The Daily Show: Gun Control :)
whoopty f*****g doo!
i watched this the other day. cannot believe that pro gun nut. |
01:10pm 22/04/13 Permalink
That was pretty hilarious.
But we do actually need guns so we can overthrow the government should ever the need arise. We should adopt the castle doctrine law, where you are able to shoot any trespasser on your property no questions asked. Also we need the stand your ground law, where if you even have an inkling that your life is in danger you can blow the other person away and also avoid charges. These are all sensible reasons to own guns and sensible legislation regarding their use that I am sure that guy supports and I reckon there is one special person on this forum who supports them as well. |
01:21pm 22/04/13 Permalink
Disagree about shooting trespassers. You know how many times I would have been shot by my neighbour? It's so easy to get disoriented and then you look at your house (or where it's meant to be) and don't recognise it and have no idea where you are. That is scary enough without the knowledge that the neighbour could decide to shoot me.
A cousin of mine was in the military, and he shot someone jumping over the fence at the base. Of course it was just another army guy going out to the pub. Everyone in the family now calls him 'murderer'. I dunno I've never met him. |
01:25pm 22/04/13 Permalink
A cousin of mine was in the military, and he shot someone jumping over the fence at the base. Of course it was just another army guy going out to the pub. Everyone in the family now calls him 'murderer'. I dunno I've never met him.You know those moments when you think you might share a story but you really shouldn't. We should adopt the castle doctrine law, where you are able to shoot any trespasser on your property no questions asked. Also we need the stand your ground law, where if you even have an inkling that your life is in danger you can blow the other person away and also avoid charges.Our self defence laws are pretty s*** though. I think it's f***ed up that if some criminal breaks into an old blokes house with a cricket bat and the old bloke shoots him with his legally owned gun in self defence, he can be done for manslaughter for not using equivalent force. |
01:46pm 22/04/13 Permalink
Our self defence laws are pretty s*** though. I think it's f***ed up that if some criminal breaks into an old blokes house with a cricket bat and the old bloke shoots him with his legally owned gun in self defence, he can be done for manslaughter for not using equivalent force.This isn't necessarily true though. In Queensland at least you are allowed to use deadly force if you feel you are at risk of suffering grievous bodily harm, GBH being defined here. It would be easy to inflict GBH on someone with a cricket-bat so if you shoot them and the evidence supports the fact that they were going to attack you then you'd walk. The whole equivalent force thing is a bit of a fallacy. The actual term used in the legislation is reasonable force. This means that if for example someone got in your face very aggressively you could legally push them away, or take them down onto the ground and you could make the claim that the force was reasonable because you felt your safety was in danger. In this scenario you have touched a person forcefully when they haven't touched you at all. Of course, there is still a chance the courts could convict you anyway, which is why retreat or surrender is always the best option. If someone broke into my house and I knew there was no threat of physical harm I'd just let them go, even if I had a gun. |
02:10pm 22/04/13 Permalink
I was telling my partner about that exact same thing yesterday fpot. You explained it better, I said something like. 'If you have reasonable suspicion someone is going to kill you, you won't get done for manslaughter if you get there first'.
The context was if someone pointed a gun at you and threatened you, it would be reasonable to assume the gun was loaded and he/she intended to fire it. So if you defend yourself and kill them (without going overboard, basically it was done quickly) you should be OK, even if the gun was not loaded. However if they try and flee and you chase them down, you will get done. |
02:29pm 22/04/13 Permalink
Yep but keep in mind they don't even need to be threatening your life, they just need to be threatening GBH. And just about any weapon is capable of inflicting GBH.
|
02:31pm 22/04/13 Permalink
If someone comes onto your property threatening your belongings or family you should be entitled to shoot them. Invaders now have more rights than the invaded. Hell, if an invader injures themselves while trying to steal your TV they can sue you for not providing a safe passage HAH. A person's home is no longer their castle. That's why people live in fear and lock their doors, criminals run the streets.
|
02:56pm 22/04/13 Permalink
Why should you be able to shoot someone if they are just threatening your belongings? Is theft worthy of a death sentence now?
Can you link me to a verified story of a burglar successfully suing a homeowner due to an injury they have sustained while burglarising the house? I'd really hate to think you are just making up stories (again) or falling for urban legends. And criminals running the streets is pretty much the standard alarmist hyperbole bulls*** we have come to expect from you. What a load of rot. |
03:07pm 22/04/13 Permalink
If someone comes onto your property threatening your belongings or family you should be entitled to shoot them. Invaders now have more rights than the invaded. Hell, if an invader injures themselves while trying to steal your TV they can sue you for not providing a safe passage HAH. A person's home is no longer their castle. That's why people live in fear and lock their doors, criminals run the streets. Are you sure Faceman hasn't got hold of your account? Yes, I leave my doors unlocked when I'm at home and awake. Yes, I've had a home invasion but that was quickly resolved by pointing my LeeEnfield .303 No1MkIII* SMLE at them...... and then calling the Police... |
03:54pm 22/04/13 Permalink
In Queensland at least you are allowed to use deadly force if you feel you are at risk of suffering grievous bodily harmYeah but in Queensland you can kill gay people if they crack on to you. Every state is different which is pretty mind boggling really when you consider it's basically killing another human we are talking about. That aside, it really is another discussion and has no bearing on gun laws/control so I won't take it further. America is sadly about as f***ed up as it gets on that front. |
03:56pm 22/04/13 Permalink
criminals run the streets. wat I once saw a guy running away after he tried to rob a store with a stanley knife. I guess he was a criminal running the streets. |
04:09pm 22/04/13 Permalink
Howard is a statesman - I liked the fact he spoke as a statesman rather than giving some half baked tourism ambassador GDAY COBBER PUT A SHRIMP ON THE BARBI, DINGOS!
also this should become a gun control political campaign slogan - WOOPITY DOO |
04:12pm 22/04/13 Permalink
Bahahaha, the pro-gun guy in the video was an absolute moron, especially at the end.
Funny video. |
04:47pm 22/04/13 Permalink
'mocracy in 'murka says that if the people want guns, the people can have guns. I don't see a problem.
I love Post-Lasik Johnny, it really accentuates his eyebrows. |
04:52pm 22/04/13 Permalink
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/84.html
Enjoy the light reading fpot. In essence, a homeowner has a duty of care to a trespasser, while that duty may be lesser while the trespasser is not known to the homeowner, once the homeowners knows that the person is on the property that duty of care is the same as the general standard. |
05:22pm 22/04/13 Permalink
Fpot is wrong again, what a surprise.
|
05:26pm 22/04/13 Permalink
That link has nothing to do with a person injuring themselves while trespassing and then successfully suing. Why did you post it?
|
05:31pm 22/04/13 Permalink
yes it does, the high court discusses that exact issue. the head note states:
Trespass on farm to steal petrol - Shot fired by occupier at thief's vehicle - Passenger injured - Occupier unaware of passenger's presence Do I have to read the whole case for you? The judges discuss all the principles of common law negligence and how they apply to the class of visitors to a property titled trespassers. The argument put to the court was that trespassers have a lesser duty of care against the home occupier. Which they accepted only to a degree. The plaintiff was injured while trespassing on the property in this specific case and successfully sued the homeowner. |
05:38pm 22/04/13 Permalink
Someone injuring themselves is different to someone getting injured from being shot by someone else. You're pretty f*****g dumb aren't you?
|
05:39pm 22/04/13 Permalink
Read the judges' decisions, they cover all aspects of negligence law and how the rules apply generally not just to the facts of this case. If you read more than the first paragraph you will learn something.
|
05:43pm 22/04/13 Permalink
That's nice, but I asked for a story of someone successfully suing after injuring themselves during a trespass. Someone trespassing and the homeowner shooting them and a passenger isn't really the same as that. I completely agree with the decision here - why would you fire a gun at someone who is just stealing petrol? The police said they wouldn't chase it up for him without evidence so why not take a photograph instead? It was a f*****g stupid thing to do to start blindly firing a shotgun at someone in the dark.
|
05:47pm 22/04/13 Permalink
Fpot has a habit of ignoring links posted and pretending the information in said links don't exist to he can continue on with his arguement. He then proceeds to call you a liar and "dumb".
It's the same old tired recipe. |
05:54pm 22/04/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: Off-Topic |
05:58pm 22/04/13 Permalink
i have little hope for americans when i watch videos like in the op, or this one:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c8_1366402123 i attempted to read the comments on this video, but it was just too painful that idiots think they should have the right to go armed in public, or own guns at all. infi must live in a bad neighbourhood, i dont have any criminals running my street, except for that stabbing that happened in the park at 4am that morning. |
07:40pm 22/04/13 Permalink
Gun Control is like creating more Sheep to protect the Sheep from the Wolves.
|
08:27pm 22/04/13 Permalink
I thought Howard was doing a common English greeting in return, as that dudes English. 'How do you do' is a English greeting phrase.
|
10:11pm 22/04/13 Permalink
I thought Howard was doing a common English greeting in return, as that dudes English. 'How do you do' is a English greeting phrase. yeah, that is what i thought he was doing. |
11:46pm 22/04/13 Permalink
how do you do is the most formal of greetings.. since he is a ex prime minister, it seems perfectly acceptable
|
12:54am 23/04/13 Permalink
Part 2 of 3 aired tonight. Focuses on political suicide with Rob Borbidge.
|
04:17pm 24/04/13 Permalink
The American Patriots did it right. They didn't take s*** from their government or from people on their lawn. Now society is more obsessed with whether they will go LCD or LED, iPhone 4s or iPhone 5.
Who gives a s*** about our liberties being removed, right? Even if you don't WANT to own a gun, you should still have the RIGHT to own one if and when the need ever arises. And yeah GG on the Australia analogy. We changed laws for 23m people to respond to one mental case. Now that's called cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. |
04:29pm 24/04/13 Permalink
I see absolutely nothing wrong with a mandatory waiting period to prevent crazies or someone acting impulsively with the purpose of shooting someone soon after buying the gun.
The topic was raised by John Oliver in the video and that fool had a big whinge about it, because buying a gun should be like buying a loaf of bread, right? |
04:31pm 24/04/13 Permalink
Oh hey, it's that NRA video from 2000! Maybe you should read these:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s112652.htm http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s112715.htm |
04:34pm 24/04/13 Permalink
Who gives a s*** about our liberties being removed, right? Even if you don't WANT to own a gun, you should still have the RIGHT to own one if and when the need ever arises. i dont want anyone in my society owning a gun. they dont need them. sometimes people are retarded and governments need to make decisions for them. like with guns. there is no need for anyone in society to have a gun. |
04:45pm 24/04/13 Permalink
You can have a gun in Australia infi...
You can't have some variations, like crazy killing machine guns, or nuclear weapons, or bioweapons. Oh noes the liberties! (I wager that you'd lose far more liberty in a society which did have such things, such as the ridiculous lack of liberty in the US where their right to life is infringed upon daily, where homicide rates are several times that of anywhere else in the first world) |
04:45pm 24/04/13 Permalink
Infi should emigrate to America, he seems obsessed with the American concept of "liberty" and their founding fathers.
I wonder if the founding fathers ever envisioned maniacs with assault rifles going on rampages. |
04:58pm 24/04/13 Permalink
there is no need for anyone in society to have a gun. except for our loving government.... and criminals. How much gun is too much gun? I don't have a problem with background checks or cooling off periods as they do not infringe the core liberty to possession. We are talking about denying guns to criminals or mentally unstable people. If a person is fit and proper then why are they not entitled to own a gun of their choosing? It's a personal defence issue. Never bring a knife to a gunfight. |
05:11pm 24/04/13 Permalink
The American Patriots did it right. They didn't take s*** from their government or from people on their lawn. Now society is more obsessed with whether they will go LCD or LED, iPhone 4s or iPhone 5. Who gives a s*** about our liberties being removed, right? Even if you don't WANT to own a gun, you should still have the RIGHT to own one if and when the need ever arises.And yeah GG on the Australia analogy. We changed laws for 23m people to respond to one mental case. Now that's called cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. no, it wasn't one case, there were 13 mass (for than 4 dead) shootings in the 18 years before the gun laws changed so one case, no, straw that broke the camels back, yes also, we've gone over the need for a gun in past threads, fact is some livestyles require a gun, farmers, vets, pest control (pest animals, not insects), they are a tool, they only become an issue when used for ill, like any other tool |
05:32pm 24/04/13 Permalink
The American Patriots did it right. They didn't take s*** from their government or from people on their lawn. Now society is more obsessed with whether they will go LCD or LED, iPhone 4s or iPhone 5. Who gives a s*** about our liberties being removed, right? Even if you don't WANT to own a gun, you should still have the RIGHT to own one if and when the need ever arises.And yeah GG on the Australia analogy. We changed laws for 23m people to respond to one mental case. Now that's called cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. I don't think it was the actions of 1 person causing a law change to 23m people, as the statistics said there were numerous mass murders before the gun laws plus the reduction in gun related crime, suicides etc etc. You talk about peoples rights being taken away from them by not allowing guns, how far do you go with it? Should I have the right to drive as fast as I want? Should I have a right to have a bucket of anthrax? Should I have the right to have parties as loud and long as I want? We live in a society where we balance peoples rights to do whatever they want with the good of the society and how those rights affect everyone else. People having free access to guns increases gun violence in a society and that affects peoples rights to be safe, which to me is a more important right to worry about than having a gun. |
05:38pm 24/04/13 Permalink
I agree with infi, Howard was a fascist pig that lead an attack on the freedoms of Australians and Abbott will be worse.
Pretty sure that was the point he was making. American gun laws are f***ed up not just because you can buy an AK-47 but because you can do it over the internet without back ground checks, registration or licensing. There is no oversight and politicians have been sneaking in laws that actually make it harder to regulate the sale of guns. The ATF can't even look at a gun stores inventory and they don't have to keep records of what gun they sold to who. On another episode of the Daily Show they had a Mayor who was buying guns and destroying them, so a bunch of gun nuts stood outside and offered more money to the people bringing in their guns. When asking the lead gun nut where all those guns are now he said something like, "No body knows and that's the beauty of it". So apparently it is completely legal to sell guns in the US on the street to complete strangers. There is a difference between having the right to own a gun and the utterly irresponsible distribution of arms. |
05:53pm 24/04/13 Permalink
Part 2 of the Daily Show Australian gun laws is now online :)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-april-23-2013-salman-rushdie edit: sorry forgot that you need the modify headers plugin : https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/modify-headers/ |
05:56pm 24/04/13 Permalink
at least post a link we can bloody watch.
|
06:09pm 24/04/13 Permalink
The American Patriots did it right. They didn't take s*** from their government or from people on their lawn. Now society is more obsessed with whether they will go LCD or LED, iPhone 4s or iPhone 5.You say this like it is a bad thing. I'd much rather worry about what TV I should buy rather than what calibre firearm should be sitting under my pillow. I thank Australia's excellent gun control laws for this situation. You think we needs guns because we may need to overthrow the government one day. You think it's okay to shoot someone even if they are just stealing your stuff. You are pretty much the posterchild for why people shouldn't have guns, yet in an ironic twist, you are an advocate for gun ownership. It's delicious. |
06:17pm 24/04/13 Permalink
xcept for our loving government.... and criminals. i am happy with government and criminals having the guns, rather than every tom, d*** and harry. less guns = less chance of my family coming to harm. |
07:10pm 24/04/13 Permalink
The American Patriots did it right. They didn't take s*** from their government or from people on their lawn. Now society is more obsessed with whether they will go LCD or LED, iPhone 4s or iPhone 5. Who gives a s*** about our liberties being removed, right? Even if you don't WANT to own a gun, you should still have the RIGHT to own one if and when the need ever arises.And yeah GG on the Australia analogy. We changed laws for 23m people to respond to one mental case. Now that's called cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. i am happy with government and criminals having the guns, rather than every tom, d*** and harry. Actually, the gun laws were changed to prevent the ownership of weapons which have only one real use. That use is being able to put out massive amounts of rounds for the purpose of killing people. The gun laws do not prevent gun ownership. The only law with prevents gun ownership in Queensland referrers to criminals and those who have been involuntarily incarcerated in a mental institution (5 year time limit). In my previous post you will note I didn't shoot the home invader, my intention was to prevent him from committing a crime against me. If he had in any way threatened my safety (in danger of being killed), not my property, I would not have hesitated to use deadly force. If he had threatened to damage my property or remove it I would not have shot him, a butt stroke is sufficient to stop him. In all cases one must exercise the minimum level of force. |
07:32pm 24/04/13 Permalink
I don't have a problem with background checks or cooling off periods as they do not infringe the core liberty to possession. We are talking about denying guns to criminals or mentally unstable people. If a person is fit and proper then why are they not entitled to own a gun of their choosing? It's a personal defence issue. Never bring a knife to a gunfight.First of all, I applaud you for having more sense than the average NRA person, as depicted by the video in the OP. Although most Australians would probably say that is setting the bar pretty low anyway :) The thing about the test for 'fit and proper' is that it has been proven, repeatedly, to not do do s*** against stopping people from committing crimes with firearms. Case in point: the guns used in the last school massacre were legally bought and owned by the a******'s mother. There is no test for 'fit and proper' that can reliably tell whether or not someone is going to flip the bugf*** out down the track (or tomorrow). What does work is taking guns out of the equation. Let's skip all the bulls*** though - if you are a true libertarian, the only logically consistent way to view things is to say "the occasional school massacre is the price one has to pay for a truly free society where people can own firearms". Right? I look at it the other way - the small price of not having a firearm is easily worth it to me to not have massacres in schools. |
07:48pm 24/04/13 Permalink
i dont want anyone in my society owning a gun. they dont need them. sometimes people are retarded and governments need to make decisions for them. What happens when the Government becomes the retard ? How do you disarm the Government ? America has had the right to bear arms for a very long time. Gun Massacres are something new. Americas problems arent due to the 2nd Amendment. They are due to other parts of the Constitution being trashed. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" is that America today ? Who is to blame for that ? The Government, the same group that wants to take away the Guns. How will things change if the Guns are taken away ? Wont the same causes of massacres still be present ? Howard disarmed Australians at a time when Australia was becoming one of the most peaceful, economical responsible and educated Countries in the World. He did it during the very best of times. The US Constitution is not there to protect Americans during the good times. In fact its true power lays in the security it provides for the people during the very bad times and those that created it knew they would come. A Gun massacre is a terrible thing but just imagine what kind of massacres are possible when the Government becomes the Maniac. Open up a history book. |
08:56pm 24/04/13 Permalink
So all of a sudden we have 15 years of no mass shootings on the precipice of Australia entering into a new wave of peace love and education?
Where have arms races worked lately, both either in a neighbourhood or internationally? The US Constitution is not there to protect Americans during the good times. 1. US Constitution written when guns were a single shot. 2. when has a government massacre been perpatrated by a western democracy on it's own people? |
09:36pm 24/04/13 Permalink
What happens when the Government becomes the retard ?This is the other dumb argument trotted out. Hey how well is the "let everyone have a gun" policy working out in Syria? If you get the point where you're fighting the government with bullets and not at the polling booth, you're already doomed. Respond to my point above - if you are pro-gun, are you tacitly implying that you are fine with the occasional massacre because that's just what it costs to let people have guns? |
10:18pm 24/04/13 Permalink
So ... more guns ... more gun deaths ...
|
10:22pm 24/04/13 Permalink
So ... more guns ... more gun deaths ... Lies, just let everyone have a gun and take down the maniac before (s)he kills someone. Makes sense. |
10:30pm 24/04/13 Permalink
That was an awesome interview.
Pure logic. |
10:30pm 24/04/13 Permalink
1. US Constitution written when guns were a single shot. It doesnt matter if its one shot or 1000 it is not about the kinds of Guns. 2. when has a government massacre been perpatrated by a western democracy on it's own people? Democracy is means of forming a Government. Its not a security in itself. America has introduced Laws that can suspend Elections. The Military can always carry out a Coup. Western Economies have enjoyed economic prosperity, good times, but if you look at the dark clouds over Europe, trouble is coming. Why do you trust the Government to have the Guns When they dont trust you to have the Guns ? |
11:12pm 24/04/13 Permalink
if you are pro-gun, are you tacitly implying that you are fine with the occasional massacre because that's just what it costs to let people have guns? Gun Massacres are symptom of larger problem. I dont see the Gun as the cause but you see it as the solution. Getting rid of Guns might make it a little tougher but it wont guarantee Freedom. How easy is it to get Drugs ? and they are illegal. Gun prohibition wont solve the Social problems, the mental Illness, the poverty, the sometimes plain old Evil behind Gun Massacres. Chicago has some of the toughest Gun Laws and the highest Gun killings. No Guns were used in the Boston attack. Might a Gun free America simply mean Maniacs will make IEDs ? |
11:23pm 24/04/13 Permalink
What happens when the Government becomes the retard ? 1. By always voting. Never give the one political party full control of government, the last time Australia did that we ended up with Work Choices. The US constitution was framed as a justification for rebellion against the British. The 2nd amendment justified the arming of ordinary people via militias. "The People" justified gun ownership based on ignoring the text before a comma. In other words semantics and the Judicial system upheld it. 2. Actually, everyone owning guns and being absorbed with the focus the USA has on guns promotes paranoia and vigilantism such as the KKK. The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow "the people" to own fully operational tanks and helicopter gun ships. 3. Indeed, history proves that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship frequently tempered with assassination. Unless you actually cite proof your whole argument is based on sophistry. I welcome the opportunity to poke out your eyes and skull f*** you when you can cite proof. |
11:42pm 24/04/13 Permalink
It doesnt matter if its one shot or 1000 it is not about the kinds of Guns. Explain why ? |
11:43pm 24/04/13 Permalink
What happens when the Government becomes the retard ?The same way as with guns, a lot of self sacrifice by brave people. |
11:51pm 24/04/13 Permalink
What happens when the Government becomes the retard ? Not to mention, you're not up against just one government anymore. |
11:55pm 24/04/13 Permalink
Citizens should be able to have nuclear weapons, anything less is an unwarranted imposition on liberty and safety. /s
|
11:56pm 24/04/13 Permalink
obes as long as the Government trusts the People with Arms then the People can have trust in their Government.
The Government should never become more powerful than the People. It is the servant of the people. |
01:05am 25/04/13 Permalink
Modern militaries have tanks, fighter jets, bombers, bunker busting bombs, artillery and in some case nukes. I'm thinking it might take just a little bit more than guns to stop a government/military that has gone totally off the rails.
|
01:06am 25/04/13 Permalink
That clip makes Borbidge out to be some sort of saint. Gun control might have played some part, but after Goss was kicked out the Nats didn't waste any time trying to cosy up to the police again and bring back the good old days of Bjelke-Petersen. Then Pauline Hanson pops up yelling "Azns took our jerbs!" and the conservative vote was in tatters.
The more things change the more they stay the same I guess. |
08:35pm 25/04/13 Permalink
When the 2nd amendment was written, firearms were very basic and not even half as lethal as a modern day bog standard semi automatic rifle or handgun as is shown in the first part of this episode of Lock & Load with R.Lee Ermy.
It is utterly retarded to think that you need a semi-automatic firearm to defend yourself against an unarmed person whom you suspect might harm you. Buy a dog, get a baseball bat, use pepper spray probably just as effective and you don't have to kill another human being with a weapon that has no other purpose other than to kill ... instantly. |
10:14pm 25/04/13 Permalink
PSA: The third and final segment aired last night.
Don't have a reliable link for non-US IPs. :) |
06:20am 27/04/13 Permalink
Except when you go skeet shooting, was quite fun doing it
|
08:35am 27/04/13 Permalink
Here's the thing that gets me about this. The following points of logic are presented as true:
- Gun control does not prevent access to weapons by criminals, and only affects only law-abiding citizens who follow the gun laws. Its an economic question, if there is a market to be filled then it will be. - We may one day need weapons to revolt against the Government. So ... I don't get it. Why wouldn't we enjoy the easy, unlawful access to weapons that criminals do when we stop obeying the law and stick it t the man? Anyone? |
09:34am 27/04/13 Permalink
Let's skip all the bulls*** though - if you are a true libertarian, the only logically consistent way to view things is to say "the occasional school massacre is the price one has to pay for a truly free society where people can own firearms". Right? They put traffic lights on intersections AFTER someone gets killed, so it;'s a bit like Captain Hindsight. Gun shootings are a minor issue compared to people killed on dangerous roads. I roll my eyes at the naive fools who think government abuse can never happen to us. Time and time again in the short period of modern history, governments throughout the world have abused civilians rights. Just because you haven't seen it in your lifetime it must be impossible now right? Holy s*** just look at the Arab Spring, a series of governments collapsed due to their abuse of their citizens. But here there are posters absolutely ruling it out as ever a possibility. England has had a civil war. France has had a revolution. Spain has had a civil war. Russia has had a revolution. Yugoslavia decayed into civil war causing hundred of thousands of deaths. Then there are the military coups. I don't understand why posters keep saying government excess is unthinkable. It is in fact common place. It is simply foolish to expect that life will always go in an orderly manner. When there are powerful forces tearing your community apart, good individuals should be empowered to intervene and restore order. Should the civilians be the disempowered dummies who just go along with whatever the people with the guns say? That is the point of the Second Amendment. |
10:55am 27/04/13 Permalink
you post would be hi-larious infi, if i didnt know you were being serious :(
|
10:59am 27/04/13 Permalink
The English Civil war as a reason for gun owner ship.
Hadn't guns only just been invented at that point, surely you would want lances for the under fives and mounted guards at schools to prevent the next sword massacre. |
11:08am 27/04/13 Permalink
I am interested to here what part of my post you think is hilarious? The government abuses part, or the deaths of civilians in civil wars part?
And Porno Pete do you understand that the references to those civil wars is not about the guns - it's about there being plentiful examples of government abuse of citizens and resulting civil unrest. |
11:15am 27/04/13 Permalink
And what exactly is a gun going to do against a tank?
|
11:21am 27/04/13 Permalink
Well if you can't see any practical or theoretical differences between the conditions of the English Civil war and contemporary Australian politics then you rightly deserve your mocking.
An Armed populous isn't particularly likely to produce a society of people holding hands skipping through fields of flowers, Every single one of those European examples ended in the armed populous trading one dictator for another. Oh and they were all popular armed uprisings. Cromwell Napoleon Franco Stalin. Popular insurrection for the win clearly. Armed mobs don't have a strong democratic tradition Infi and to suggest otherwise is dishonest. |
11:24am 27/04/13 Permalink
So you think government excess is completely impossible in any country anywhere, Spook. It's pretty ignorant when it's happening right now today in other places on the globe. Maybe Australia is so special an unique coz it's such a dinky di you beaut bonza place....
I remember 1999 when everyone thought a stock market collapse was impossible because "we are now in a new tech economy that is not linked to orthodox economics" wtf. You're one of those "it can never happen here" guys. Oh and then in 2007. Plenty of Aussies lost their super in those "it can never happen here" crashes. Chakas the vast majority of any civil conflict is fought man to man. Furthermore in areas far away from the centres of power there will be no tanks. Sounds like you are admitting that if an out of control government has tanks then there is no point fighting them - it's game over. Popular insurrection for the win clearly. Armed mobs don't have a strong democratic tradition Infi and to suggest otherwise is dishonest. the other alternative is submission to a government that does not respect its citizen's rights. |
11:28am 27/04/13 Permalink
the other alternative is submission to a government that does not respect its citizen's rights. No it isn't RE constitution of Australia Act 1901 |
11:32am 27/04/13 Permalink
It's not that anybody is ruling it out as a possibility. It's just that we don't have the thought process of a literal child and realise that even if every citizen had a gun it would still be a futile effort against a government that suddenly turned on us.
And let's face it, in the current political climate the chances of the government turning openly hostile is miniscule at best. The only person who probably thinks different is faceman and well, he's retarded. Add the tiny chance of the event actually happening, and the fact that an armed population versus a military is f***ed anyway, and you have pretty much the stupidest reason to advocate gun ownership a person could possibly think of. There is of course the other reason you advocate gun ownership, so that you can murder people, but personally I find that reason pretty stupid as well. |
11:35am 27/04/13 Permalink
That Ermey guy personifies the gun issue in the states, obsession.
|
11:45am 27/04/13 Permalink
England has had a civil war. France has had a revolution. Spain has had a civil war. Russia has had a revolution. Yugoslavia decayed into civil war causing hundred of thousands of deaths.How many of those were democracies? Besides, gun control doesn't stop law abiding citizens from attaining guns. It's a trivial thing to get a gun license in Australia. What it does do is limit the amount of guns that are in the hands of criminals. Can they still get guns? Sure. Can they get them as easily as they could before and in the same numbers? No, they can't. The fact that you have to keep your guns in a safe bolted to the ground means stealing them is difficult. The fact that the serial numbers are recorded in a national registry and spot inspections are carried out means selling them illegally is difficult to get away with. In America right now a gang member doesn't need to call up the Sons of Anarchy to get a high powered weapon, they just have to order it online from a legitimate shop. |
11:59am 27/04/13 Permalink
So you think government excess is completely impossible in any country anywhere, Spook. It's pretty ignorant when it's happening right now today in other places on the globe.Hey out of interest which places on the globe is it happening now? Also out of interest, how many of those have basically unrestricted access to firearms, no government regulation, no effective government control of anything, no government provided services, and all those other things you get when you actually end up with a "free market"? |
01:37pm 27/04/13 Permalink
Yes but have you noticed anything about the people in those countries trog? They aren't white. And as we all know, those non-whites have a cultural disposition to violence that whites simply don't have. If these free-market principles were applied to our race things would almost certainly be different.
^ this is literally what lolbertarians and infi believe. |
01:51pm 27/04/13 Permalink
Yeah that might be a bridge too far fpot.
|
01:58pm 27/04/13 Permalink
I laugh every time I mentioned something about guns on my facebook. All the gun nutters get so worked up about their rights and blah blah blah.
|
02:23pm 27/04/13 Permalink
Note that I have previously said that lolbertarians are a different breed to normal libertarians. The difference with lolbertarians is that they take libertarianism to it's fullest most uncompromising level for often hilarious results.
|
02:31pm 27/04/13 Permalink
The evidence he has provided so far points to repeated failure of white people in self governance. Anywho I just think citing a total breakdown in government into outright war as good reason for no gun control is patiently absurd, given outside the USA it nearly always ends in a dictatorship that is as bad or worse than what came before it.
Even more absurd when we all grew up in a country that is proof it doesn't have to be a "blood of patriots" model. |
02:50pm 27/04/13 Permalink
Fpot is obsessed with race. Everything is racist to him.
They aren't white. And as we all know, those non-whites have a cultural disposition to violence that whites simply don't have. It's got nothing to do with race, however ethnicity does play a part. Each ethnicity has their own culture and there is cultures that have a cultural disposition to violence. EG; Sudanese. Sudan is currently in conflict and is a very violent place where people have been exposed to heavy violence for decades. New generations have grown up experiencing this violence and they think it's acceptable. This is why Sudanese refugees in Victoria are the most violent ethnic group in the state and have the highest of offence rate than any other ethnicity in the state as per Victoria polices own states. Fpot will probably ignore this link so he can pretend what i said is false and troll, but for everyone else http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/violence-a-way-of-life-for-some/story-fn7x8me2-1226045873069 "It's a way of life for them to carry weapons," said one investigating officer. But if you ask Fpot why there is a higher rate of crime within their ethnicity the answer will be "IT'S CUZ DEY ARE BLACK AND ALL DA WHITES ARE TEH DA RACIST" |
03:16pm 27/04/13 Permalink
Fpot will probably ignore this link so he can pretend what i said is false and troll, but for everyone else http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/violence-a-way-of-life-for-some/story-fn7x8me2-1226045873069 Put anyone of any race in Dandenong and I am sure they would be violent too. I had to do a job out there for 3 days and catch the train out to Dandenong train station, never again. If the majority of your ethnic group is in a lower socio-economic group the chances are a lot of that ethnic group is going to be offending. |
03:50pm 27/04/13 Permalink
Hey out of interest which places on the globe is it happening now? Cyprus. |
05:08pm 27/04/13 Permalink
I too would be afraid of ninja police!
|
08:47pm 27/04/13 Permalink
11:17pm 27/04/13 Permalink
Chakas the vast majority of any civil conflict is fought man to man. Furthermore in areas far away from the centres of power there will be no tanks. Sounds like you are admitting that if an out of control government has tanks then there is no point fighting them - it's game over. Hypothetical: Abbott gets into power and suddenly wages war on the Australian people. Let's presume that some sort of military force is retained by the government in question necessitating some sort of civilian uprising. Or let's suggest that it's a military coup where Gillard raises an army of loyalist soldier who storm the parliament and invoke martial law. Either way your once-a-week at best gun range/target shooter gun hobby f***bags are going to be fighting TRAINED SOLDIERS. Who kill for a living. So unless you are proposing that every Australian citizen undergoes Green Beret training, your fantasy of a civilan lead victory over government backed military forces is just that: fantasy. Kinda reminds me of my old boss a bit. Tragic Young Liberal, private school boy, underevolved, completely sheltered hios whole life, everything handed to him, racist, misogynist and obsessed with war games and military history and all things gun related. He ate McDonalds every day, weighed about 150kgs and had never been in anything close to combat in his life, but he would always carry on about this battle and that rifle. Even in current day America where every man and his dog has a gun of some description, I would guess that even a small proportion of the military would have the capability and training to wipe the vast majority of the population off the face of the earth without breaking a sweat. So good luck urban cowboys. I'll just keep enjoying life and getting on with having a great time and let me know when the sky falls on yer head. |
12:34am 28/04/13 Permalink
Either way your once-a-week at best gun range/target shooter gun hobby f***bags are going to be fighting TRAINED SOLDIERS. Who kill for a living. The arab civilians do it in egypt etc? |
02:47am 28/04/13 Permalink
The arab civilians do it in egypt etc? Possibly a bit more battle hardened than your average Aussie? Australia isn't a gun culture like the US or the Middle East. I am all in favour of keeping it that way. The US example proves that once guns are embedded and prolific within a society it is an uphill battle trying to reverse the damage. Guns possibly aren't necessarily the root of the problem in the US but they sure as hell don't help. |
09:06am 28/04/13 Permalink
The arab civilians do it in egypt etc?Egyptians never fought the Egyptian military. |
09:33am 28/04/13 Permalink
The US example proves that once guns are embedded and prolific within a society it is an uphill battle trying to reverse the damage. The 2nd Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 Has there been 220 years of gun massacres ? |
11:08am 28/04/13 Permalink
The 2nd Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 Has there been 220 years of gun massacres ? I don't know the figures on gun massacres, but what there has been is 220 years of brainwashing/indoctrination across generations to believe that guns are a necessary part of society. It's not just about gun massacres and stats, it's about the psyche and belief system of a nation that supports violence and killing as a matter of course. I'm not suggesting that every American thinks this way, but gun culture is embedded within American culture i.e. the second amendment you're so fond of quoting. It's de-evolution. Most societies evolve from warlike, tribal autocracies into more sophisticated and peaceful modes such as democracy where people solve problems with the pen rather than the sword. You should probably recognise that your gun fetish is in fact a remnant of your cave man days where people weren't evolved enough to sort out problems diplomatically and had to resort to clubbing each other over the head. |
11:33am 28/04/13 Permalink
You should probably recognise that your gun fetish is in fact a remnant of your cave man days where people weren't evolved enough to sort out problems diplomatically and had to resort to clubbing each other over the head. No because in those days everyone was allowed to have a Club. Your Utopia is that those who rule have the Clubs and those who dont(the majority) arent allowed Clubs. Government is supposed to be the servant of the people. How come only they can own the Clubs ? weren't evolved enough to sort out problems diplomatically How do you solve problems diplomatically when one side is armed to the teeth and the other is disarmed ? |
11:49am 28/04/13 Permalink
How do you solve problems diplomatically when one side is armed to the teeth and the other is disarmed ? Ghandi |
12:32pm 28/04/13 Permalink
after watching the 3rd installment, THANK F*** I LIVE IN AUSTRALIA (even if it was jackboot johnny that did something good)
|
04:17pm 28/04/13 Permalink
No because in those days everyone was allowed to have a Club. Your Utopia is that those who rule have the Clubs and those who dont(the majority) arent allowed Clubs. The analogy doesn't really work like that because I was referring to the tribal consciousness rather than the accessibility of clubs but whatever. To use your example anyone can have a club if they want to in the current climate (as long as they're not mentally disturbed), just not a club that can club twenty people at a time. As has been previously been pointed out, unless you are advocating all citizens to be allowed nuclear/chemical weapons, air craft carriers and fighter jets, you need to draw the line somewhere. In a normal, rational person's mind that is with weapons available that aren't specifically designed to murder as many people as possible with the least amount of effort. You're not going to beat the government with an AK47, nor is one required to overpower your average mean spirited burglar or park lurking rapist. |
04:57pm 28/04/13 Permalink
Cyprus.Let us stipulate that I am horrified by what happened in Cyprus. It harks back to the days of kings when they would confiscate the wealth of nobles and merchants just because they could. It is a terrifying and I was shocked that the EU would condone it, let alone (apparently?) even suggest it as a solution to get Cyprus out of the s***. However, it sounds like you are advocating that the citizens rise up and use force of arms to revolt against their government to stop that happening? Is that what you are suggesting? The problem with that is that it is not consistent behaviour with someone that is happy living in a society where the government imposes taxes on you in order to create that society. Arguably if the citizens took up arms against the government the resulting turmoil, economic damage, etc would be far far worse than losing a few percentage points of your savings (...and that of rich Russians trying to dodge taxes). Once you've decided that being taxed ain't all that bad you may have to accept the occasional extra tax here and there in order to keep your society functioning (you might recall we had a flood levy a while back). The Cyprus thing was extreme and a bad precedent but ultimately I think the lessons of the last ~5 years have forever ended the era of unrestricted bank activity and "too big to fail" financial institutions. Noone will stand for it any more (and in Cyprus those who are having their money taken are being compensated with bank shares, so they can now help directly control the banks and hopefully profit from it). |
10:17am 29/04/13 Permalink
However, it sounds like you are advocating that the citizens rise up and use force of arms to revolt against their government to stop that happening? At some point that's the only option left. In Europe they seem careful enough to boil the frog in order to avoid that scenario though. |
10:33am 29/04/13 Permalink
At some point that's the only option left. In Europe they seem careful enough to boil the frog in order to avoid that scenario though.Sure. There's a dude on Slashdot who has this as his sig: "There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. " There's a long f*****g way before you get to the last one, is all I'm saying. |
11:00am 29/04/13 Permalink
However, it sounds like you are advocating that the citizens rise up and use force of arms to revolt against their government to stop that happening? Is that what you are suggesting? What the Cyrpus government did is outright theft. All the politicians who voted for that arrangement should be prosecuted for treason. But now that is not going to happen is it? So what do the poor gimps i.e. citizens do... We are lucky Australia has a constitutional provision which stops the appropriation of private property unless it is on just terms. What would you do if the Australian government took 10% of your $200k savings because you been saving for a home deposit. This is gutless criminal behaviour by a corrupt government that needs to be removed completely right away. There is no time for a ballot. Like a fox that raids to the chicken coup, he will just keep coming back for an easy meal until he is shot. Gutless politicians are like that: they always choose the path of least resistance until the citizens are completely under control. |
01:35pm 29/04/13 Permalink
I'd never heard of the Cyprus government doing that. I read all about Cyprus, the crisis, and the bailout - it's related to my job (cypriot customers have really let us down in recent months).
Now I searched "Cyprus government taking peoples money" and indeed there are articles saying that. But the articles I read never phrased it like that, so it didn't seem like that's what they did. The closest thing I would have read previously suggesting anybody lost money was: As part of the deal, a one-off bank deposit levy of 6.7% for deposits up to €100,000 and 9.9% for higher deposits, was announced on all domestic bank accounts. Which seems like a bunch of economic mumbo jumbo I just glossed over. Even if I focus my mind on this sentence all I get from it is that for new deposits there might be a small fee that wasn't there before, in which case you would just choose to bank elsewhere.... |
01:54pm 29/04/13 Permalink
Didn't the Cyprian population mostly support the move? I mean the majority of money targeted belonged to foreign tax dodgers and affected only a very small portion of the actual Cyprian population.
Either way it still ignores the fact that gun control does not mean 0 guns and that people can still own guns relatively easily in Australia as long as the gun is registered and the owner is licensed and it's not a mass murder device like an automatic machine gun. All of these arguments about not being able to defend yourself from the government are pretty much bulls***. Do you own a gun infi? If not, why, when you think it is such a vitally important thing to have? It's stupidly easy to do, all you have to do is either become a member of a gun club or get permission from a rural property owner to shoot on their land. Then you just have to state your reason to own a gun, like to one day over throw the government and bam you get a license. |
02:04pm 29/04/13 Permalink
What the Cyrpus government did is outright theft. All the politicians who voted for that arrangement should be prosecuted for treason. But now that is not going to happen is it? So what do the poor gimps i.e. citizens do...Once again you failed to answer my explicit question, but because I'm a sucker for punishment I will pretend that I have been diverted and respond to your comments. First of all, is it outright theft if you're compensated with shares in the bank? I would say it is not "outright theft" but "forcible investment" (or if you wanted to really nitpick, "forcible investment in a vessel whose failure is directly responsible for you having to make this forcible investment but boy we hope we're going to get some new legislation that'll stop it happening again"). I would also add that if they'd decided to NOT do this, and the banks had failed and bankruptcy happened and chaos reigned supreme, the net result could have been much much worse. Obviously this is what the government (and maybe the citizens?) believed. Again I don't necessarily disagree that they should have been allowed to fail. I sort of think it would have served as an interesting economic experiment on a small scale and possibly an extremely useful warning for Greece etc about not sorting their s*** out. I assume that economists actually have crunched numbers and figured a bailout was less costly overall, but who knows. We are lucky Australia has a constitutional provision which stops the appropriation of private property unless it is on just terms. What would you do if the Australian government took 10% of your $200k savings because you been saving for a home deposit.I am not really sure how this is significantly different to them plonking down an arbitrary flood levy (other than it affects my income, not my savings). "No time for a ballot" is sort of laughable. There's no time for a ballot, but quick - grab your guns and march on the capitol as a kneejerk reaction to whatever event you're pissed off at today! Is that what you are advocating? Obviously I have much higher standards than you do about when I'd be prepared to spill the blood of my countrymen (and democratically elected representatives) or have my own spilled. Certainly them taking some small percentage of my money to ensure our civilisation did not collapse is not a trigger event for me (and if you pay taxes at all I don't see how you could rationally think otherwise). |
04:01pm 29/04/13 Permalink
If you don't have property rights you don't have anything. It may seem like law and order to you but in fact it is simply a totalitarian government which can do what it likes with impunity - because we don't want a collapse of the money system. The Cypriots have become serfs earning money to be appropriated by a negligent lawless government.
You do realise that the Magna Carta was implemented in 1215 to stop a rebellion then by English Barons angry about appropriation of property by the Crown. Why are should individuals be supposed to accept sacrifice of their individual wealth being scooped up indiscriminately? And to answer your question about taking up arms to overthrow a government: We've seen what an angry mob can achieve in Egypt and Libya and Tunisia. Violent removal of the government is naturally the course of last resort but when the government resorts to raiding personal savings then rule of law has already been abandoned because property rights are core to rule of law. What kind of society would you describe where order is enforced by military while the government appropriates private property? Would you be OK with the military stationing their troops in your house? Where would you personally draw the line on behaviour which repudiates the existence of a lawful government of the people? This discussion no further advances the issue about gun control, I admit. But it is just another example of governments out of control, with no regard to individual freedom, which civilisation worked so hard to establish as an inalienable right. Cyprus has only shot itself in the foot though, it will become a shell economy with no further real investment. It's just as disgusting that the European Central Bank (another unelected dictatorship) insisted on this theft by Cyprus in order to access a bailout which it has already extended to other countries without such conditions. Bullies always go for the small target: ECB went for Cyprus and Cyprus went for its depositors. |
05:27pm 29/04/13 Permalink
You do realise that the Magna Carta was implemented in 1215 to stop a rebellion then by English Barons angry about appropriation of property by the Crown. And a few other things Infi, Comparing that to Cyprus is a tad ridiculous. More over, as you admit I guess, It seems hardly a reasonable analogy to draw that, forced investment therefore armed mob. If the military decided it was going to station troops in your house I really don't see how having a gun is going to stop them doing it. The most likely outcome is you get shot and they do it anyway and now no one is alive to at least try to reclaim the property. My god man *some* gun control, is so obviously not an attack on habeas corpus you must be taking the piss. |
07:21pm 29/04/13 Permalink
