with a child inside it (I do not smoke - but where does our Government get off telling us how to live our lives). Tobacco is a legal drug/substance and is in fact a Government subsidised crop in Victoria. THe Government has applied massive "Sin" taxes to tobacco to offset the costs of health care, so where is the problem - you want to smoke - you pay over $25 per packet for cigarettes - because they are bad for you - you pay more taxes. Same for Alcohol.
We now have Laws where the onus of proof is not on the Government - it is on the Individual (ever had to fight the Tax department?). This goes against the very basis of our rule of law - the Magna Carta written in the 13th Century - where the writers could see the potential abuses of the State.
We have lost individual accountability and now think that the Government will protect us from all evils/ills - if not, we will sue. This is absolute crap.
So, now we have a Carbon Tax that no-one voted for and are the only country to have (which also obligates us to pay up to $3Billion per year to developing countries), a Mining Tax (remember the Super Profits tax), etc. Governments steal from the people - same as a Mafia person holding a gun to your head. Our Treasurer was quoted last week when they announced that they will not have a surplus - "it is not that we are spending too much, we are simply not collecting (stealing) enough tax". Governments do not create anything - read Economics in One Lesson - it is a easy to understand book. Only Private Industry creates real wealth.
You cannot create wealth by taking it from someone else.
So - Gun Laws - I respect Americans and South Africans for having laws that suit their needs and society. Do we need them here - no, but would I want them if I lived there - you bet.
Lets stop thinking we are better than others, or that solutions that work here will work everywhere. We still have gun deaths, Bikies still have illegal weapons, you can still buy if you want illegal weapons - it does not stop them , it only makes them harder to get and more expensive.
I have seen first hand the proliferation of feral animals in the bush, because it is now too hard to go shooting. Farmers actually asking/paying people to come and hunt to reduce problems on their land. We now have the Government using our money to carry out mass culling of feral animals (pigs, goats, Deer, Horses, etc). Newton's second law of physics applies - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. You change one variable and the whole eco-system moves to a new dynamic equilibrium. We talk up the benefits, but do not discuss the negatives (once again - clearly explained in Economics in One Lesson). Lets look at all of the impacts and have a rational debate - this is not good versus evil, this is a problem that needs rational debate - not a Spanish Inquisition and fanaticism - look at all sides of the equation.
A lot of the issues - like Port Arthur - stem from inadequate Mental Health support and a philosophy of not institutionalising people, when in fact, this would be the best solution in some cases. Not banning guns, or smoking, or taxing fast foods, or banning images on cereal boxes, or higher taxes on alcohol, etc, etc.
Prohibition never works. Just look at the "War on Drugs" how successful has that been at removing the ease of availability of drugs. Stupid politicians guided only be opinion polls - not what is difficult but right. If government was a business - it would have gone broke long ago. Australia - $260 Billion in debt, USA $Tillions in debt - now how is that going to be paid for again?
How about banning live Cattle exports. Animal rights groups want to impose First World animal practices upon Third or Developing World countries - so we remove a source of food from them and impact farmers and send many broke to appease some people in the city. Please. Why don't these people put their money where their mouth is and fund and operate at a loss, animal processing facilities to First World standards rather than getting the Government to ban animal exports. Why should our Government do something about animals exported to other Countries - it is not an area where we can make laws. It is OK for the Federal Government to tip off foreign Police about drug trafficers who now face the death penalty (which is against our Laws) - but an animal is a different thing. Please - hypocritical - you bet.
As for Australian Governments - they have far too much power. THere is no Conntitutional Bill of Rights for Australia - we are no longer convicts that are in the control of the State - we are supposedly Free People. Our rules and pandering to "special interest" groups is stupid in the extreme. As per most countries - we think the appearance of progress is a substitute for actual improvement. Our Politicians make more and more laws because they are not silling to enforce the current laws. So, you cannot now technically smoke in your own car with a child inside it (I do not smoke - but where does our Government get off telling us how to live our lives). Tobacco is a legal drug/substance and is in fact a Government subsidised crop in Victoria. THe Government has applied massive "Sin" taxes to tobacco to offset the costs of health care, so where is the problem - you want to smoke - you pay over $25 per packet for cigarettes - because they are bad for you - you pay more taxes. Same for Alcohol.
We now have Laws where the onus of proof is not on the Government - it is on the Individual (ever had to fight the Tax department?). This goes against the very basis of our rule of law - the Magna Carta written in the 13th Century - where the writers could see the potential abuses of the State.
We have lost individual accountability and now think that the Government will protect us from all evils/ills - if not, we will sue. This is absolute crap.
So, now we have a Carbon Tax that no-one voted for and are the only country to have (which also obligates us to pay up to $3Billion per year to developing countries), a Mining Tax (remember the Super Profits tax), etc. Governments steal from the people - same as a Mafia person holding a gun to your head. Our Treasurer was quoted last week when they announced that they will not have a surplus - "it is not that we are spending too much, we are simply not collecting (stealing) enough tax". Governments do not create anything - read Economics in One Lesson - it is a easy to understand book. Only Private Industry creates real wealth.
You cannot create wealth by taking it from someone else.
So - Gun Laws - I respect Americans and South Africans for having laws that suit their needs and society. Do we need them here - no, but would I want them if I lived there - you bet.
Lets stop thinking we are better than others, or that solutions that work here will work everywhere. We still have gun deaths, Bikies still have illegal weapons, you can still buy if you want illegal weapons - it does not stop them , it only makes them harder to get and more expensive.
I have seen first hand the proliferation of feral animals in the bush, because it is now too hard to go shooting. Farmers actually asking/paying people to come and hunt to reduce problems on their land. We now have the Government using our money to carry out mass culling of feral animals (pigs, goats, Deer, Horses, etc). Newton's second law of physics applies - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. You change one variable and the whole eco-system moves to a new dynamic equilibrium. We talk up the benefits, but do not discuss the negatives (once again - clearly explained in Economics in One Lesson). Lets look at all of the impacts and have a rational debate - this is not good versus evil, this is a problem that needs rational debate - not a Spanish Inquisition and fanaticism - look at all sides of the equation.
A lot of the issues - like Port Arthur - stem from inadequate Mental Health support and a philosophy of not institutionalising people, when in fact, this would be the best solution in some cases. Not banning guns, or smoking, or taxing fast foods, or banning images on cereal boxes, or higher taxes on alcohol, etc, etc.
Prohibition never works. Just look at the "War on Drugs" how successful has that been at removing the ease of availability of drugs. Stupid politicians guided only be opinion polls - not what is difficult but right. If government was a business - it would have gone broke long ago. Australia - $260 Billion in debt, USA $Tillions in debt - now how is that going to be paid for again?
12-28-2012, 02:49 AM
Judge. You have clearly not taken a look at Senator Feinsteins bill. She is trying to ban just about everything. Not just assault weapons and large magazines.
12-28-2012, 07:54 AM
Certainly is nice to listen to well reasoned and Respectful opinions. I lived in DC for a time and they had some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. The only people allowed to have guns were the police and criminals. At that time DC was known as the murder capital of the world. Although not a criminal, my house had guns all over for self defense. I actually lived in a neighborhood were that was a reality. We live in a society that glorifies violence and has taken God out of schools and much of our lives. Stringent laws won't stop someone from getting a gun or using it. Knee jerk reactions are rarely successful. If our politicians want to vote new laws in then this is our consequence for voting these people into office. Much like obamacare which is showing its previously unknown peculiarities, any law that is voted in will end up failing to accomplish its goal of preventing violence and unnecessary death.
We have 130 patients and the question has been asked of us, what happens to our patients if a gunman decides to enter one of our properties? Do we have a liability for not providing protection to our patients? Should we be armed? Should we have security? Should I carry a gun to work? Interesting and difficult questions. Gun control laws rarely advance their agenda. I don't profess to have an answer but I know I'm tired of the media and their obsession to not only carry a story but to advance their own line which only polarizes the story
We have 130 patients and the question has been asked of us, what happens to our patients if a gunman decides to enter one of our properties? Do we have a liability for not providing protection to our patients? Should we be armed? Should we have security? Should I carry a gun to work? Interesting and difficult questions. Gun control laws rarely advance their agenda. I don't profess to have an answer but I know I'm tired of the media and their obsession to not only carry a story but to advance their own line which only polarizes the story
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)