Australian 2nd Amendment

[Wapiti]

I've seen some pretty common sentiment here on this topic, so I'll try and break the boredom by putting up a video of a bloke who might just give some of you some direction on where to look in politics for a solution.

I won't preach who, or what, but this video is very much listening to and a good insight into where to put your sentiment and votes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU1XRJeJHHw&t=85s

And:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwqiucMP59Y

[No1_49er]

If only we could get some traction with those sentiments.

[No1Mk3]

Got to 2 1/2 minutes in, stopped listening. Not fond of Libertarianisn to begin with but this dudes a nutjob.

[womble]

We’re the only western nation that allows armed machete gangs to roam the streets and our government dose’nt have any answers.

Enough is enough.

[womble]

I don’t do social media other than here.
But when I randomly out of the blue get newscorp posting an article on Martin Bryant as they have today, then what does that tell me.

It means the rich and powerful are worried.

How ironic that it was Paul Papalia that planted the seed in an effort to oppress the population even further.

Thankyou Paul.

[womble]

Got to 2 1/2 minutes in, stopped listening. Not fond of Libertarianisn to begin with but this dudes a nutjob.

Here’s a reconstruction of the original version 1775. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DbghWFMLyiA

[Oldbloke]

Agree with a couple of the points,,,but,,,

Dreaming.jpeg (34.25 KiB) Viewed 2836 times

I'm a realist!

[Oldbloke]

Got to 2 1/2 minutes in, stopped listening. Not fond of Libertarianisn to begin with but this dudes a nutjob.

Here’s a reconstruction of the original version 1775. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DbghWFMLyiA

I wonder if Mr Patrick Henry sent his son to fight at the front?

[Wapiti]

Got to 2 1/2 minutes in, stopped listening. Not fond of Libertarianisn to begin with but this dudes a nutjob.

If only people could get past the individual person personal thing.
The basis of the topic is Castle Doctrine, but you have to have an attention span of over 3 minutes obviously.
It's no wonder this stuff is pie-in-the sky, because of people's pettiness. But there's always something to blame someone else for their lot, eh?

And the inane comments, FFS, but from whom it's coming from is typical.
Some people take this stuff seriously, but they don't comment unfortunately. It's there for those with the intellect to appreciate it.

[womble]

Got to 2 1/2 minutes in, stopped listening. Not fond of Libertarianisn to begin with but this dudes a nutjob.

Here’s a reconstruction of the original version 1775. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DbghWFMLyiA

I wonder if Mr Patrick Henry sent his son to fight at the front?

He did indeed.

[Oldbloke]

Got to 2 1/2 minutes in, stopped listening. Not fond of Libertarianisn to begin with but this dudes a nutjob.

Here’s a reconstruction of the original version 1775. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DbghWFMLyiA

I wonder if Mr Patrick Henry sent his son to fight at the front?

He did indeed.

Says a lot.

[womble]

Not really. He had 16 kids.
And people were far more accustomed to their kids dying back in the day.

We do need a charter of human rights . In the constitution. It matters more than anything else. To me anyway.
You must have the right to life. Or you are not a citizen. You are just property.
So we really haven’t moved past convict settlement and subjects of a king.
In everything else we have, yet not this. So who owns us now or are we free men yet.

And the ideal of liberty is hidden deliberately. You will never hear it mentioned in our society. The party will never be mentioned in the media. The leader will never be platformed in the media.
And it’s very deliberate. Because it’s a mindset they’re afraid of. It’s people taking back ownership of their own life.

If you own your life, then a government cannot pass policy on your preservation of it. Not up for debate. Not their concern, not their property. We need that recognition. And that is all.

And if you want further evidence. Australian policy of allowing your attacker the advantage is unique worldwide. We are the odd one out. And worse than that, we claim to be a liberal democracy. Not true. No other liberal democracy in the world denies it’s citizens the right to life.

No I am not saying every other country permits people self defence with firearms, as they do not. However they do recognise whatever force you deem necessary. The victim of a crime does not have to use what the government of the day deems proportionate in his or her circumstances.

And a charter of human rights, that all western nations but ours have, overrules the government of the day anyway. So citizens never have to fear bad policies relating to their own self preservation.

And theres a reason our country uniquely does this. And his name is Martin Bryant. And this is his legacy.

So when your child is raped or murdered remember his name. Because he’s why they never had a chance to defend themselves. And he is why they will join him in prison should they defeat their attackers.

And now you know who owns us.

[Pennsylvania Yank]

Got to 2 1/2 minutes in, stopped listening. Not fond of Libertarianisn to begin with but this dudes a nutjob.

If only people could get past the individual person personal thing.
The basis of the topic is Castle Doctrine, but you have to have an attention span of over 3 minutes obviously.
It's no wonder this stuff is pie-in-the sky, because of people's pettiness. But there's always something to blame someone else for their lot, eh?

And the inane comments, FFS, but from whom it's coming from is typical.
Some people take this stuff seriously, but they don't comment unfortunately. It's there for those with the intellect to appreciate it.

In a sane world, they'd be teaching that sort of stuff in the Universities, but unfortunately they are little more than Leftist indoctrination institutions.

The difference in theory and vision between the Bill of Rights as written and by the American Founders is light years away from the 2nd Bill of Rights envisioned by Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930's. The latter was simply a carefully orchestrated mechanism for transferring power from individual citizens to government entities and was essentially indistinguishable from the Rights Declarations of Stalin's Soviet Russia at the time. Be careful about favoring a "Charter of Human Rights" written by deeply entrenched politicians. You can be sure that it will be a smokescreen for little more than an economic, cultural and political power grab favoring the "societal good" at the expense of actual individual rights and freedoms. We can see real world examples of this in Germany, the UK and elsewhere in the West.

[Wapiti]

Great summary of the dangers of the hidden agendas in politics today mate.
It explains the agendas of control that the weak bodied, insecure human dregs that infest and underpin politics nowadays. It is about the weak of a species intent on protecting the control that they so desperately desire.

Think to simple examples of this - the workplace you left because an individual was promoted to oversee the people there who, although intelligent, set about persecuting and bullying those he was supposed to "lead" solely due to personal cowardice, insecurity and fear.

Despite what some think, Australia in the 70's and 80's had become quite a free country, and this was duly noted by the world's socialists who included us in their dystopian future wet dreams.

My opinion about this is the same as other topics I've upset some who sit down to p*ss, that is until the cowards are willing to stand up with the bold and confident and take some pain, all of this is just a dream and every day, every incompetently chosen election result, the ship of cowardice becomes more difficult to turn around before it hits the dock.

[alexjones]

The people who wrote the Australian constitution F'ed up not making a bill of rights. They thought the parliament would solve issues because at the time people were better men with better morals.

But with every new law or regulation the government makes life for we the people gets worse and worse.

[bigrich]

The people who wrote the Australian constitution F'ed up not making a bill of rights. They thought the parliament would solve issues because at the time people were better men with better morals.

But with every new law or regulation the government makes life for we the people gets worse and worse.

sadly , very true .

the english empire was very scared of rights for it's citizens because of events after the boston tea party in north america

the eurecka stockade was brutally put down out here

[thewoodsnsw]

Agree with a couple of the points,,,but,,,

Dreaming.jpeg

I'm a realist!

I saw the whole John Ruddick video. The whole point is to build momentum. It's trying to get the general population to change their minds on guns over time. No one said things will happen tomorrow or even things going in our favor "half baked."

[bad cop 3650]

I don’t do social media other than here.
But when I randomly out of the blue get newscorp posting an article on Martin Bryant as they have today, then what does that tell me.

It means the rich and powerful are worried.

How ironic that it was Paul Papalia that planted the seed in an effort to oppress the population even further.

Thankyou Paul.

LOL nice to see you being a total hypocrite here.

[womble]

I don’t do social media other than here.
But when I randomly out of the blue get newscorp posting an article on Martin Bryant as they have today, then what does that tell me.

It means the rich and powerful are worried.

How ironic that it was Paul Papalia that planted the seed in an effort to oppress the population even further.

Thankyou Paul.

LOL nice to see you being a total hypocrite here.

I don’t see the hypocrisy or the relevance.

That’s an old post. You have three accounts now i see.
2 are just to hang s**t on people here. The third your true colours show through often anyway.


Anyway let’s try and explain the topic you queried. Old one but anyway.

It’s because the US has so many problems with guns that the rest of us in the west have such strict government oversight.
We’re the ones who have to suffer for the US allowing crazy people to have access to guns to kill others.
That’s always the go to excuse for implementing tougher restrictions here.
We saw this recently in Western Australia. Getting guns of the streets.
Western Australia dose’nt have crips and bloods gangbangers.

America gun culture is irrelevant to us, our history, our culture,

And the NRA has a big role to play in the failings of US gun policies.

Obviously as an Australian I have my own issues with the NRA as they were outsourced to help write our NFA
Americans meddling once again.

I find you hilarious mate because you always talk widely about things you know nothing’s about. And you always get so butthurt when corrected it’s almost palpable.
My advice. Please try to remember what country you’re in. Because you come of sounding like a complete fool in most every post.

Think before you post. Because you personally often give our detractors ammunition to use against us. This is a public forum that anyone can read.

[bad cop 3650]

I don’t do social media other than here.
But when I randomly out of the blue get newscorp posting an article on Martin Bryant as they have today, then what does that tell me.

It means the rich and powerful are worried.

How ironic that it was Paul Papalia that planted the seed in an effort to oppress the population even further.

Thankyou Paul.

LOL nice to see you being a total hypocrite here.

I don’t see the hypocrisy or the relevance.

That’s an old post. You have three accounts now i see.
2 are just to hang s**t on people here. The third your true colours show through often anyway.


Anyway let’s try and explain the topic you queried. Old one but anyway.

It’s because the US has so many problems with guns that the rest of us in the west have such strict government oversight.
We’re the ones who have to suffer for the US allowing crazy people to have access to guns to kill others.
That’s always the go to excuse for implementing tougher restrictions here.
We saw this recently in Western Australia. Getting guns of the streets.
Western Australia dose’nt have crips and bloods gangbangers.

America gun culture is irrelevant to us, our history, our culture,

And the NRA has a big role to play in the failings of US gun policies.

Obviously as an Australian I have my own issues with the NRA as they were outsourced to help write our NFA
Americans meddling once again.

I find you hilarious mate because you always talk widely about things you know nothing’s about. And you always get so butthurt when corrected it’s almost palpable.
My advice. Please try to remember what country you’re in. Because you come of sounding like a complete fool in most every post.

Thanks for the laugh,

You are proving me that you are nothing but of an anti gunner, you call me a fool but when i see that it is the second amendement, NRA and the american guns community fault of Australia crappy gun laws, then i think you have a problem.

When western Australia passed the 1973 gun laws, it should have been a wake up call for gun owner but nothing happenned.

The fact that you as a gun owner agree in many ways with the current gun control laws here and that they should not be changed does not put you on the good side, in fact to me you are nothing but of a traitor.

Shame on you.

[womble]

Not feeling the shame here buddy.

The fact that you sat up all night going through my entire post history tells me you’re likely mentally unstable.

Your problem, not mine.

I do think there’s a lot of room for improvement in our gun laws. But I certainly don’t want mentality unstable people being able to access them.
That’s not an unreasonable position to take. It’s working pretty well for us.

[womble]

And it’s their interpretation of the 2nd amendment that gives them problems btw.

Nethertheless their Supreme Court ruled on it. It’s done.

[No1_49er]

And it’s their interpretation of the 2nd amendment that gives them problems btw.

Nethertheless their Supreme Court ruled on it. It’s done.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify your statement that "it's their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that gives them problems".
So that we can all understand, please give us YOUR interpretation; one that would prevent the "problems".

If I read you correctly, you don't like the SCOTUS interpretation either.

OK, it's your turn; please explain.

[Wapiti]

Not feeling the shame here buddy.

The fact that you sat up all night going through my entire post history tells me you’re likely mentally unstable.

Your problem, not mine.

I do think there’s a lot of room for improvement in our gun laws. But I certainly don’t want mentality unstable people being able to access them.
That’s not an unreasonable position to take. It’s working pretty well for us.

Your history here is one of someone who will leap down someone's throat and accuse without actually understanding of, or even reading, what they have written.
Perhaps it's deliberate, and you are here to bait?
One minute above you are whining about people taking advantage here to bring up more restrictions, like WA, then start self-assessing who should/should not be able to own firearms yourself.

Personally, I believe a more relaxed, less restrictive society is the best route, and that goes for gun laws as well.
How about the judges be held to account for not punishing the criminals who ruin others' lives, to bring back some consequences?
How often are judges and senior police implicated in these terrible human-rights abuses? What about the latest one that has been sealed to the public for 95 years whilst the people involved remain in politics and senior law positions?
Consequences are what keeps me in line, as does the thought of my live-and let-live ideals.
Let me live free, and do what I want within reason, and I will not feel that I have to break the law because they are ill thought out, and punishment isn't a deterrent for those who would disrespect and hurt me and my family.

Punish those who break the law and hurt others so awfully, not try and smokescreen it over by restricting everybody else with a view to put them in chains.
As those in power seek to do now, to hide their own perversions and failures.

[womble]

And it’s their interpretation of the 2nd amendment that gives them problems btw.

Nethertheless their Supreme Court ruled on it. It’s done.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify your statement that "it's their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that gives them problems".
So that we can all understand, please give us YOUR interpretation; one that would prevent the "problems".

If I read you correctly, you don't like the SCOTUS interpretation either.

OK, it's your turn; please explain.

Read it.
Many interpret the people to make up the militias. Being as that’s what militias are.
Scotus ruled two separate sentences. Being the people are not the militia.

My own interpretation, though it hardly matters. Would be the right to bear arms is well regulated.
So as the bad people don’t get to bear arms. They can lose that right.

Many states have their own charters regardless.

But look at the US today. They’ve lost the first amendment. And we all know what comes next.
This is the first president in the country’s history that has threatened to take people’s guns without due process.
And he’s already enacting policies currently that ignore due process.

[bad cop 3650]

And it’s their interpretation of the 2nd amendment that gives them problems btw.

Nethertheless their Supreme Court ruled on it. It’s done.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify your statement that "it's their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that gives them problems".
So that we can all understand, please give us YOUR interpretation; one that would prevent the "problems".

If I read you correctly, you don't like the SCOTUS interpretation either.

OK, it's your turn; please explain.

Read it.
Many interpret the people to make up the militias. Being as that’s what militias are.
Scotus ruled two separate sentences. Being the people are not the militia.

My own interpretation, though it hardly matters. Would be the right to bear arms is well regulated.
So as the bad people don’t get to bear arms. They can lose that right.

Many states have their own charters regardless.

But look at the US today. They’ve lost the first amendment. And we all know what comes next.
This is the first president in the country’s history that has threatened to take people’s guns without due process.
And he’s already enacting policies currently that ignore due process.

Why im not surprised by this ?

Your interpretation of the second amendment while pretty hilarious just give a glimpse of how ignorant you are yet at the same time it is what an anti gunner would Say...

Confirming yet more how much of a traitor you are, but hey I applaud the Fact that since you have been here you did spend much effort at supporting gun control than opposing it, as im watching somme older posts many of your arguments are coming straight from the anti gun lobby, thats a fact.


You mentions the first amendment, probably a hint at Jimmy kimmel firing, that POS along with others democrat wanted Trump and the conservative to be silenced during trump first term, especially during the Biden term, and also before Kirk death, and There is plenty of proofs of that, so his firing was well deserved, i honestly wish it would be the same for you, as many of your post are ban worthy.

[womble]

And it’s their interpretation of the 2nd amendment that gives them problems btw.

Nethertheless their Supreme Court ruled on it. It’s done.

Perhaps you'd like to clarify your statement that "it's their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that gives them problems".
So that we can all understand, please give us YOUR interpretation; one that would prevent the "problems".

If I read you correctly, you don't like the SCOTUS interpretation either.

OK, it's your turn; please explain.

Read it.
Many interpret the people to make up the militias. Being as that’s what militias are.
Scotus ruled two separate sentences. Being the people are not the militia.

My own interpretation, though it hardly matters. Would be the right to bear arms is well regulated.
So as the bad people don’t get to bear arms. They can lose that right.

Many states have their own charters regardless.

But look at the US today. They’ve lost the first amendment. And we all know what comes next.
This is the first president in the country’s history that has threatened to take people’s guns without due process.
And he’s already enacting policies currently that ignore due process.

Why im not surprised by this ?

Your interpretation of the second amendment while pretty hilarious just give a glimpse of how ignorant you are yet at the same time it is what an anti gunner would Say...

Confirming yet more how much of a traitor you are, but hey I applaud the Fact that since you have been here you did spend much effort at supporting gun control than opposing it, as im watching somme older posts many of your arguments are coming straight from the anti gun lobby, thats a fact.


You mentions the first amendment, probably a hint at Jimmy kimmel firing, that POS along with others democrat wanted Trump and the conservative to be silenced during trump first term, especially during the Biden term, and also before Kirk death, and There is plenty of proofs of that, so his firing was well deserved, i honestly wish it would be the same for you, as many of your post are ban worthy.

Perhaps you should read the 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment before commenting on it.
Seriously it’s not that hard. You have google right.

How can you possibly, in any of your accounts, accuse anyone of being ignorant.
In nearly all of your posts your comments clearly come from someone without any real knowledge or experience about what you are commenting on. And that’s fine. Really. We’re all here to learn
But then when someone points out to you that you were incorrect this is how you try to cope with it. Like a big baby throwing a tanty.
Obviously that person was me and no doubt I’ve corrected you for posting the wrong information. Even in your above post you’ve managed falsehoods and false assertions.

Well tough luck. Suck it up. Be a man. Quit whining like a little bitch because no one cares. Least of all me.

[bad cop 3650]

Perhaps you should read the 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment before commenting on it.
Seriously it’s not that hard. You have google right.

How can you possibly, in any of your accounts, accuse anyone of being ignorant.
In nearly all of your posts your comments clearly come from someone without any real knowledge or experience about what you are commenting on. And that’s fine. Really. We’re all here to learn
But then when someone points out to you that you were incorrect this is how you try to cope with it. Like a big baby throwing a tanty.
Obviously that person was me and no doubt I’ve corrected you for posting the wrong information. Even in your above post you’ve managed falsehoods and false assertions.

Well tough luck. Suck it up. Be a man. Quit whining like a little bitch because no one cares. Least of all me.

Oh don't worry i have readed the 1st and 2st amendment and i have a better understanding than you do.

however the 1st doesn't apply to private compagnies like ABC who's suspended kimmel for one week (only), also i didn't heard you when tucker carlson was fired from fox news in 2023 or trump from twitter in 2021 or others conservative figure who's faced variable form of censorship during the biden administration :

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/google ... cal-speech

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press ... e-accounts

by the way if you think trump is the only one who's did this then read history, censorship alway existed in the us and what trump is doing is only a justified retaliations/revenges of what happened for the past 10 years (starting in 2015 with his first run up the the biden terms), so it is not only legal but also constitutional and not very news.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorshi ... ted_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship


also should i point out that australia doesn't have protected free speech ? it is not on the joke that australia constitution, so don't be a hypocrite on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia

[womble]

I’ve never claimed Australia has free speech. In fact I’ve lobbied for it. New Zealand got it relatively recently so we can do the same.

No you don’t have a solid understanding of the first amendment. You don’t understand what free speech means.

Kimmel was your example not mine. Does he have the right to criticise his government, his country under the first amendment.
Yes he does. Because it’s his country. Not the governments. The governments role is to facilitate his will.
That’s how a free country works.

I’m done with schooling you. I’m not here to teach you anything. It’s far more entertaining to watch you make a fool of yourself in any three of your accounts. Because your ignorance is outstanding.

[No1_49er]

I’ve never claimed Australia has free speech. In fact I’ve lobbied for it. New Zealand got it relatively recently so we can do the same.

What is it that NZ got relatively recently that Australia doesn't have?