2nd Amendment thread

NickTheGreat

Pulling my weight
Joined
Oct 19, 2017
Messages
140
Reaction score
246
Location
Iowa
When I was in Australia last (2013) I had no less than 5 different people warn me not to follow in the footsteps of them. Usually referring to guns. But politically in general. This was largely unprovoked, usually after just finding out I was from the States. Just sitting there on a glass-bottom boat or in a hired car.

I told them I'm just one man, but I'd do my best! ;)
 

wittaj

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
24,430
Reaction score
47,552
Location
USA
 

SyconsciousAu

Getting comfortable
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
872
Reaction score
825
What about owning and using a speargun for home defense? It's not a firearm.
As long as they are longer that 45cm (18") unloaded, then they are not prohibited. Use still has to be justifiable at law.


We believe you DO have that right, and your government is infringing on it.
No such right exists in either the Australian Constitution or Law. , In fact, with respect to your 2A, our Constitution would specifically prohibit any law made by any state in similar terms, because the states are not allowed to raise forces. Something along the line of your state National Guards would be prohibited.
 

David L

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
7,932
Reaction score
20,757
Location
USA
Funny how they make up percentages, 25% less likely, haha, like the less likely claims on the Clot Shot...what a stupid article, let me take you to East L.A., they have the most gang activity next to Chicago in the U.S.
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
14,735
Location
South Dakota
No such right exists in either the Australian Constitution or Law. , In fact, with respect to your 2A, our Constitution would specifically prohibit any law made by any state in similar terms, because the states are not allowed to raise forces. Something along the line of your state National Guards would be prohibited.
and therein lies the philosophical difference between Australia and the US.

We do not accept the idea that
GOVERNMENT Grants Rights TO People as the government sees fit.
We believe we are BORN with rights, and that it is the duty and responsibility of Government to preserve and protect those rights, not to infringe upon them.


Is that really a "radical" late-18th century notion that has outlived it's usefullness? Only if you are someone who is willing to do nothing but Submit to the authority that YOU grant government and bureaucracy. Not here.
 

SyconsciousAu

Getting comfortable
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
872
Reaction score
825
Are you applying American laws for Australia ?
Where did you get that idea?

A Speargun is not a firearm so it doesn't apply.
Spearguns under 45cm are considered prohibited weapons here for which you need a permit


Would the same requirement's apply for a crossbow?
A crossbow needs a prohibited weapons permit.


and therein lies the philosophical difference between Australia and the US.

We do not accept the idea that
GOVERNMENT Grants Rights TO People as the government sees fit.
We believe we are BORN with rights, and that it is the duty and responsibility of Government to preserve and protect those rights, not to infringe upon them.


Is that really a "radical" late-18th century notion that has outlived it's usefullness? Only if you are someone who is willing to do nothing but Submit to the authority that YOU grant government and bureaucracy. Not here.
I prefer our system where laws are decided by a representative Parliament that we voted for, and who we can vote out. I know you believe you are born with rights, but I agree with many legal scholars who point out that your "rights" are dependent on a total of nine people, and often only five of them, who you didn't vote for, and can't vote out, in the form of the United States Supreme Court. It always pays to remember that the possession of firearms for purposes not related to a Militia was not a constitutional "right" in the US until DC vs Heller in 2008, and that decision was by a bare majority only, whereas Abortion was a "right" from 1973 until 2002 when the Supreme Court took that "right" away. I don't want to get into the merits of either decision, they are just a couple of well know ones to illustrate a point.



Is that really a "radical" late-18th century notion that has outlived it's usefullness? Only if you are someone who is willing to do nothing but Submit to the authority that YOU grant government and bureaucracy. Not here.
You frame it as subservience but here in Australia we the voter grant power to the legislature to act on our behalf, and we the voter hold the power to elect a different government who will legislate differently if we don't like it. What option do you have if the US SC gets stacked with justices who lean left, and all of a sudden those "rights" you believe you are born with are not so guaranteed anymore?
 

bigredfish

Known around here
Joined
Sep 5, 2016
Messages
17,013
Reaction score
47,467
Location
Floriduh
The only difference I’m hearing is the Supreme Court. Our legislature operates the same basic way as yours: we vote them in or out.

You have no judicial court system that determines if something is lawful or not?
 

bigredfish

Known around here
Joined
Sep 5, 2016
Messages
17,013
Reaction score
47,467
Location
Floriduh
Sounds pretty damn similar to me



Supreme court: High Court of Australia

Ministry: Attorney-General’s Department



The High Court of Australia deals with cases involving international law and domestic constitutional issues, and, at its discretion, with appeals arising from the lower courts, where they are considered to be of sufficient public interest, or where there are differences in the interpretation of the law among the lower courts. It is presided over by a chief justice and six justices. Most sittings are scheduled in Canberra, though every month there is a sitting in Melbourne or Sydney, and generally every year in Adelaide, Brisbane, Hobart and Perth.

Other federal courts include the Federal Court and the Family Court – each presided over by a chief justice – and the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Court’s jurisdiction encompasses almost all civil matters arising under Australian federal law and some summary criminal cases. The Family Court is the country’s superior court in family law.
The Federal Magistrates Court was established in 1999.

Each of the states and territories has a supreme court presided over by a chief justice. The state and territory courts deal with most criminal cases and all matters under state or territory law. Judges are appointed by the government which does not have the power to sack them.
 

David L

IPCT Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2019
Messages
7,932
Reaction score
20,757
Location
USA
Top