not sure it could be a call to arms, but definitely a call to unite. there is the democratic and legal systems to use first,
diplomacy should always be the first option.
so far the AWB has not been implemented as yet, so i guess the 1st amendment gives him the right to say what he thinks.
obama stated before he first got elected that he would not interfere with the 2nd amendment, but when he got elected he started to make signs
he was anti gun, and now is calling for AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) and is gathering support by using the emotion generated by the unfortunate recent events.
Firearm laws are the responsibility of state governments (same as Australia) and there are many state law enforcement agencies now on official record as
saying they will up hold the constitution, and will not enforce an AWB and will resist any attempts by the federal gov: to interfere in there states.
btw, an AWB is not a correct term to use to describe firearms they wish to ban, but it sounds good to get support from the uneducated about firearms.
an assault weapon as classed by manufactures, defence forces and law enforcement agencies usually does not include the AR15.
a HKG36C, MP5 and similar compact models usually with full auto or burst fire capability are class as assault weapons which are already banned in
most states of the US by having restrictions on barrel length, overall length and full auto capability for firearms able to be owned by civilians.
diplomacy should always be the first option.
so far the AWB has not been implemented as yet, so i guess the 1st amendment gives him the right to say what he thinks.
obama stated before he first got elected that he would not interfere with the 2nd amendment, but when he got elected he started to make signs
he was anti gun, and now is calling for AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) and is gathering support by using the emotion generated by the unfortunate recent events.
Firearm laws are the responsibility of state governments (same as Australia) and there are many state law enforcement agencies now on official record as
saying they will up hold the constitution, and will not enforce an AWB and will resist any attempts by the federal gov: to interfere in there states.
btw, an AWB is not a correct term to use to describe firearms they wish to ban, but it sounds good to get support from the uneducated about firearms.
an assault weapon as classed by manufactures, defence forces and law enforcement agencies usually does not include the AR15.
a HKG36C, MP5 and similar compact models usually with full auto or burst fire capability are class as assault weapons which are already banned in
most states of the US by having restrictions on barrel length, overall length and full auto capability for firearms able to be owned by civilians.
LMAO. Yeah, they love freedom. Patriot act anyone? TSA? Drones to be let loose all over the country in 2015? America, now killing its citizens without trial. America, calling its citizens "enemy combatants" and holding them without trial. The list goes on. Americans think they love freedom. America likes to tell the world how free they are and how we should all copy America. America is fast becoming a corporate fascist state. America - failed.jt said:
I laugh at all these people holding all this weaponry to combat a tyrannical government. Guess what? Your government is already tyrannical and not one shot has been fired in anger.
capt.sparrow
New Member
doomsday surprise said:
The Patriot Act is unconstitutional and so is the TSA. The point is their constitution has checks and balances in it to prevent the federal government from becoming too big and taking away citizens rights.
Australia's constitution has no such protections in it. Australia is also the no 1 police state in the western world, meaning that there is more spying by government agencies on private citizens than anywhere else - including america. In fact in Australia the government spies TEN TIMES more on its citizens than the US government does.
So catch a wakeup friend - you don't know what you're talking about
capt.sparrow
New Member
I dont think DDS could be more wrong even if he tried. his smug attitude and remarks about the americans and their constitution shows nothing but ignorance.
those who live in a glass castle should not be throwing stones
those who live in a glass castle should not be throwing stones
ddsurprise is calling the US federal gov: tyrannic which is at the heart of this thread.
i not going to defend the US federal government or how they think they need to response to threats.
but as said they have a constitution that helps to protect their values and freedoms.
there is the democratic and legal systems to use, diplomacy should always be the first option over spilling blood.
and it's not just citizens with firearms, some of those citizens are law enforcement and military personnel and part of government dept:'s etc:.
in Australia people are treated more like subjects rather than citizens, with rights that are given to us by government.
i not going to defend the US federal government or how they think they need to response to threats.
but as said they have a constitution that helps to protect their values and freedoms.
there is the democratic and legal systems to use, diplomacy should always be the first option over spilling blood.
and it's not just citizens with firearms, some of those citizens are law enforcement and military personnel and part of government dept:'s etc:.
in Australia people are treated more like subjects rather than citizens, with rights that are given to us by government.
shinymetal
Well-Known Member
a judge told you that you have no rights? they are only privileges granted to you by the state? that is seriously messed up...
capt.sparrow said:
Interesting question in light of previous discussion points. Former PM Howard opposed a republic and Bill of Rights because (from memory) the common law protection under the Crown was greater than under a Bill of Rights - e.g. appeals to the Supreme court to defend your rights under a Bill of Rights versus defending your rights on precedent.
Can any armchair constitutionalists throw light on this?
renovator said:
Our last premier here in SA (Mike Rann) was always going on about hoon drivers. He used to get up on his soap box from time to time and go on about how using the roads is a privilege.
Incorrect herr Rann, those roads were build with the peoples money for use by the people. He was the one who has the privilege (not the right) to oversee lawmaking.
I was always waiting for a reporter to pick him up on it, but none ever did.
Sad times.
shinymetal
Well-Known Member
an introduction to your basic human rights... << this is very interesting stuff...
it is 20 10 minute videos... if you have time to kill, you might want to give it a watch. quite informative.
it is canadian.. not all of it is relevant to Australia. but none the less interesting. quite a rabbit hole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUs2MW6a9aQ
it is 20 10 minute videos... if you have time to kill, you might want to give it a watch. quite informative.
it is canadian.. not all of it is relevant to Australia. but none the less interesting. quite a rabbit hole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUs2MW6a9aQ
How is the Wikipedia link related?
Is it a legal fact that driving is a privelage?
edit:
Motor Vehicles Act 195931.1.2013
Part 3Drivers' licences
4 This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 [31.1.2013]
75Issue and renewal of licences
(1) Subject to this Act, the Registrar must issue a licence to, or renew the licence of, any
person who
(aa) is of or above the age of 16 years and 6 months and is resident in this State;
and
(a) makes a written application for the licence or renewal in a form determined
by the Minister; and
(b) forwards with the application the prescribed fee; and
(c) has complied with any requirements of the Registrar under section 77B.
Key word is must - I would think that is because we have a right to use the roads we have paid for.
Is it a legal fact that driving is a privelage?
edit:
Motor Vehicles Act 195931.1.2013
Part 3Drivers' licences
4 This version is not published under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002 [31.1.2013]
75Issue and renewal of licences
(1) Subject to this Act, the Registrar must issue a licence to, or renew the licence of, any
person who
(aa) is of or above the age of 16 years and 6 months and is resident in this State;
and
(a) makes a written application for the licence or renewal in a form determined
by the Minister; and
(b) forwards with the application the prescribed fee; and
(c) has complied with any requirements of the Registrar under section 77B.
Key word is must - I would think that is because we have a right to use the roads we have paid for.
shinymetal
Well-Known Member
say you buy a car. that car belongs to you, paid for with your money. it is yours...
until you register that car, by doing this you split the title, more or less giving half of the ownership over that car to the government and in doing so agreeing that you will drive it in a particular way and follow certain rules.
I'm not a lawyer, and i can't say i totally understand this. i do register my car but from what i understand there are arguments you can use to get around registering your car, and well lots of things... something to do with the "natural" and the "artificial" person. quite complex and a massive rabbit hole.
until you register that car, by doing this you split the title, more or less giving half of the ownership over that car to the government and in doing so agreeing that you will drive it in a particular way and follow certain rules.
I'm not a lawyer, and i can't say i totally understand this. i do register my car but from what i understand there are arguments you can use to get around registering your car, and well lots of things... something to do with the "natural" and the "artificial" person. quite complex and a massive rabbit hole.
JulieW said:
i believe a bill of rights and common law are a little different and can exist together.
to put it very basically common law is a huge amount of laws set by court precedents of how to up hold laws in a consistent manner,
statute laws are made by governments, a bill of rights are the important laws for citizens rights which can be set to make it hard for governments to interfere with the people rights.
there are a many type of rights but some rights are set by courts, other rights are legislated by governments, and unalienable rights which are not able to be taken away by government or courts.
here's an extract from wikipedia on bill of rights,
" Australia is the only Western democratic country with neither a constitutional nor legislative bill of rights, although there is ongoing debate in many of Australia's states.
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard has argued against a bill of rights for Australia as transferring power from elected politicians to unelected judges and bureaucrats.
Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) are the only states and territories to have a human rights bill."
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights
seems howard only wanted government to have the right to make rights.
as for a monarchy or republic,, i just thought howard had a loyalty to the mother country.
or maybe it was that he didn't want to give people constitutional rights that could not be interfered with by governments.
laws are such a mine field and could be debated to the end of time.
wow this thread is turning into much more than comments on a debate between alex jones & piers morgan over gun control
How so? Was anything I said untrue? The point is - if the TSA and patriot act are unconstitutional then why isn't anyone doing anything about it?capt.sparrow said:
And tell me more about Australia being the no 1 police state in the western world by a factor of ten? I've never heard this before so please inform we of what you know.
Just because I criticised the USA doesn't make it any less true. All I hear about this gun debate is Americans going on about protecting themselves from a tyrannical government. If you don't want to see it fine - but don't shoot me down because you don't want to hear the truth.
AngloSaxon
Active Member
JulieW said:
My constant argument against a Bill of Rights is, which and whose rights will the Bill enshrine?
Is it a charter of positive liberties or a charter of negative liberties? Ie a bill that says what you can do - which by default means what is outside the bill of rights is likely illegal? Unacceptable to me! Or is the bill to be a charter of negative liberties - detailing what the government can't do to you e.g. the US Constitution.
Will the Bill enshrine rights to private property that already exist in Common Law? Or create rights of government to tax the populace out of its' private property by whatever means to pay for whatever means a government or its' supporters sees fit - thereby eroding the power of parliament and sanctity of private property. Well that second one is unacceptable!
Does the Bill guarantee an independent judiciary and trial by jury like in the British Bill of Rights (1689), which means in Australia we have inherited this through Common Law? Or would the Bill provide a Napoleonic code or continental style judiciary where the judge is also effectively the prosecutor. The inquisitorial system outside the Coroners Court is unacceptable!
Are these rights granted by God, or alternately for atheists, rights inherent in Man as sentient beings - rights for all time. Or rights granted by government that government can tinker with every time a new Attorney General (eg Roxon) has a bright idea.
Are the responsibilities of government/parliament enshrined or further defined in the Bill (eg ~28 page Australian Constitution) for parliament to then go and write Statutes, or is the Bill going to mimic the EU Constitution and contain 800+ pages of exact legislation including offences like that of the Corporations Act and Crimes Act?
Every time I try to glean something out of the Victorian Bill of Rights Canadian Bills of Rights/human rights law - I find those things that are unacceptable. Most people hear 'Bill of Rights' and agree to having a Bill as rights must be a good thing, right? Well no, it depends on who has the rights allowed under the Bill. And we never have that conversation.
Google the British Bill of Rights 1689 and the principles that enshrined. We have most of those principles granted as Common Law in Australia already. That's the way I like it, and am forever opposed to a new Bill of Rights being generated for Australia just to say 'we have one'. People who want one don't understand how the Common Law works.