Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This is why Gun Control is Contentious

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
    Sure I can.

    I like owning firearms.

    I like my neighbors owning firearms.

    I believe owning firearms to protect yourself, put food on the table, and preventing sitting governments from violating the Constitution and Bill of Rights, is a Right.

    That is a Right your government has taken away from you.

    Mine hasn’t.

    Therefore, for me, and the freedoms I value, I find the United States a much more freedoms friendly country than yours.

    You of course, may have your own preferences about your country.

    But I don’t want to live there because your country has restricted and does not value that particular freedom.
    Oh so when you say freedom we are talking more about your feelings than any sort of quantifiable freedom.

    Of which we basically kick you out of the park in any measurement I have ever been able to find.

    And so by freedom does that mean we are really discussing privilege?

    Because it is hinged on your ability to exert your will on society for your own personal gain.

    Interestingly I would normally believe privilege is a load of shit.
    Whitsunday Martial Arts Airlie Beach North Queensland.
    http://www.facebook.com/#!/WhitsundayMartialArts

    Comment


      Originally posted by BKR View Post
      Apparently the answer is no.

      https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-w...australian-law

      Unlike most similar liberal democracies, Australia does not have a Bill of Rights. Instead, protections for human rights may be found in the Constitution and in legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament or State or Territory Parliaments.

      There are five explicit individual rights in the Constitution. These are the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117).

      The High Court has found that additional rights for individuals may be necessarily implied by the language and structure of the Constitution. In 1992 the Court decided that Australia's form of parliamentary democracy (dictated by the Constitution) necessarily requires a degree of freedom for individuals to discuss and debate political issues.

      Australia's common law was inherited from the United Kingdom. Common law is often called 'judge-made' law. This distinguishes it from laws made in Parliament. As well as common law, United Kingdom law includes the Magna Carta of 1215 which was probably the first human rights treaty. Student and teacher resources about the Magna Carta are available here: Magna Carta - the story of our freedom. 800th Anniversary (2015).
      People in Commonwealth countries are more subjects than citizens. As serfs of the crown they have few if any rights that the government cannot take away, and government infringement on what rights they have is barely checked at best because there are limited consequences for the government when they do so.

      Comment


        Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
        Oh so when you say freedom we are talking more about your feelings than any sort of quantifiable freedom.

        Of which we basically kick you out of the park in any measurement I have ever been able to find.

        And so by freedom does that mean we are really discussing privilege?

        Because it is hinged on your ability to exert your will on society for your own personal gain.

        Interestingly I would normally believe privilege is a load of shit.

        Comment


          The classic difference between subjects and citizens.

          Comment


            Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
            The classic difference between subjects and citizens.
            I would add that Gregaquaman is likely a product of the negative reinforcement training he has been exposed to for long periods.

            A dog that is scolded everytime it attempts to sit on the couch will regard sitting on the couch as not a right, not a freedom, and may even begin to associate the couch as an evil thing.

            Similarly, those brain washed via constant negative reinforcement that "guns are bad", "guns are evil", "no one needs a gun" will likely regard firearm ownership as a dog raised on scolding about a couch regards that couch.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
              I would add that Gregaquaman is likely a product of the negative reinforcement training he has been exposed to for long periods.

              A dog that is scolded everytime it attempts to sit on the couch will regard sitting on the couch as not a right, not a freedom, and may even begin to associate the couch as an evil thing.

              Similarly, those brain washed via constant negative reinforcement that "guns are bad", "guns are evil", "no one needs a gun" will likely regard firearm ownership as a dog raised on scolding about a couch regards that couch.
              I'm a product of constant negative reinforcement as well. I just responded by saying authority rather than drinking the Kool-Aid.

              Comment


                Interesting.

                Gun ownership is a right.
                Driving is a privilege.

                It isn’t about feelings at all or one person exerting their will on society. Don’t look at your countries studies, look at American research. Yes, it exists. How do you think all the good and bad information exists? Magic fucking powers?

                It isn’t anyone in this thread's fault that media has sold you a lie.
                Reputable research exists concerning gun data. Yes, it is just as polarizing as any data on a divisive subject.
                What has been blocked is funding for the CDC and other federal org’s gun research.

                So, this perpetual LIE of zero gun research because it is blocked is ignorant.

                After what happened concerning people like me and violence stats, I am glad it was blocked. I don’t trust the government to handle it properly.
                Last edited by It is Fake; 1/05/2020 12:37pm, .

                Comment


                  Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
                  I'm a product of constant negative reinforcement as well. I just responded by saying authority rather than drinking the Kool-Aid.
                  In America, you have more access to counter arguments than many other countries. My sister has lived in three different countries. The media blasting of gun culture in America is ridiculously one sided.

                  Comment


                    Another mass killing with a vehicle, this time in Italy.

                    6 tourists were mowed down by a vehicle, and 11 more tourists were injured.

                    Terrorism is not a suspected motive at this time.

                    The driver was allegedly intoxicated.

                    I know several of you may be tempted to say that common sense driving or drunk driving laws would have prevented this mass killing by vehicle.

                    But, somewhat ironically, there were already laws in place in that domicile making driving while intoxicated illegal.

                    The driver chose to disobey the law, and the law was ineffective at preventing this latest mass killing by vehicle.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
                      People in Commonwealth countries are more subjects than citizens. As serfs of the crown they have few if any rights that the government cannot take away, and government infringement on what rights they have is barely checked at best because there are limited consequences for the government when they do so.
                      Checks and balances seem somewhat limited.

                      The US is unique, AFAIK.
                      Falling for Judo since 1980

                      "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

                      "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

                      "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

                      Comment


                        I've spent a good amount of time in various parts of Australia. Haven't made it to Melbourne yet, sadly. Australia and Australians are awesome, generally speaking. It is actually the first country I've visited that I've thought "I could totally live here for a few years."

                        That said, there are only about 25 million Aussies spread out on a continent. Laws are pretty strict, to the point that it is illegal not to vote. Personality-wise, Aussies seem to have more in common with Americans than most other commonwealth countries, but culturally we are pretty different. At any rate you guys are seeing the typical prevailing view of guns that Aussies subscribe to, and their media/govt/culture strongly reinforces it. Similar to Europe in that regard. Trying to apply approaches that might work for a socioeconomically homogeneous continent/island of 25 million to a country edging up on 350 million heterogeneous residents is kind of silly, and I laugh when American politicians bring it up. Well except for the thing where they REALLY don't like China. We need more of that here.
                        "No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
                          I know several of you may be tempted to say that common sense driving or drunk driving laws would have prevented this mass killing by vehicle.

                          But, somewhat ironically, there were already laws in place in that domicile making driving while intoxicated illegal.

                          The driver chose to disobey the law, and the law was ineffective at preventing this latest mass killing by vehicle.
                          Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
                          I can understand why you would be confused.

                          In the US we have Freedom of Speech,
                          the Right to Bear Arms,
                          Etc.

                          These are Freedoms you are not guaranteed in Australia.

                          So, you can no more understand them as Freedoms than the residents of Plato’s cave can interpret reality from the shadows.
                          So, on the one hand you are arguing that a piece of legal paper is inneffectual in making real world change.

                          Then you argue that there exists no real world freedoms due to a lack of a legal piece of paper.

                          Which is it?

                          Here is a video of residents of Cobargo, subjects of the commonwealth of you wish Ghost, that are openly heckling and disrespecting the leader of our country to his face (deservedly so IMO but that's a different matter) without fear or restraint. It unfortunatley doesn't contain some of the more colourful jeers sent the Prime Minister's way.

                          https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...lcome/11838300

                          Would you say that these subjects are practicing freedom of speech or are they lacking freedom due to lack of a legal piece of paper?
                          2018 Male Purple Belt Adult No Gi
                          #2 Ranked Competitor - QBJJC

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by cualltaigh View Post
                            So, on the one hand you are arguing that a piece of legal paper is inneffectual in making real world change.

                            Then you argue that there exists no real world freedoms due to a lack of a legal piece of paper.

                            Which is it?

                            Here is a video of residents of Cobargo, subjects of the commonwealth of you wish Ghost, that are openly heckling and disrespecting the leader of our country to his face (deservedly so IMO but that's a different matter) without fear or restraint. It unfortunatley doesn't contain some of the more colourful jeers sent the Prime Minister's way.

                            https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...lcome/11838300

                            Would you say that these subjects are practicing freedom of speech or are they lacking freedom due to lack of a legal piece of paper?
                            You can confuse The Constitution and Bill of Rights, which places limits on government, to prevent those governments from interfering with the rights of the citizens of that country,

                            With drunk driving and gun laws, which criminals often ignore.

                            Now, sometimes governments ignore the restrictions put on them by a piece of paper.

                            When they do, legal recourse, the right of freedom of speech, and the will of a well armed populace are the ultimate check and balance to a government that has executed a coup by choosing to disregard the papers that limit the excesses of government power abuse such as their Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
                              You can confuse The Constitution and Bill of Rights, which places limits on government, to prevent those governments from interfering with the rights of the citizens of that country,

                              With drunk driving and gun laws, which criminals often ignore.

                              Now, sometimes governments ignore the restrictions put on them by a piece of paper.
                              Not confusing them, I understand the differences, just highlighting the similarities.

                              Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
                              When they do, legal recourse, the right of freedom of speech, and the will of a well armed populace are the ultimate check and balance to a government that has executed a coup by choosing to disregard the papers that limit the excesses of government power abuse such as their Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
                              Regarding legal recourse, as you pointed out re the intoxicated driving before, this does not prevent those pieces of legal paper being ingnored. It just directs the aftermath.

                              One of the underlying principles of accounting is substance over form. You can place all your interest payments into an expense account called "pink elephant tutus" and still be compliant with GAAP. But you still need to account for them (in both tax and financial reporting) as interest payments. Similarly, the will to speak freely is vastly more important than which piece of paper (and written by whom) gives you permission to do so.

                              The part that I've highlighted is the piece that I believe to be the only real check that matters - with one caveat. The definition of "armed" goes well and truly beyond firearms.
                              2018 Male Purple Belt Adult No Gi
                              #2 Ranked Competitor - QBJJC

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by cualltaigh View Post
                                The definition of "armed" goes well and truly beyond firearms.
                                Sure, the Irish resisting populace started blowing English targets up with both military /government and civilian casualties when the English disarmed them and killed the Irish citizens willy nilly.

                                Timothy McVeigh over here made a point to use explosives out of common chemicals to take a building.

                                A group of Sauds used a plane to take out the World Trade Center.

                                Guns are not the only means, nor even the most effective means to kill a bunch of people.

                                But, we're dancing now.

                                Grow a pair, and tell your nanny state that you can own firearms if you want.

                                Or don't, I don't care.

                                But Australians should not tell the US what to do as if their country is some kind of success story compared to ours because of their gun policy when they are a small country by population, with lots of their own problems.

                                And if the Aussies want to walk around smelling their own farts about it like they are perfume, because of this or any other issue,

                                then even Ghost will be able to make fun of them with ease, and should.

                                In fact, Ghost's subject versus citizen common was on point.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X