Hi guys,

How would you define rightful liberty?

Lloyd Billingsley - The Absence of Tyranny

He says that freedom is the absence of tyranny - not the unfettered 'right' to do as thou wilt... with freedom comes the responsibility to behave (even if you are 'the government' - a very real issue there that ever so many overlook in their delusions about The Divine Right Of Elected (and other - 70% of government is via regulation and other bodies than Parliaments, and therein lie many serious dangers) - Government - correctly and within the laws and without violating others.

Billingsley takes his position from that of a dedicated Christian, and applies the concepts of that religion as alleged to be the teachings of Christ and the Ten Commandments - but all societies function on those similar principles, so it is hard to criticise him as 'radical christian', since he advocates nothing extreme, but only an adherence to a set of moral principles.

Moral principles are the framework on which societies seek to pin their ... morals and mores.... and can become tainted through rote or unquestioning learning - as we see in some strands of Islam, which can lead to the very real dangers of 'killing all Infidels' rather than applying the tenets of that religion properly.

At the end of the day, freedom is the right in any society to choose whether or not to adhere to the moral principles of that society....... to do otherwise is to risk losing your freedom........ so you can argue that it is not a real freedom....

Does the end of moral principles justify the means? 

I don't know about liberty, but Freeeedom (TM) is about slagging off the tinted races.

Oh, they'll say it's about banning Islam - sorry, "criticizing" Islam - but it's all just a jolly moan about little dark people.

Freeeeedom means we have to invade them or send in the drones. Freeeedom means we get to choose their bosses. Freeeeedom means we get to tell them who they need to trade with, and which foreign companies get to take over their public assets. Freeeedom means we get to tell them what to do.

If they complain, it's playing the victim. If they say something mean about their captors, it's racism. If they try to get out, it's cowardice, laziness, or an invasion of wherever they end up. You know, barbarians at the gates.

If anyone questions Freeeeedom or points out its porkie-pies, they're a spineless apologist. If anyone says it's not true freedom, they're a traitor. We all know where traitors wind up: rounded up and gassed on mass or shot point-blank in the back of the neck. In the fullness of time, of course.

Liberty, equality, fraternity - all rubbish. We support Freeeeeedom.

Or else.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the US Declaration of Independence stated:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person.

And Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.

bogarde73 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 12:03pm:

And Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner.

Do we ignore all of the good things that a person does, because of their faults?

No, we distinguish between a person's good achievements and contributions to society, and their faults as a human being.

I have cracked it!


Quote:

lib·er·ty  (lĭb′ər-tē) n. pl. lib·er·ties 1. The condition of being free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. 2. a. The condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power. b. A right to engage in certain actions without control or interference by a government or other power: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. 3. The right or power to act as one chooses: "Her upcountry isolation ... gave her the liberty to be what she wanted to be, free of the pressure of spotlights and literary fashions" (Lucinda Franks). 4. often liberties A deliberate departure from what is proper, accepted, or prudent, especially: a. A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention: "I'd leave her with a little kiss on the cheek—I never took liberties" (Harold Pinter). b. A departure from strict compliance: took several liberties with the recipe. c. A deviation from accepted truth or known fact: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology. d. An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes. 5. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.

Basically being free to hold and express social and political views, as well as being able to choose how your life your life, more generally.

There are number of things that limit liberty, some are unavoidable such as physics.

Kytro wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 1:18pm:

There are number of things that limit liberty, some are unavoidable such as physics.

What are the other limits on liberty that you were thinking of?

My freedom to swing my arms ends where your face begins.

No-one has the right not to be offended.


Quote:

70% of government is via regulation and other bodies than Parliaments, and therein lie many serious dangers

Democracy and liberty are not the same thing. The destruction of our freedoms can happen through entirely democratic processes.

So long as they are created by and ultimately answerable to democratic processes, this is not necessarily a danger. For example there is sound reasoning for making the reserve bank as independent as possible, yet it was created by a democratically elected government and can be disbanded by it. If the majority of the population wanted to get rid of it, it would happen.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 2:53pm:

My freedom to swing my arms ends where your face begins. No-one has the right not to be offended. Quote: 70% of government is via regulation and other bodies than Parliaments, and therein lie many serious dangers Democracy and liberty are not the same thing. The destruction of our freedoms can happen through entirely democratic processes. So long as they are created by and ultimately answerable to democratic processes, this is not necessarily a danger.

Do you mean like banning Muslims because we don't want them here?

Is that the sort of thing you mean, FD?

Historically.......liberty meant getting rid of an aristocracy (France) and colonialists (USA.)

Then the replacements/gap fillers limited liberty at their very creation.  There is no such thing, unless you are happy with your own resources on an island no one else knows about.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 2:53pm:

My freedom to swing my arms ends where your face begins. No-one has the right not to be offended. Quote: 70% of government is via regulation and other bodies than Parliaments, and therein lie many serious dangers Democracy and liberty are not the same thing. The destruction of our freedoms can happen through entirely democratic processes. So long as they are created by and ultimately answerable to democratic processes, this is not necessarily a danger. For example there is sound reasoning for making the reserve bank as independent as possible, yet it was created by a democratically elected government and can be disbanded by it. If the majority of the population wanted to get rid of it, it would happen.

Just don't swing that fish - nothing worse than a slap in the face with a dead fish... a proud denizen of the deep and at the top of the feeding chain now reduced to fish and chips.....

You are correct - everything the NAZIs put in place was legal and according to that form of 'democracy' - trouble began when the rest of the world didn't agree.... and hung a few for it....

There seems to be an object lesson there somewhere...

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 2:37pm:

Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 1:18pm: There are number of things that limit liberty, some are unavoidable such as physics. What are the other limits on liberty that you were thinking of?

Effectively the social and political limits. Humans are a social species, which means we working and live in groups. Part of that mean creating a a set of rules. We generally don't let people kill each other without consequence, for example.

These limits are usually drawn up by governments, but there voluntary groups with different additional limits.

Freedom can be limited by two things:

* Other people. The closer you live to other people, the less you can get away with before you infringing on their rights and freedoms

* Wealth. You can't do much if you are poor. Hunter gatherers have a lot of liberty by the first measure, as well as plenty of free time to enjoy it, but very little by the second measure. A rich person these days has the whole world at their disposal. Unfortunately so do lots of other people.

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

Positive liberty
"is involved in the answer to the question 'What, or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?' The two questions are clearly different, even though the answers to them may overlap."[6]
Positive liberty may be understood as self-mastery, and includes one's having a role in choosing who governs the society of which one is a part.[citation needed] Berlin traced positive liberty from Aristotle's definition of citizenship, which is historically derived from the social role of the freemen of classical Athens: it was, Berlin argued, the liberty in choosing their government granted to citizens, and extolled, most famously, by Pericles. Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent valid human ideals, and that both forms of liberty are necessary in any free and civilised society (Clarke and Singh).[citation needed]

Negative liberty
"liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons'."[7]
For Berlin, negative liberty represents a different, and sometimes contradictory, understanding of the concept of liberty, which needs to be carefully examined. Its later proponents (such as Tocqueville, Constant, Montesquieu, John Locke, David Hume and John Stuart Mill,[citation needed] who accepted Chrysippus' understanding of self-determination)[8] insisted that constraint and discipline were the antithesis of liberty and so were (and are) less prone to confusing liberty and constraint in the manner of rationalists and the philosophical harbingers of totalitarianism.[citation needed] This concept of negative liberty, Berlin argued, constitutes an alternative, and sometimes even opposed, concept to positive liberty, and one often closer to the intuitive modern usage of the word.

Abuse of positive liberty
Isaiah Berlin notes that historically positive liberty has proven particularly susceptible to rhetorical abuse; especially from the 18th century onwards, it has either been paternalistically re-drawn from the third-person, or conflated with the concept of negative liberty and thus disguised underlying value-conflicts.

Berlin contended that under the influence of Plato, Aristotle, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel, modern political thinkers often conflated positive liberty with rational action, based upon a rational knowledge to which, it is argued, only a certain elite or social group has access.[9] This rationalist conflation was open to political abuses, which encroached on negative liberty, when such interpretations of positive liberty were, in the nineteenth century, used to defend nationalism, paternalism, social engineering, historicism, and collective rational control over human destiny. Berlin argued that, following this line of thought, demands for freedom paradoxically could become demands for forms of collective control and discipline – those deemed necessary for the "self-mastery" or "self-determination" of nations, classes, democratic communities, and even humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty, when it is rhetorically conflated with goals imposed from the third-person that the individual is told they "should" rationally desire, and the justifications for political totalitarianism, which contrary to value-pluralism, presupposed that values exist in Pythagorean harmony.[citation needed]

Freeeedom, innit. Where does banning religion come into it, FD?

I'm curious.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 11:51am:

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the US Declaration of Independence stated: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person.

That's a fabulous definition.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:45pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 11:51am: Thomas Jefferson, the author of the US Declaration of Independence stated: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person. That's a fabulous definition.

Sure.....depends who is drawing the limits 'around us.'

I took the liberty of decentralizing from the big city ... good bye to multiculturalism, congested traffic, kabab shops lacing coffee with epson salts, neighbors from hell, noise pollution, carbon monoxide

I now get peace of mind, lower stress level, picturesque scenery, friendly local folks as neighbors, clean air to breath, a minimum of government interference and I get a plentiful supply of free water

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 11:51am:

I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person.

This is far more complex than it might appear.

Say I want to live on the banks of a river at a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other.

This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people.

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:47pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:45pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 11:51am: Thomas Jefferson, the author of the US Declaration of Independence stated: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person. That's a fabulous definition. Sure.....depends who is drawing the limits 'around us.'

There is that 'lawyer brain' of yours at work. Utterly unable to work out the rather simple answer.

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:50pm:

I took the liberty of decentralizing from the big city ... good bye to multiculturalism, congested traffic, kabab shops lacing coffee with epson salts, neighbors from hell, noise pollution, carbon monoxide I now get peace of mind, lower stress level, picturesque scenery, friendly local folks as neighbors, clean air to breath, a minimum of government interference and I get a plentiful supply of free water

Only if you obtain it unlawfully.

Kytro wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 11:51am: I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person. This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river at a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people.

If you are looking for a definition of liberty you will never get one that codifies ever conceivable interaction among men. The definition itself assumes people with a genuine desire for liberty and a respect for the rights of others which would solve all such issues amicable and reasonably.

The failure of freedom everywhere is that such people are not the majority - hence judicial systems, police and often... conflict.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:04pm:

Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:57pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 11:51am: I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person. This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river at a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people. If you are looking for a definition of liberty you will never get one that codifies ever conceivable interaction among men. The definition itself assumes people with a genuine desire for liberty and a respect for the rights of others which would solve all such issues amicable and reasonably. The failure of freedom everywhere is that such people are not the majority - hence judicial systems, police and often... conflict.

The point is more that freedom and liberty are large part illusion, no matter if the government has regulations or not. Factors that cannot be controlled drive so much of where you will end up, what you will become and how your life will unfold that it often renders the choices that you can predict meaningless.

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:08pm:

Historically.......liberty meant getting rid of an aristocracy (France) and colonialists (USA.) Then the replacements/gap fillers limited liberty at their very creation.  There is no such thing, unless you are happy with your own resources on an island no one else knows about.

Actually, in the US liberty meant getting rid of the monarchy, and establishing a constitutional republic. It was the colonialists that fought to remove the monarchy and become free.

Kytro wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 11:51am: I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person. This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river at a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people.

It is a principle, not a rule. So long as you both have equal legal access, the principle holds.


Quote:

The point is more that freedom and liberty are large part illusion, no matter if the government has regulations or not. Factors that cannot be controlled drive so much of where you will end up, what you will become and how your life will unfold that it often renders the choices that you can predict meaningless.

You are confusing liberty with power. It does not mean having everything you want, or the absence of natural limits.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:14pm:

Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:57pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 11:51am: I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person. This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river at a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people. It is a principle, not a rule. So long as you both have equal legal access, the principle holds. Quote: The point is more that freedom and liberty are large part illusion, no matter if the government has regulations or not. Factors that cannot be controlled drive so much of where you will end up, what you will become and how your life will unfold that it often renders the choices that you can predict meaningless. You are confusing liberty with power. It does not mean having everything you want, or the absence of natural limits.

It's just a cloak for reality, though. What's the benefit a principle that does nothing?

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:01pm:

Only if you obtain it unlawfully.

lol you're a card maria, trying to incriminate me ? when you've got a large tank holding more H2o than I ever need per month and usually much longer than that, you'll get it for free too

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:08pm: Historically.......liberty meant getting rid of an aristocracy (France) and colonialists (USA.) Then the replacements/gap fillers limited liberty at their very creation.  There is no such thing, unless you are happy with your own resources on an island no one else knows about. Actually, in the US liberty meant getting rid of the monarchy, and establishing a constitutional republic. It was the colonialists that fought to remove the monarchy and become free.

That is a given, and in that very process, established rules which are anathema to 'liberty.'

Kytro wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:19pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:14pm: Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:57pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 11:51am: I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person. This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river at a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people. It is a principle, not a rule. So long as you both have equal legal access, the principle holds. Quote: The point is more that freedom and liberty are large part illusion, no matter if the government has regulations or not. Factors that cannot be controlled drive so much of where you will end up, what you will become and how your life will unfold that it often renders the choices that you can predict meaningless. You are confusing liberty with power. It does not mean having everything you want, or the absence of natural limits. It's just a cloak for reality, though. What's the benefit a principle that does nothing?

Absolutely.  It's (liberty) a nice notion to discuss but in the real world, it simply does not exist.

Kytro wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:57pm:

This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river t a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people.

It comes down to whether or not the property was justly acquired or not. Whoever has it first owns it. Particularly if they've worked the land.

Kytro wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 3:57pm:

This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river t a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people.

It comes down to whether or not the property was justly acquired or not. Whoever has it first owns it. Particularly if they've worked the land.

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:26pm:

That is a given, and in that very process, established rules which are anathema to 'liberty.'

No, they are not anathema to liberty at all. Liberty and Anarchy are not the same thing.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:33pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:26pm: That is a given, and in that very process, established rules which are anathema to 'liberty.' No, they are not anathema to liberty at all. Liberty and Anarchy are not the same thing.

That's precisely why there is no such thing as liberty.  It does not exist anywhere.

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:36pm:

That's precisely why there is no such thing as liberty.  It does not exist anywhere.

Untrue, I gave you a perfect example of rightful liberty, that is what limitations should we be subjected to and the limitations show that a government shouldn't prevent us from doing anything unless it infringes on the equal rights of others.

Other factors like environment etc are irrelevant. To suggest that we could never truly be free because of gravity as some means to detract from tangible liberty that can be achieved through adhering to the principle of rightful liberty is preposterous and asinine.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:51pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:36pm: That's precisely why there is no such thing as liberty.  It does not exist anywhere. Untrue, I gave you a perfect example of rightful liberty, that is what limitations should we be subjected to and the limitations show that a government shouldn't prevent us from doing anything unless it infringes on the equal rights of others. Other factors like environment etc are irrelevant. To suggest that we could never truly be free because of gravity as some means to detract from tangible liberty that can be achieved through adhering to the principle of rightful liberty is preposterous and asinine.

Ya see those two words.  They are qualifiers or conditions, and as soon as they exist...............out goes liberty.

You really ought to be discussing the limits of conditions which will acceptably impose on some lofty utopian notion called liberty.

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:55pm:

Ya see those two words.  They are qualifiers or conditions, and as soon as they exist...............out goes liberty. You really ought to be discussing the limits of conditions which will acceptably impose on some lofty utopian notion called liberty.

So go back to the question that I asked at the beginning. Did I not ask what rightful liberty is?

I didn't ask what philosophical and unattainable liberty is, so perhaps actually make a contribution based on that.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:55pm: Ya see those two words.  They are qualifiers or conditions, and as soon as they exist...............out goes liberty. You really ought to be discussing the limits of conditions which will acceptably impose on some lofty utopian notion called liberty. So go back to the question that I asked at the beginning. Did I not ask what rightful liberty is? I didn't ask what philosophical and unattainable liberty is, so perhaps actually make a contribution based on that.

Your thread title suggests otherwise.  It is.......How do you define liberty?


Rightful liberty.....................I guess that drills down and distills to whatever set of circumstances you are willing to accept in your life.  No need for fancy esoteric pseudo-intellectual garbage.  It is as simple as that in the real world.

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:06pm:

Your thread title suggests otherwise.  It is.......How do you define liberty?

So you're telling me that you only read the title of the thread and responded based on that without actually reading what was said in it?


Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:06pm:

Rightful liberty.....................I guess that drills down and distills to whatever set of circumstances you are willing to accept in your life.  No need for fancy esoteric pseudo-intellectual garbage.  It is as simple as that in the real world.

I think Jefferson's was pretty clear. Basically, you, as a free adult, should be able to do whatever you want so long as what you do doesn't infringe on the equal rights of others.

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:36pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:33pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:26pm: That is a given, and in that very process, established rules which are anathema to 'liberty.' No, they are not anathema to liberty at all. Liberty and Anarchy are not the same thing. That's precisely why there is no such thing as liberty.  It does not exist anywhere.

Liberty is a concept Aussie. It's not like Africa.


Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:55pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:51pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:36pm: That's precisely why there is no such thing as liberty.  It does not exist anywhere. Untrue, I gave you a perfect example of rightful liberty, that is what limitations should we be subjected to and the limitations show that a government shouldn't prevent us from doing anything unless it infringes on the equal rights of others. Other factors like environment etc are irrelevant. To suggest that we could never truly be free because of gravity as some means to detract from tangible liberty that can be achieved through adhering to the principle of rightful liberty is preposterous and asinine. Ya see those two words.  They are qualifiers or conditions, and as soon as they exist...............out goes liberty. You really ought to be discussing the limits of conditions which will acceptably impose on some lofty utopian notion called liberty.

Are you referring to 'preposterous' and 'asinine'?

Nah....I'll leave that stuff to you.  You are pretty good at it.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:16pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:06pm: Your thread title suggests otherwise.  It is.......How do you define liberty? So you're telling me that you only read the title of the thread and responded based on that without actually reading what was said in it? Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:06pm: Rightful liberty.....................I guess that drills down and distills to whatever set of circumstances you are willing to accept in your life.  No need for fancy esoteric pseudo-intellectual garbage.  It is as simple as that in the real world. I think Jefferson's was pretty clear. Basically, you, as a free adult, should be able to do whatever you want so long as what you do doesn't infringe on the equal rights of others.

Gee, how original.  Something like live and let live, or is it more complicated according to what course you are doing at Uni?

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:20pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:01pm: Only if you obtain it unlawfully. lol you're a card maria, trying to incriminate me ? when you've got a large tank holding more H2o than I ever need per month and usually much longer than that, you'll get it for free too

It probably costs more than most people pay for town water.


Kytro wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:19pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:14pm: Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:57pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 11:51am: I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person. This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river at a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people. It is a principle, not a rule. So long as you both have equal legal access, the principle holds. Quote: The point is more that freedom and liberty are large part illusion, no matter if the government has regulations or not. Factors that cannot be controlled drive so much of where you will end up, what you will become and how your life will unfold that it often renders the choices that you can predict meaningless. You are confusing liberty with power. It does not mean having everything you want, or the absence of natural limits. It's just a cloak for reality, though. What's the benefit a principle that does nothing?

You don't see any benefits to being free, unless it "does something" to you? You still have to do things for yourself. It's a concept, not a dishwasher.


Quote:

Gee, how original.  Something like live and let live, or is it more complicated according to what course you are doing at Uni?

That's a reasonable way to define it Aussie. Now tell me, does "live and let live" exist?

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:29pm:

Gee, how original.  Something like live and let live, or is it more complicated according to what course you are doing at Uni?

I'm 30 years old and have been out of uni for quite some time.

Being dismissive doesn't help your case given the fact that the quote that I posted was from one of the greatest thinkers of the last 500 years. He was incredibly educated.

Kytro wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:07pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:04pm: Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:57pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 11:51am: I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person. This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river at a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people. If you are looking for a definition of liberty you will never get one that codifies ever conceivable interaction among men. The definition itself assumes people with a genuine desire for liberty and a respect for the rights of others which would solve all such issues amicable and reasonably. The failure of freedom everywhere is that such people are not the majority - hence judicial systems, police and often... conflict. The point is more that freedom and liberty are large part illusion, no matter if the government has regulations or not. Factors that cannot be controlled drive so much of where you will end up, what you will become and how your life will unfold that it often renders the choices that you can predict meaningless.

I disagree, but largely because I probably define freedom and liberty differently to you. It certainly does not mean I am free to do as I wish. Yes, there are factors and very powerful ones that drive a large part of my life and even destination, but that does not mean I am not free as that would assume it is in any way different for anyone else. Once again, my freedom isnt a licence to be what I want to be and to do what I want to do. It is rather no more complex than the absence of tyranny and unconscionable limits on my liberty.  My life is mine to MAKE, not assume.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:29pm:

It probably costs more than most people pay for town water.

Crikey! didn't think a simple water tank could draw so much attention in a thread about liberty. The tank came with the house for heaven's sake. It was full when I came and just keeps filling, raining at the moment so tank is overflowing

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:20pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:01pm: Only if you obtain it unlawfully. lol you're a card maria, trying to incriminate me ? when you've got a large tank holding more H2o than I ever need per month and usually much longer than that, you'll get it for free too

Ah tank... I was assuming groundwater bore or river access.  Mind you, give it time. The governments are already well on the way to charging you for the water YOU collect.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:29pm:

Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:57pm: This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river t a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people. It comes down to whether or not the property was justly acquired or not. Whoever has it first owns it. Particularly if they've worked the land.

So being first entitles you to something? Why?

This gives people that come before great power over those that come later. It allows them to build dynasties of wealth and power.

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:55pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:51pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:36pm: That's precisely why there is no such thing as liberty.  It does not exist anywhere. Untrue, I gave you a perfect example of rightful liberty, that is what limitations should we be subjected to and the limitations show that a government shouldn't prevent us from doing anything unless it infringes on the equal rights of others. Other factors like environment etc are irrelevant. To suggest that we could never truly be free because of gravity as some means to detract from tangible liberty that can be achieved through adhering to the principle of rightful liberty is preposterous and asinine. Ya see those two words.  They are qualifiers or conditions, and as soon as they exist...............out goes liberty. You really ought to be discussing the limits of conditions which will acceptably impose on some lofty utopian notion called liberty.

I wonder if you are aware that everyone else in this thread already understands that we dont live in Utopia?  We already understand that freedom and liberty are not absolute anymore than any other social conventions are absolute.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:29pm: Gee, how original.  Something like live and let live, or is it more complicated according to what course you are doing at Uni? I'm 30 years old and have been out of uni for quite some time. Being dismissive doesn't help your case given the fact that the quote that I posted was from one of the greatest thinkers of the last 500 years. He was incredibly educated.

Guess what?  I don't care.  I do my own thinking.  Is that okay within this thing called 'liberty.'

Kytro wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:47pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:29pm: Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:57pm: This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river t a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people. It comes down to whether or not the property was justly acquired or not. Whoever has it first owns it. Particularly if they've worked the land. So being first entitles you to something? Why? This gives people that come before great power over those that come later. It allows them to build dynasties of wealth and power.

The alternative is that coming AFTER gives you the right, which is worse.  The point is that there is always somewhere else to go and work. Your 'freedom' does not give you right to take from another nor does it give you the right to condemn 'wealth and power' which are both aspects of freedom.

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:47pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:38pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:29pm: Gee, how original.  Something like live and let live, or is it more complicated according to what course you are doing at Uni? I'm 30 years old and have been out of uni for quite some time. Being dismissive doesn't help your case given the fact that the quote that I posted was from one of the greatest thinkers of the last 500 years. He was incredibly educated. Guess what?  I don't care.  I do my own thinking.  Is that okay within this thing called 'liberty.'

A clever man would listen to others. Of course, you are not one of those and considers his own opinions superior to others. No wonder you joined PUP.  It is their mantra... and look how well that worked out!

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:29pm:

You don't see any benefits to being free, unless it "does something" to you? You still have to do things for yourself. It's a concept, not a dishwasher.

It's esoteric. The degree of freedom just describes what limits exist. They can come from any number of sources. The fact that some are aligned to government and law, and others to your ability makes little difference to the outcome.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:51pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:47pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:38pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:29pm: Gee, how original.  Something like live and let live, or is it more complicated according to what course you are doing at Uni? I'm 30 years old and have been out of uni for quite some time. Being dismissive doesn't help your case given the fact that the quote that I posted was from one of the greatest thinkers of the last 500 years. He was incredibly educated. Guess what?  I don't care.  I do my own thinking.  Is that okay within this thing called 'liberty.' A clever man would listen to others. Of course, you are not one of those and considers his own opinions superior to others. No wonder you joined PUP.  It is their mantra... and look how well that worked out!

Well, I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that I have had a better education than you, and have a greater intellect.  Don't worry, though, melielongtime suffered the same ignomy.  Perhaps you could do age two, together?  Just a thought.

Kytro wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:47pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:29pm: Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:57pm: This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river t a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people. It comes down to whether or not the property was justly acquired or not. Whoever has it first owns it. Particularly if they've worked the land. So being first entitles you to something? Why? This gives people that come before great power over those that come later. It allows them to build dynasties of wealth and power.

Being first makes you the only one who has ever bothered to work the land intensively. Since then it has changed hands over and over while 'dynasties' have risen and fallen, based on the merits of the people in them. It is no different to the person who starts a business owning that business. When people first farmed this land, it was effectively free. Almost no-one wanted it. It took a long time and a lot of effort just to get people to go there.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:49pm:

Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:47pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:29pm: Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:57pm: This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river t a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people. It comes down to whether or not the property was justly acquired or not. Whoever has it first owns it. Particularly if they've worked the land. So being first entitles you to something? Why? This gives people that come before great power over those that come later. It allows them to build dynasties of wealth and power. The alternative is that coming AFTER gives you the right, which is worse.  The point is that there is always somewhere else to go and work. Your 'freedom' does not give you right to take from another nor does it give you the right to condemn 'wealth and power' which are both aspects of freedom.

It's no worse or better. It's just about the order of things that happen. If one order can give you rights, then so can another. I'm not actually arguing that it does, mind you, because practically speaking it's unfeasible.

Freedom is important, but it's not absolute, and there are good reasons for it to be restricted in certain circumstances. Being happy is probably more important

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:58pm:

Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:47pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:29pm: Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:57pm: This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river t a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people. It comes down to whether or not the property was justly acquired or not. Whoever has it first owns it. Particularly if they've worked the land. So being first entitles you to something? Why? This gives people that come before great power over those that come later. It allows them to build dynasties of wealth and power. Being first makes you the only one who has ever bothered to work the land intensively. Since then it has changed hands over and over while 'dynasties' have risen and fallen, based on the merits of the people in them. It is no different to the person who starts a business owning that business. When people first farmed this land, it was effectively free. Almost no-one wanted it. It took a long time and a lot of effort just to get people to go there.

Based on the merits  ;D

Very few people have parents so rich that they don't have to work for a living. For every one that apparently owes his success to rich parents, there are ten who squandered their parents gift. Our "dynasties" are short lived, precisely because our freedom precludes the sort of antics that were classically employed to maintain them.

That, plus the game changes every generation.

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:56pm:

Well, I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that I have had a better education than you, and have a greater intellect.  Don't worry, though, melielongtime suffered the same ignomy.  Perhaps you could do age two, together?  Just a thought.

IF you have to puff yourself up to "intellectual" it is obvious that your background/childhood was less than "middle class". You are a FREE Uni Whitlam person.
Well done!

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:44pm:

Ah tank... I was assuming groundwater bore or river access.  Mind you, give it time. The governments are already well on the way to charging you for the water YOU collect.

What, did you dob me in or something ? I don't collect it, my house roof does, it's just there when I need it. I got both tank and town water, and I know which is the cheapest and free of "tyranny"

Plenty of residents don't have town water out here, I couldn't believe it at first, but Councils are either in debt or not rich or water installation is not cost effective, so folks in many small towns and villages are left to their own devices to arrange their own water supply. In Liberty terms, they must take that liberty, government or no government. Usually the set up is a tank and a pump to pump water into the house through normal piping, turn the tap on and the pump automatically fires up

You got to take lots of liberties out here in the sticks, but one day I asked the Council if I could fell a gum tree that's too close to the house. The attendant at the desk said: "What sort of tree is it" ? to which I answered "common Gum tree" ... she said: "I'll just check to see if it's on the endangered list" ... I kid you not, she checked, came back and said "Oh that one is ok"

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 4:04pm:

If you are looking for a definition of liberty you will never get one that codifies ever conceivable interaction among men. The definition itself assumes people with a genuine desire for liberty and a respect for the rights of others which would solve all such issues amicable and reasonably. The failure of freedom everywhere is that such people are not the majority - hence judicial systems, police and often... conflict.

Well said.


In any sane world/society, imo, liberty cannot be extended to everyone [...just because he/'everyone' is a fellow who lives in a society of men ].

Liberty, is too precious to be extended to everyone.

e.g.
Persons with a persistent, or a violent criminal nature,      ....should have their right to their liberty taken away, imo.

And i would argue that such a person, who is a persistent, or a violent criminal, should be removed from society, PERMANENTLY.

Q.
Would to do such a thing, be an abuse of that persons 'human rights' ?

I would ask;
Why should a persistent, or a violent criminal,      ....be entitled to the same rights, as those persons who are law abiding ?




e.g.
Does [or should] personal liberty [which is attributed to every individual within OUR society], give a drunk, walking home, past my home, the right to throw an empty glass bottle though my lounge room window at 3.00 am ???

Why not ?

Q.
Isn't such conduct, by that drunken person, simply an expression of his liberty,       ....to be drunk and unruly when he wishes to be ???




Again, i would argue that personal Liberty, can only 'work' in a society of men,     ....if persistent lawbreakers are separated/removed from that society, permanently.



'Normal' criminal behaviour - in mankind
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1293669294/0#0




Quote:

A simple definition of SANITY/INSANITY. Typically, an unrestrained sane person will act in ways which are harmless to others, and in ways which are creative, and productive [for himself, others, and society]. And typically, and conversely, an unrestrained INSANE person will act in ways which are harmful and destructive to himself, and, or, others around him.

bump

Liberty and criminality cannot readily exist together     [...in the same individual or in one community].

In the same way that light and darkness, cannot exist together in one place.

Because each condition/concept is incompatible with the presence of the other.



Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1447886435/5#5

Quote:

Human freedom is inextricably bound up with the personal and moral responsibility of the individual, imo. No ????? Unfortunately, it seems true, that some/many people will only ever choose to abuse the freedoms [and rights] which they have access to. Especially so, imo, if those freedoms and rights have simply been 'gifted' to persons/individuals [and not 'purchased' with some cost].

Removing a people from a society is what prison is for. Having said that, once they've served their time then they should be welcomed back into society with their full rights.

However, I also believe that the death penalty should be applied to murderers, rapists, armed robbers, etc unless there are serious mitigating circumstances.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 6:53am:

Removing a people from a society is what prison is for. Having said that, once they've served their time then they should be welcomed back into society with their full rights. However, I also believe that the death penalty should be applied to murderers, rapists, armed robbers, etc unless there are serious mitigating circumstances.

I'm absolutely opposed to the death penalty. Nothing good comes from it.

mothra wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 7:10am:

I'm absolutely opposed to the death penalty. Nothing good comes from it.

I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that one. I think if applied properly and only to cases where there is no serious mitigating circumstances nor a shred of doubt after the appeals process that it can be an excellent deterrent.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 7:15am:

mothra wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 7:10am: I'm absolutely opposed to the death penalty. Nothing good comes from it. I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that one. I think if applied properly and only to cases where there is no serious mitigating circumstances nor a shred of doubt after the appeals process that it can be an excellent deterrent.

Yet studies have shown categorically that it doesn't work as a deterrent.

The only reason for the death penalty is revenge. A poor substitute for justice.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 7:15am:

mothra wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 7:10am: I'm absolutely opposed to the death penalty. Nothing good comes from it. I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that one. I think if applied properly and only to cases where there is no serious mitigating circumstances nor a shred of doubt after the appeals process that it can be an excellent deterrent.

There are many flaws inherent in the first court and appeals system.  If anything the 'appeals' system here is worse than yours, and is a travesty of justice, and in reality nothing more than a rubber stamp for any petty Hitler in a uniform or on the bench's violence against the community.

Executing someone on the basis of failed appeals is a highly dangerous thing, as clearly shown by repeated exonerations on DNA etc.... quite obviously the tip of the iceberg.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 6:53am:

Removing a people from a society is what prison is for. Having said that, once they've served their time then they should be welcomed back into society with their full rights.

You are dreaming.

You are living in a dream world.




The justice system in our society is 'broke', imo.

The justice system in our society is dysfunctional, imo.

The justice system in our society does not serve the purpose, that it was/is intended to do.

Why, is it 'broke' ?

IMO, because the people who have charge of it, today, ARE NOT -WORTHY- TO HAVE CHARGE OF IT.

They are persons who are either morally incompetent [idiots!], or persons who have been proven to be criminally negligent [in the exercise of their professional responsibilities], imo.

i.e.
They too, are the type of persons who should have been removed from our society, imo!!



.


Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431117115/20#20

Quote:

.....these two crime types below are not deemed to be 'permissible behaviour', but the sentences given out today, don't seem to reflect the seriousness of the crimes, imo. e.g. Two similar crimes; Murder and, Negligent killing [or negligent behaviour, causing death]. Dictionary; negligence = = failure to take proper care over something.      breach of a duty of care which results in damage. People used to hang for murder. But today, often a convicted murderer can expect to be released on parole, with less than 10 years prison served. Is that acceptable ? And negligent killing. e.g. High on illicit drugs or alcohol, a person kills another/others, while driving a motor vehicle. What is the sentence ? Persons seem to be sentenced to less than 5 years in prison for this type of killing. Is that acceptable ?

.



Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431117115/18#18

Quote:

IMO, within the last half century or so, Western societies have been observing increasing instances of criminal behaviour in some/many individuals. And 'experts' in humanism and sociology, have then been convincing policy makers that we [society] should reclassify some/many criminal behaviours, as something which should be tolerated, by other members of society. And that is when a CRIME, becomes, and is viewed as, permissible behaviour. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434160480/2#2

mothra wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 7:10am:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 6:53am: Removing a people from a society is what prison is for. Having said that, once they've served their time then they should be welcomed back into society with their full rights. However, I also believe that the death penalty should be applied to murderers, rapists, armed robbers, etc unless there are serious mitigating circumstances. I'm absolutely opposed to the death penalty. Nothing good comes from it.

Except, that the death penalty prevents recidivism, among people who are,        ....among people who have proven themselves to be,        .....wanna-be homicidal maniacs.     !!!    :D




Yadda said.....

Quote:

The justice system in our society is 'broke', imo. The justice system in our society is dysfunctional, imo.

e.g.

---------- >


QUESTION;

Why weren't EVERY ONE of these individuals identified by the UK authorities,         ....then detained,        .....and after a proper legal process [treason ? threatening to kill, incitement to kill, threatening to end the power of the legal state of the UK, threatening to end the common peace of the people of the UK],       .....sentenced to detention for at least 50 years, within a [purpose built] internment camp!     ???

------------- >

IMAGE...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg



THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST, 2006, IN LONDON READ.....

"Slay those who insult Islam"
"Behead those who insult Islam"
"Massacre those who insult Islam"
"Butcher those who mock Islam"
"Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way"
"Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way"
"Exterminate those who slander Islam"
"Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer"
"Islam will dominate the world"
"Freedom go to hell"
"Europe take some lessons from 9/11"
"Be prepared for the real Holocaust"
"BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders"

mothra wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 7:10am:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 6:53am: Removing a people from a society is what prison is for. Having said that, once they've served their time then they should be welcomed back into society with their full rights. However, I also believe that the death penalty should be applied to murderers, rapists, armed robbers, etc unless there are serious mitigating circumstances. I'm absolutely opposed to the death penalty. Nothing good comes from it.

If your concern is about the danger of the justice system killing innocent people,      well, that is a problem with the PROCESS, of the justice system itself.

But that existence of error within the justice system,      ....should not have any bearing or any influence on the severity of sentences which have been prescribed [by society] for criminal activity.


INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE BEING CONVICTED ???

Then fix the problem in the PROCESS!!!!

Aussie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 5:56pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:51pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:47pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:38pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:29pm: Gee, how original.  Something like live and let live, or is it more complicated according to what course you are doing at Uni? I'm 30 years old and have been out of uni for quite some time. Being dismissive doesn't help your case given the fact that the quote that I posted was from one of the greatest thinkers of the last 500 years. He was incredibly educated. Guess what?  I don't care.  I do my own thinking.  Is that okay within this thing called 'liberty.' A clever man would listen to others. Of course, you are not one of those and considers his own opinions superior to others. No wonder you joined PUP.  It is their mantra... and look how well that worked out! Well, I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that I have had a better education than you, and have a greater intellect.  Don't worry, though, melielongtime suffered the same ignomy.  Perhaps you could do age two, together?  Just a thought.

There is little evidence to support any claim of over-intelligence by you. You really do sound and post like a typical taxi driver.

Kytro wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:01pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:49pm: Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:47pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 4:29pm: Kytro wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 3:57pm: This is far more complex than it might appear. Say I want to live on the banks of a river t a particularly picturesque spot. Say someone else does as well. Since there is one spot and we both cannot live there if one person does, it denies the other. This is true for many, many resources. For one set of people to have something, another set must give up something. There are very few things that truly do not impact other people. It comes down to whether or not the property was justly acquired or not. Whoever has it first owns it. Particularly if they've worked the land. So being first entitles you to something? Why? This gives people that come before great power over those that come later. It allows them to build dynasties of wealth and power. The alternative is that coming AFTER gives you the right, which is worse.  The point is that there is always somewhere else to go and work. Your 'freedom' does not give you right to take from another nor does it give you the right to condemn 'wealth and power' which are both aspects of freedom. It's no worse or better. It's just about the order of things that happen. If one order can give you rights, then so can another. I'm not actually arguing that it does, mind you, because practically speaking it's unfeasible. Freedom is important, but it's not absolute, and there are good reasons for it to be restricted in certain circumstances. Being happy is probably more important

Side question: do you think being free brings happiness? Do you think happiness even requires freedom?

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 6:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:44pm: Ah tank... I was assuming groundwater bore or river access.  Mind you, give it time. The governments are already well on the way to charging you for the water YOU collect. What, did you dob me in or something ? I don't collect it, my house roof does, it's just there when I need it. I got both tank and town water, and I know which is the cheapest and free of "tyranny" Plenty of residents don't have town water out here, I couldn't believe it at first, but Councils are either in debt or not rich or water installation is not cost effective, so folks in many small towns and villages are left to their own devices to arrange their own water supply. In Liberty terms, they must take that liberty, government or no government. Usually the set up is a tank and a pump to pump water into the house through normal piping, turn the tap on and the pump automatically fires up You got to take lots of liberties out here in the sticks, but one day I asked the Council if I could fell a gum tree that's too close to the house. The attendant at the desk said: "What sort of tree is it" ? to which I answered "common Gum tree" ... she said: "I'll just check to see if it's on the endangered list" ... I kid you not, she checked, came back and said "Oh that one is ok"

That is no surprise. In the city you basically cannot cut down a tree at all.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 11:51am:

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the US Declaration of Independence stated: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." I concur with this definition. You, as an adult, should be able to do whatever you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the equal rights of another person.

As a progressive tax slave..........I'm with that.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 8:00am:

Side question: do you think being free brings happiness? Do you think happiness even requires freedom?

Some people are content with being lapdogs and find happiness in other diversions, such as reality TV, drinking and games.

I've lived in Absolute Monarchies, Tyrannical Dictatorships and even Constitutional Monarchies like Australia where I was born and raised and there is no way that I could stand the lack of liberty in Australia, which is why I moved to the US years ago. Liberty is respected here a great deal more and I love it.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 7:59am:

Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:56pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:51pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:47pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:38pm: Aussie wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 5:29pm: Gee, how original.  Something like live and let live, or is it more complicated according to what course you are doing at Uni? I'm 30 years old and have been out of uni for quite some time. Being dismissive doesn't help your case given the fact that the quote that I posted was from one of the greatest thinkers of the last 500 years. He was incredibly educated. Guess what?  I don't care.  I do my own thinking.  Is that okay within this thing called 'liberty.' A clever man would listen to others. Of course, you are not one of those and considers his own opinions superior to others. No wonder you joined PUP.  It is their mantra... and look how well that worked out! Well, I guess you'll just have to live with the fact that I have had a better education than you, and have a greater intellect.  Don't worry, though, melielongtime suffered the same ignomy.  Perhaps you could do age two, together?  Just a thought. There is little evidence to support any claim of over-intelligence by you. You really do sound and post like a typical taxi driver.

The evidence is there and everyone can see it.  How embarrassing it must be for you to have to face the fact that even a 'taxi driver' has a better education, vocabulary and intellect than thee.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 8:29am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 8:00am: Side question: do you think being free brings happiness? Do you think happiness even requires freedom? Some people are content with being lapdogs and find happiness in other diversions, such as reality TV, drinking and games. I've lived in Absolute Monarchies, Tyrannical Dictatorships and even Constitutional Monarchies like Australia where I was born and raised and there is no way that I could stand the lack of liberty in Australia, which is why I moved to the US years ago. Liberty is respected here a great deal more and I love it.

Australia won't have a US style liberty till it breaks away from mother England, the Crown and the Libs and Labs. A whole new independent Constitution is required to bring Australia into the 21st century

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 12:01pm:

Australia won't have a US style liberty till it breaks away from mother England, the Crown and the Libs and Labs. A whole new independent Constitution is required to bring Australia into the 21st century

I don't even think that will do it. Australians don't know poo about liberty. They take everything as a privilege and are so apathetic because they've never had to fight for anything in their lives.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 12:17pm:

They take everything as a privilege and are so apathetic because they've never had to fight for anything in their lives.

Possibly but ...

Queen Elizabeth II said we can do what we like down here re: republic. However we haven't taken advantage of that kindness yet. We could still be in momentum of the "Convict" mentality, the Libs and Labs are certainly trying to keep us in that tyrannical sphere

But if you were born and bred in OZ, how did you come to switch from OZ "apathy" to US liberty with the Democrats in power there ? What particular liberties were you looking for ?

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 12:59pm:

Possibly but ... Queen Elizabeth II said we can do what we like down here re: republic. However we haven't taken advantage of that kindness yet. We could still be in momentum of the "Convict" mentality, the Libs and Labs are certainly trying to keep us in that tyrannical sphere

Oh she said we could did she? Oh lucky us that her royal highness gave us permission to be in charge of our own affairs.
::)


Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 12:59pm:

But if you were born and bred in OZ, how did you come to switch from OZ "apathy" to US liberty with the Democrats in power there ? What particular liberties were you looking for ?

It's hard to say how I came to the conclusion. I just felt that something was wrong with both the system of government in Australia and the attitude of the people..

What rights did I want respected all of them but here was the best option for that?
-The right to read what I want without having to defend myself in court on terrorism charges because the documents are banned.
-The right not to be forced to answer questions by ASIO under the order of a judge.
- The right to be able to defend myself and have the means to do so, ie the right to keep and bear arms.
- The right to form a militia
- The right to use force against the government, if necessary
- The right to build a mosque or school on my own damn property without a bunch of bigoted jerks infiltrating the city council and preventing me from doing so under the guise of 'parking' or 'increased traffic' when the real reason is because they don't want a mosque there.

There's more to it but that's just to name a few.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 8:29am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 8:00am: Side question: do you think being free brings happiness? Do you think happiness even requires freedom? Some people are content with being lapdogs and find happiness in other diversions, such as reality TV, drinking and games. I've lived in Absolute Monarchies, Tyrannical Dictatorships and even Constitutional Monarchies like Australia where I was born and raised and there is no way that I could stand the lack of liberty in Australia, which is why I moved to the US years ago. Liberty is respected here a great deal more and I love it.

Let me guess.... Guns, right?  That is your definition of liberty? I guess this because I struggle to see what liberties USA offers you that is not available here.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 1:20pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 12:59pm: Possibly but ... Queen Elizabeth II said we can do what we like down here re: republic. However we haven't taken advantage of that kindness yet. We could still be in momentum of the "Convict" mentality, the Libs and Labs are certainly trying to keep us in that tyrannical sphere Oh she said we could did she? Oh lucky us that her royal highness gave us permission to be in charge of our own affairs. ::) Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 12:59pm: But if you were born and bred in OZ, how did you come to switch from OZ "apathy" to US liberty with the Democrats in power there ? What particular liberties were you looking for ? It's hard to say how I came to the conclusion. I just felt that something was wrong with both the system of government in Australia and the attitude of the people.. What rights did I want respected all of them but here was the best option for that? -The right to read what I want without having to defend myself in court on terrorism charges because the documents are banned. -The right not to be forced to answer questions by ASIO under the order of a judge. - The right to be able to defend myself and have the means to do so, ie the right to keep and bear arms. - The right to form a militia - The right to use force against the government, if necessary - The right to build a mosque or school on my own damn property without a bunch of bigoted jerks infiltrating the city council and preventing me from doing so under the guise of 'parking' or 'increased traffic' when the real reason is because they don't want a mosque there. There's more to it but that's just to name a few.

And there it is folks....  GUNS

So predictable and so, so wrong.

Quote:

So predictable and so, so wrong.

Yet.....you didn't.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 3:29pm:

And there it is folks....  GUNS So predictable and so, so wrong.

Is that all you read out of what I wrote? I mean I mentioned several things.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 3:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 3:29pm: And there it is folks....  GUNS So predictable and so, so wrong. Is that all you read out of what I wrote? I mean I mentioned several things.

Yeas....but it is now obvious where you were taking this.  Almost to anarchy.

Aussie wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 3:39pm:

Yeas....but it is now obvious where you were taking this.  Almost to anarchy.

Oh really? How close to anarchy exactly?

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 3:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 3:29pm: And there it is folks....  GUNS So predictable and so, so wrong. Is that all you read out of what I wrote? I mean I mentioned several things.

Yes, private militia and anarchy.

Was there anything else?

Do you think you shoule be able to have helicopter gunships and cruise missiles?

Whenever I read you 'freedom w a n k e r s', it's always guns, guns and explosives.

PS perhaps you havent heard of the Patriot Act. It is far more draconian than anything here in Oz.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 3:49pm:

Yes, private militia and anarchy. Was there anything else? Do you think you shoule be able to have helicopter gunships and cruise missiles? Whenever I read you 'freedom w a n k e r s', it's always guns, guns and explosives. PS perhaps you havent heard of the Patriot Act. It is far more draconian than anything here in Oz.

1. I've read the Patriot Act, it isn't as bad as Australian laws. I gave you an example of one just before. 
2. The role of a militia is not to promote anarchy, but for self defense. I believe in having a government that protects the rights of the people to life, liberty and justly acquired property. So that is very far from anarchism.
3. Sure they should be able to have helicopter gunships, but the question is whether or not the gunships should be able to be armed. In that case I believe not because it isn't a light infantry weapon that one can bear. Same with cruise missiles.
4. As for there being anything else, didn't you read them? I'm pretty sure I mentioned several things there. Why only focus on guns?

I believe that we have a right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves against criminals, tyrants and foreign governments that wish to usurp our rights.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 4:11pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 3:49pm: Yes, private militia and anarchy. Was there anything else? Do you think you shoule be able to have helicopter gunships and cruise missiles? Whenever I read you 'freedom w a n k e r s', it's always guns, guns and explosives. PS perhaps you havent heard of the Patriot Act. It is far more draconian than anything here in Oz. 1. I've read the Patriot Act, it isn't as bad as Australian laws. I gave you an example of one just before.  2. The role of a militia is not to promote anarchy, but for self defense. I believe in having a government that protects the rights of the people to life, liberty and justly acquired property. So that is very far from anarchism. 3. Sure they should be able to have helicopter gunships, but the question is whether or not the gunships should be able to be armed. In that case I believe not because it isn't a light infantry weapon that one can bear. Same with cruise missiles. 4. As for there being anything else, didn't you read them? I'm pretty sure I mentioned several things there. Why only focus on guns? I believe that we have a right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves against criminals, tyrants and foreign governments that wish to usurp our rights.

Because it was more than enough to recognise you as a one-toothed hokey, probably married to your sister and wishing for the old days of slavery.

Our idea of freedom involves the ABSENCE of guns.  Not how many people have been killed in mass-shootings in the last 19 years? NONE.  Try telling that to the 900,000 people killed by guns in USA.

This site!

*

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 4:18pm:

Because it was more than enough to recognise you as a one-toothed hokey, probably married to your sister and wishing for the old days of slavery.

Hmmm.. Well I was born in Brunswick East, in Melbourne. I am a Muslim and I actually married a beautiful African American woman.. So I guess you're wrong about all of that... Way to go, judging me before even knowing me the slightest.


mariacostel wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 4:18pm:

Our idea of freedom involves the ABSENCE of guns.  Not how many people have been killed in mass-shootings in the last 19 years? NONE.  Try telling that to the 900,000 people killed by guns in USA.

No mass shootings in Australia in the last 19 years? Let's examine that.

Wedderburn mass shooting in 2014
Hunt family murders in 2014
Hectorville Siege in 2011
Monash University mass shooting in 2002

I guess it wasn't none afterall!

As for the people killed by guns in the USA. I wonder how many of those were suicides? How many were in places where it is illegal to own a gun?

As for being free relying on the absence of guns. I mean that's a little silly don't you think.. Leaving guns only in the hands of criminals and the government, both of which will usurp your rights very quickly while you have no means to defend yourself?

But I can see why you wouldn't find guns useful in that situation. Australians don't know what rights are and see them as privileges so of course they won't fight to protect their rights and will bend over and take it in the tailpipe if the government wants to infringe on those rights.

That's why I love the US, we have protections against that.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 4:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Because it was more than enough to recognise you as a one-toothed hokey, probably married to your sister and wishing for the old days of slavery. Hmmm.. Well I was born in Brunswick East, in Melbourne. I am a Muslim and I actually married a beautiful African American woman.. So I guess you're wrong about all of that... Way to go, judging me before even knowing me the slightest. mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Our idea of freedom involves the ABSENCE of guns.  Not how many people have been killed in mass-shootings in the last 19 years? NONE.  Try telling that to the 900,000 people killed by guns in USA. No mass shootings in Australia in the last 19 years? Let's examine that. Wedderburn mass shooting in 2014 Hunt family murders in 2014 Hectorville Siege in 2011 Monash University mass shooting in 2002 I guess it wasn't none afterall! As for the people killed by guns in the USA. I wonder how many of those were suicides? How many were in places where it is illegal to own a gun? As for being free relying on the absence of guns. I mean that's a little silly don't you think.. Leaving guns only in the hands of criminals and the government, both of which will usurp your rights very quickly while you have no means to defend yourself? But I can see why you wouldn't find guns useful in that situation. Australians don't know what rights are and see them as privileges so of course they won't fight to protect their rights and will bend over and take it in the tailpipe if the government wants to infringe on those rights. That's why I love the US, we have protections against that.

You've been here at OzPol before spruiking this claptrap.  Forget which name you used.  You probably have too.  Doubt you'll hear from me in this Thread now.

I am not at liberty to divulge that.

Aussie wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

Monash University mass shooting in 2002 You've been here at OzPol before spruiking this claptrap.  Forget which name you used.  You probably have too.  Doubt you'll hear from me in this Thread now.

Aussie STALKING ....  ;D ;D

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 4:39pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Because it was more than enough to recognise you as a one-toothed hokey, probably married to your sister and wishing for the old days of slavery. Hmmm.. Well I was born in Brunswick East, in Melbourne. I am a Muslim and I actually married a beautiful African American woman.. So I guess you're wrong about all of that... Way to go, judging me before even knowing me the slightest. mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Our idea of freedom involves the ABSENCE of guns.  Not how many people have been killed in mass-shootings in the last 19 years? NONE.  Try telling that to the 900,000 people killed by guns in USA. No mass shootings in Australia in the last 19 years? Let's examine that. Wedderburn mass shooting in 2014 Hunt family murders in 2014 Hectorville Siege in 2011 Monash University mass shooting in 2002 I guess it wasn't none afterall! As for the people killed by guns in the USA. I wonder how many of those were suicides? How many were in places where it is illegal to own a gun? As for being free relying on the absence of guns. I mean that's a little silly don't you think.. Leaving guns only in the hands of criminals and the government, both of which will usurp your rights very quickly while you have no means to defend yourself? But I can see why you wouldn't find guns useful in that situation. Australians don't know what rights are and see them as privileges so of course they won't fight to protect their rights and will bend over and take it in the tailpipe if the government wants to infringe on those rights. That's why I love the US, we have protections against that.

Against what?  400 mass shootings this year alone?  35,000 gun deaths every year?

And of course you are a Muslim. A muslim with a gun-love.  Might as well start your own uprising.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 8:29am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 8:00am: Side question: do you think being free brings happiness? Do you think happiness even requires freedom? Some people are content with being lapdogs and find happiness in other diversions, such as reality TV, drinking and games. I've lived in Absolute Monarchies, Tyrannical Dictatorships and even Constitutional Monarchies like Australia where I was born and raised and there is no way that I could stand the lack of liberty in Australia, which is why I moved to the US years ago. Liberty is respected here a great deal more and I love it.

Do you mean they are more free, or they talk about it more?

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 5:21pm:

Against what?  400 mass shootings this year alone?  35,000 gun deaths every year? And of course you are a Muslim. A muslim with a gun-love.  Might as well start your own uprising.

Do you think those mass shootings will stop with guns being banned? They won't. It will just leave guns in the hands of criminals and the government, none of those can be trusted with them.

As for me starting my own uprising? Why would I? I love this system of government and would only raise arms to protect it.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 10:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 5:21pm: Against what?  400 mass shootings this year alone?  35,000 gun deaths every year? And of course you are a Muslim. A muslim with a gun-love.  Might as well start your own uprising. Do you think those mass shootings will stop with guns being banned? They won't. It will just leave guns in the hands of criminals and the government, none of those can be trusted with them. As for me starting my own uprising? Why would I? I love this system of government and would only raise arms to protect it.

Well WE banned guns and yes, the mass shooting have disappeared.

I always love listening to the excuses and rants of pro-gun nut americans. No number of deaths is ever enough to do anything about it.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 10:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 5:21pm: Against what?  400 mass shootings this year alone?  35,000 gun deaths every year? And of course you are a Muslim. A muslim with a gun-love.  Might as well start your own uprising. Do you think those mass shootings will stop with guns being banned? They won't. It will just leave guns in the hands of criminals and the government, none of those can be trusted with them. As for me starting my own uprising? Why would I? I love this system of government and would only raise arms to protect it.

Ironically, the vast majority of mass shootings and (I believe) EVERY school shooting was done by someone without a criminal record ie not a criminal. 

and layfayette has fled...

Probably to plan a mass shooting.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 10:53pm:

Do you think those mass shootings will stop with guns being banned?

no, but they will be significantly reduced, and thats a good start.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 6:49am:

Well WE banned guns and yes, the mass shooting have disappeared.

Actually, I just showed you earlier how there have been several mass shootings in the past 19 years, several last year in fact.

But you know, I could also stop all road traffic accidents by banning all cars.. Just like I could probably also stop obesity by banning spoons..


mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 6:49am:

I always love listening to the excuses and rants of pro-gun nut americans. No number of deaths is ever enough to do anything about it.

Tell me, do you believe that the government should have a monopoly on violence?

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 3:55pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 6:49am: Well WE banned guns and yes, the mass shooting have disappeared. Actually, I just showed you earlier how there have been several mass shootings in the past 19 years, several last year in fact. But you know, I could also stop all road traffic accidents by banning all cars.. Just like I could probably also stop obesity by banning spoons.. mariacostel wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 6:49am: I always love listening to the excuses and rants of pro-gun nut americans. No number of deaths is ever enough to do anything about it. Tell me, do you believe that the government should have a monopoly on violence?

As you carefully sidestep the FOUR HUNDRED mass shootings in USA this year alone plus 35,000 gun deaths.

You just love your guns and we all know why. They are long...

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 3:55pm:

Tell me, do you believe that the government should have a monopoly on violence?

Cheap slogans don't alter the facts: tighter gun control reduces gun deaths:

http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/4905120/data/chart3a-deaths-resulting-from-firearms-data.jpg

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:01pm:

Cheap slogans don't alter the facts: tighter gun control reduces gun deaths:

You are absolutely right. But since Australia banned most firearms, violent crime rates went up greatly, whilst at the same time, violent crime rates went down in the US. In fact, if I'm not mistaken violent crime rates in Australia are almost double that of the US.

All you do by banning firearms is prevent people who have no inclination to break the law from owning them, criminals don't care and will stay armed, just like they are in Australia. You take away the means for innocent people to be able to defend their lives and the lives of their families.

I wonder, have you ever listened to someone being murdered on the other end of a telephone line? Calling the police emergency number and begging to be saved, and you try and reassure them that the police are on the way but you really know that the police are at least 5-10 minutes out and this person is being killed at that moment?

Once you are in that situation, then perhaps you'll see where I'm coming from.. Because if that innocent person had a firearm, they may have been able to save their own lives or at least had a fighting chance to do so.

I live in the US and have never been victim of any violence since I've lived here. That might just be because criminals here, in general are too afraid to victimize people that they think might be able to fight back with deadly force..

Heck, I open carry a lot of the time so potential criminals know that if they try to rob me or attack me, and they pose an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death to me or anyone else, that I will draw my Gen4 Glock 19 loaded with 16 rounds of 124gr +P+ 9mm Gold Dots out of its holster and use deadly force against them until they stop what they are doing that makes them that threat.

As for protecting my home, I have an AKM and a Beretta 1301 Tactical shotgun. Both loaded to capacity ready to rock and roll..

As you can imagine, we have very few home invasions here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, on account of criminals not wanting to be shot.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 4:27pm:

As you carefully sidestep the FOUR HUNDRED mass shootings in USA this year alone plus 35,000 gun deaths. You just love your guns and we all know why. They are long...

Mexico has effectively banned firearms yet still has massive gun violence problems with organized crime. All that has achieved is leaving innocent Mexicans unable to defend their families against people who don't give a damn about what the law states and will use those firearms to victimize innocent people.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:16pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 5:01pm: Cheap slogans don't alter the facts: tighter gun control reduces gun deaths: You are absolutely right. But since Australia banned most firearms, violent crime rates went up greatly, whilst at the same time, violent crime rates went down in the US. In fact, if I'm not mistaken violent crime rates in Australia are almost double that of the US.  RUBBISH. This is he kind of stupid figure crazy people like you quot from the NRA who themselves have been quoted as saying the actual gun death figure in USA is under 500. All you do by banning firearms is prevent people who have no inclination to break the law from owning them, criminals don't care and will stay armed, just like they are in Australia. You take away the means for innocent people to be able to defend their lives and the lives of their families. I wonder, have you ever listened to someone being murdered on the other end of a telephone line? Calling the police emergency number and begging to be saved, and you try and reassure them that the police are on the way but you really know that the police are at least 5-10 minutes out and this person is being killed at that moment? Once you are in that situation, then perhaps you'll see where I'm coming from.. Because if that innocent person had a firearm, they may have been able to save their own lives or at least had a fighting chance to do so. I live in the US and have never been victim of any violence since I've lived here. That might just be because criminals here, in general are too afraid to victimize people that they think might be able to fight back with deadly force.. Heck, I open carry a lot of the time so potential criminals know that if they try to rob me or attack me, and they pose an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death to me or anyone else, that I will draw my Gen4 Glock 19 loaded with 16 rounds of 124gr +P+ 9mm Gold Dots out of its holster and use deadly force against them until they stop what they are doing that makes them that threat. As for protecting my home, I have an AKM and a Beretta 1301 Tactical shotgun. Both loaded to capacity ready to rock and roll.. As you can imagine, we have very few home invasions here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, on account of criminals not wanting to be shot.

I notice you refused to comment on the fact that teh majority of mass shootings are carried out by people with no criminal record ie NOT CRIMINALS. And notably EVERY school shooting has been carried out by a non-criminal.

Well there goes that argument!

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:19pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 4:27pm: As you carefully sidestep the FOUR HUNDRED mass shootings in USA this year alone plus 35,000 gun deaths. You just love your guns and we all know why. They are long... Mexico has effectively banned firearms yet still has massive gun violence problems with organized crime. All that has achieved is leaving innocent Mexicans unable to defend their families against people who don't give a damn about what the law states and will use those firearms to victimize innocent people.

Oh yeah... a virtually lawless MExico is SUCH a great example.  You could have instead compared Australia which has NEVER had a school shooting. The NRA of course claims we have had quite a number!

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:16pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 5:01pm: Cheap slogans don't alter the facts: tighter gun control reduces gun deaths: You are absolutely right. But since Australia banned most firearms, violent crime rates went up greatly, whilst at the same time, violent crime rates went down in the US. In fact, if I'm not mistaken violent crime rates in Australia are almost double that of the US. All you do by banning firearms is prevent people who have no inclination to break the law from owning them, criminals don't care and will stay armed, just like they are in Australia. You take away the means for innocent people to be able to defend their lives and the lives of their families. I wonder, have you ever listened to someone being murdered on the other end of a telephone line? Calling the police emergency number and begging to be saved, and you try and reassure them that the police are on the way but you really know that the police are at least 5-10 minutes out and this person is being killed at that moment? Once you are in that situation, then perhaps you'll see where I'm coming from.. Because if that innocent person had a firearm, they may have been able to save their own lives or at least had a fighting chance to do so. I live in the US and have never been victim of any violence since I've lived here. That might just be because criminals here, in general are too afraid to victimize people that they think might be able to fight back with deadly force.. Heck, I open carry a lot of the time so potential criminals know that if they try to rob me or attack me, and they pose an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death to me or anyone else, that I will draw my Gen4 Glock 19 loaded with 16 rounds of 124gr +P+ 9mm Gold Dots out of its holster and use deadly force against them until they stop what they are doing that makes them that threat. As for protecting my home, I have an AKM and a Beretta 1301 Tactical shotgun. Both loaded to capacity ready to rock and roll.. As you can imagine, we have very few home invasions here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, on account of criminals not wanting to be shot.

Got any kids?  Better get ready to bury one of them. People like you tend to either shoot them yourself by accident or let them do it to you. And then there is the occasional child that will short the parent dead as well.

Know how often that happens here?  NEVER.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:25pm:

Oh yeah... a virtually lawless MExico is SUCH a great example.  You could have instead compared Australia which has NEVER had a school shooting. The NRA of course claims we have had quite a number!

I'm sorry to hear that the facts get in the way of your narrative. How unfortunate for you.

Actually, I might point out that Australia had a mass shooting at a school.. Monash University in fact.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:24pm:

I notice you refused to comment on the fact that teh majority of mass shootings are carried out by people with no criminal record ie NOT CRIMINALS. And notably EVERY school shooting has been carried out by a non-criminal. Well there goes that argument!

What is a common denominator though is that these types of shootings are carried out by people that are deranged and on anti-depressants. The root cause here is not firearms, but the overprescription of psychotropic drugs that lead to suicidal behavior.

If you want to stop mass shootings at schools a few steps that need to be taken are:
1. Get the CDC to investigate and study the link between these school shootings and psychotropic drugs.
2. Stop the method of news coverage of these shootings. They are sensationalized to the extent that these deranged people see it as a means to achieve some fame, or infamy during their lives. The higher the body count, the better because they'll be famous.
3. Stop making schools gun free zones, most shootings occur in gun free zones because these deranged people know that it will be a free fire zone for them to shoot and continue shooting until they are done and either kill themselves or commit suicide by cop.

Start with those three and you'll eliminate most of these school shootings.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:27pm:

Got any kids?  Better get ready to bury one of them. People like you tend to either shoot them yourself by accident or let them do it to you. And then there is the occasional child that will short the parent dead as well. Know how often that happens here?  NEVER.

A lot of children in the US have actually defended their homes from home invasions because firearms were more easily accessible. I guess you think that those children should have been unable to defend themselves and been raped and murdered instead, right?

I agree that children should not have too easy access to firearms, but if your child is responsible and trained in the safe use of the gun then I'd leave the gun out for them.

Most accidental shootings that you refer to occur because the parents are irresponsible and leave the firearms around WITHOUT first having properly taught their children firearm safety. So the child sees a mysterious aura around the firearms and wants to play with it.

Take the mystery away from it, and raise your children correctly and they won't be a problem.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:16pm:

since Australia banned most firearms, violent crime rates went up greatly

Rubbish:

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentRate.html

Violent robbery went up and peaked around 2001, but has steadily gone down since. Every other violent crime category has either remained static or gone down since the buyback.


Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:16pm:

if I'm not mistaken violent crime rates in Australia are almost double that of the US.

You are mistaken - per 100 000 victims, Australia is below the US on every single violent crime category:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime


Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:16pm:

Once you are in that situation, then perhaps you'll see where I'm coming from.. Because if that innocent person had a firearm, they may have been able to save their own lives or at least had a fighting chance to do so.

The only place you are coming from is a place of misinformation. The statistics demonstrate pretty clearly that if you are in a place that has tight gun controls, innocent people are less likely to be threatened with a gun in the first place. Really the best that you can argue is that higher crime and especially a higher threat of gun violence against innocent victims - is a price worth paying for your idea of 'liberty'.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:58pm:

You are mistaken - per 100 000 victims, Australia is below the US on every single violent crime category: The only place you are coming from is a place of misinformation. The statistics demonstrate pretty clearly that if you are in a place that has tight gun controls, innocent people are less likely to be threatened with a gun in the first place. Really the best that you can argue is that higher crime and especially a higher threat of gun violence against innocent victims - is a price worth paying for your idea of 'liberty'.

Could you please google something for me? I can't post links, but if you google the phrase 'Comparing international trends in recorded violent crime' and go to the AIC website where it is.. You'll find a table and an article. It indicates the violent crime rates in Australia are much higher.

It's odd because it shows a big difference from what you are saying, though both of the sets of information should be coming from the same place.

I guess you are referring to this chart - which is only up to 2004:

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/cfi/cfi115.gif

And from the factsheet:


Quote:

The way in which crime is recorded varies across jurisdictions and over time, so comparing crime rates between countries (and, sometimes, within a country) is not necessarily an accurate indicator of differences in actual levels of crime in those countries. Similarly, crime rate trend data in a single jurisdiction are not necessarily reflective of trends in actual levels of crime. Changes in rates of recorded crime may be the result of changes in the way crime data are collected, or changes in the proportion of victims reporting criminal offences to police. The figure below shows a dramatic increase in recorded violent crime in England and Wales between 1998 and the present. Rather than indicating a sharp rise in actual violence, however, this increase is largely the direct result of major changes to the way crime data are recorded in the England and Wales. First in 1998 and then again in 2002, amendments were introduced to include a broader range of offences, to promote greater consistency, and to take a more victim-led approach where alleged offences were recorded as well as evidence-based ones. The changes affected recorded violent crimes more than property or other crimes. Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries.

So we know at the very least the UK trend is misleading because the dramatic change is due to changes in the way crime was recorded. Also it is unclear which actual crimes are included in this dataset.

Whereas the link I posted provides specific crime for crime stats - and the trend is pretty clear: robberies - 81 vs 146 per 100k, violent rape 6378 vs 84767 and murder - 229 vs 12996

Of course its not all down to gun laws, but the downward trend in Australian gun crime since the buyback and gun laws (without any overall increase in any other violent crime) is rather conclusive. Thus you are really only left with one argument: that the increased risk of violent crime against innocent people is worth the price of your liberty.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 6:42pm:

I guess you are referring to this chart - which is only up to 2004: And from the factsheet: Quote: The way in which crime is recorded varies across jurisdictions and over time, so comparing crime rates between countries (and, sometimes, within a country) is not necessarily an accurate indicator of differences in actual levels of crime in those countries. Similarly, crime rate trend data in a single jurisdiction are not necessarily reflective of trends in actual levels of crime. Changes in rates of recorded crime may be the result of changes in the way crime data are collected, or changes in the proportion of victims reporting criminal offences to police. The figure below shows a dramatic increase in recorded violent crime in England and Wales between 1998 and the present. Rather than indicating a sharp rise in actual violence, however, this increase is largely the direct result of major changes to the way crime data are recorded in the England and Wales. First in 1998 and then again in 2002, amendments were introduced to include a broader range of offences, to promote greater consistency, and to take a more victim-led approach where alleged offences were recorded as well as evidence-based ones. The changes affected recorded violent crimes more than property or other crimes. Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries. So we know at the very least the UK trend is misleading because the dramatic change is due to changes in the way crime was recorded. Also it is unclear which actual crimes are included in this dataset. Whereas the link I posted provides specific crime for crime stats - and the trend is pretty clear: robberies - 81 vs 146 per 100k, violent rape 6378 vs 84767 and murder - 229 vs 12996

Yeah it does only go up to 2004 but take a look at the AIC website you provided. In 2004 it has a much lower violent crime rate than the AIC one that I provided.

Is that due to the way crimes are recorded?

Aussie wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Because it was more than enough to recognise you as a one-toothed hokey, probably married to your sister and wishing for the old days of slavery. Hmmm.. Well I was born in Brunswick East, in Melbourne. I am a Muslim and I actually married a beautiful African American woman.. So I guess you're wrong about all of that... Way to go, judging me before even knowing me the slightest. mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Our idea of freedom involves the ABSENCE of guns.  Not how many people have been killed in mass-shootings in the last 19 years? NONE.  Try telling that to the 900,000 people killed by guns in USA. No mass shootings in Australia in the last 19 years? Let's examine that. Wedderburn mass shooting in 2014 Hunt family murders in 2014 Hectorville Siege in 2011 Monash University mass shooting in 2002 I guess it wasn't none afterall! As for the people killed by guns in the USA. I wonder how many of those were suicides? How many were in places where it is illegal to own a gun? As for being free relying on the absence of guns. I mean that's a little silly don't you think.. Leaving guns only in the hands of criminals and the government, both of which will usurp your rights very quickly while you have no means to defend yourself? But I can see why you wouldn't find guns useful in that situation. Australians don't know what rights are and see them as privileges so of course they won't fight to protect their rights and will bend over and take it in the tailpipe if the government wants to infringe on those rights. That's why I love the US, we have protections against that. You've been here at OzPol before spruiking this claptrap.  Forget which name you used.  You probably have too.  Doubt you'll hear from me in this Thread now.

I don't think this guy is a sock you must be paranoid arsie.

This poster is a muslim with the usual mental gymnastics we get from muslims when it comes to Islam.

I did not say he is a sock.  I reckon he has posted here previously under a other tag.  Big difference.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2015 at 5:21pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Because it was more than enough to recognise you as a one-toothed hokey, probably married to your sister and wishing for the old days of slavery. Hmmm.. Well I was born in Brunswick East, in Melbourne. I am a Muslim and I actually married a beautiful African American woman.. So I guess you're wrong about all of that... Way to go, judging me before even knowing me the slightest. mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Our idea of freedom involves the ABSENCE of guns.  Not how many people have been killed in mass-shootings in the last 19 years? NONE.  Try telling that to the 900,000 people killed by guns in USA. No mass shootings in Australia in the last 19 years? Let's examine that. Wedderburn mass shooting in 2014 Hunt family murders in 2014 Hectorville Siege in 2011 Monash University mass shooting in 2002 I guess it wasn't none afterall! As for the people killed by guns in the USA. I wonder how many of those were suicides? How many were in places where it is illegal to own a gun? As for being free relying on the absence of guns. I mean that's a little silly don't you think.. Leaving guns only in the hands of criminals and the government, both of which will usurp your rights very quickly while you have no means to defend yourself? But I can see why you wouldn't find guns useful in that situation. Australians don't know what rights are and see them as privileges so of course they won't fight to protect their rights and will bend over and take it in the tailpipe if the government wants to infringe on those rights. That's why I love the US, we have protections against that. Against what?  400 mass shootings this year alone?  35,000 gun deaths every year? And of course you are a Muslim. A muslim with a gun-love.  Might as well start your own uprising.

Mother Jones disagrees with your mass shooting claptrap they are anti gun, one of the mass shootings in your list was a cop accidently shooting a few innocent bystanders.

About 11,000 homicides, the majority of the suicides are white males over the age of 60.

Try google for Arab wedding gunfire, why is there never any mention of muslim gun culture.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:01pm:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 3:55pm: Tell me, do you believe that the government should have a monopoly on violence? Cheap slogans don't alter the facts: tighter gun control reduces gun deaths: http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/4905120/data/chart3a-deaths-resulting-from-firearms-data.jpg

Cherry picking data along with cheap slogans is done by hoplophobes.

The majority of our gun deaths before 1996 were suicides with males over the age of 65 being the largest demographic, today hanging is the most common method of suicide, taking guns away was supposed to give them more time to think yet it makes no difference with suicidal people.

We bought back 640,000 shotguns and rimfires for around a billion dollars to reduce our firearm homicides by 15-30 a year.

Quote:

Firearm homicides- 1993- 64 1994- 76 1995- 67 1996- 104 ,Pt Arthur resulted in strict gun laws. 1997- 79 1998- 57 1999- 50 2000- 57 2001- 47 aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi269.pdf

Quote:

All you do by banning firearms is prevent people who have no inclination to break the law from owning them, criminals don't care and will stay armed, just like they are in Australia.

Crap, banning guns pushes up the price criminals have to pay - both in dollars and penalties if they are caught with them. Most criminals are junkies who would sell their mother for a fix. That's why most holdups in Australia are done with other far less lethal weapons, and why so few Australians die in armed holdups.

But hey, let's not let the facts or common sense get in the way of the endless stream of mindless NRA spin that American gun nuts like to regurgitate on here. After all, owning a gun is what liberty means right? And 'respecting liberty' means parroting NRA propaganda.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 8:00pm:

Crap, banning guns pushes up the price criminals have to pay - both in dollars and penalties if they are caught with them. Most criminals are junkies who would sell their mother for a fix. That's why most holdups in Australia are done with other far less lethal weapons, and why so few Australians die in armed holdups. But hey, let's not let the facts or common sense get in the way of the endless stream of mindless NRA spin that American gun nuts like to regurgitate on here. After all, owning a gun is what liberty means right? And 'respecting liberty' means parroting NRA propaganda.

Banning guns or any weapon means that criminals have the upper hand and know that you, as a law abiding citizen won't have the means to defend yourself whilst they can carry a knife, a screw driver or even a gun and victimize you with it. They can also gang up on you and attack you like that.

Firearms are the surest means of self defence for men and women, particularly those who are on the losing side of the disparity of force.

Instead, the Australian government wants your daughters, sisters, mothers and spouses to use their keys to defend themselves against a rapist..

Forget that, my wife carries her gun and knows how to use it.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:29pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 5:25pm: Oh yeah... a virtually lawless MExico is SUCH a great example.  You could have instead compared Australia which has NEVER had a school shooting. The NRA of course claims we have had quite a number! I'm sorry to hear that the facts get in the way of your narrative. How unfortunate for you. Actually, I might point out that Australia had a mass shooting at a school.. Monash University in fact.

Care to give some details on that mythical event?

No, of course not.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 5:36pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 5:27pm: Got any kids?  Better get ready to bury one of them. People like you tend to either shoot them yourself by accident or let them do it to you. And then there is the occasional child that will short the parent dead as well. Know how often that happens here?  NEVER. A lot of children in the US have actually defended their homes from home invasions because firearms were more easily accessible. I guess you think that those children should have been unable to defend themselves and been raped and murdered instead, right? I agree that children should not have too easy access to firearms, but if your child is responsible and trained in the safe use of the gun then I'd leave the gun out for them. Most accidental shootings that you refer to occur because the parents are irresponsible and leave the firearms around WITHOUT first having properly taught their children firearm safety. So the child sees a mysterious aura around the firearms and wants to play with it. Take the mystery away from it, and raise your children correctly and they won't be a problem.

I'm going to call the highlighted bit a COMPLETE LIE.  Support it from somewhere other than the NRA website or weloveguns.com

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 7:32pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 5:21pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Because it was more than enough to recognise you as a one-toothed hokey, probably married to your sister and wishing for the old days of slavery. Hmmm.. Well I was born in Brunswick East, in Melbourne. I am a Muslim and I actually married a beautiful African American woman.. So I guess you're wrong about all of that... Way to go, judging me before even knowing me the slightest. mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Our idea of freedom involves the ABSENCE of guns.  Not how many people have been killed in mass-shootings in the last 19 years? NONE.  Try telling that to the 900,000 people killed by guns in USA. No mass shootings in Australia in the last 19 years? Let's examine that. Wedderburn mass shooting in 2014 Hunt family murders in 2014 Hectorville Siege in 2011 Monash University mass shooting in 2002 I guess it wasn't none afterall! As for the people killed by guns in the USA. I wonder how many of those were suicides? How many were in places where it is illegal to own a gun? As for being free relying on the absence of guns. I mean that's a little silly don't you think.. Leaving guns only in the hands of criminals and the government, both of which will usurp your rights very quickly while you have no means to defend yourself? But I can see why you wouldn't find guns useful in that situation. Australians don't know what rights are and see them as privileges so of course they won't fight to protect their rights and will bend over and take it in the tailpipe if the government wants to infringe on those rights. That's why I love the US, we have protections against that. Against what?  400 mass shootings this year alone?  35,000 gun deaths every year? And of course you are a Muslim. A muslim with a gun-love.  Might as well start your own uprising. Mother Jones disagrees with your mass shooting claptrap they are anti gun, one of the mass shootings in your list was a cop accidently shooting a few innocent bystanders. About 11,000 homicides, the majority of the suicides are white males over the age of 60. Try google for Arab wedding gunfire, why is there never any mention of muslim gun culture.

So it is 399 mass shootings... How does that change ANYTHING?

Guns aren't the only weapon for self defense Lafeyette, guns are only one convenience to do the job. At issue, is the right to protect one's self by whatever means and whether it will stand up in court if it actually goes to court

So, does the US afford more generous laws for individual self defense than Australia does, forget guns, which nation gives more leeway in court for the guy doing the self defending ? ... That would be the real question I'd say, if you're talking about liberty

I doubt it would be Australia, but we really need to see the laws regarding self defense from both nations. Again, I'm talking about self defense, not about guns

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 4:46am:

freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 8:00pm: Crap, banning guns pushes up the price criminals have to pay - both in dollars and penalties if they are caught with them. Most criminals are junkies who would sell their mother for a fix. That's why most holdups in Australia are done with other far less lethal weapons, and why so few Australians die in armed holdups. But hey, let's not let the facts or common sense get in the way of the endless stream of mindless NRA spin that American gun nuts like to regurgitate on here. After all, owning a gun is what liberty means right? And 'respecting liberty' means parroting NRA propaganda. Banning guns or any weapon means that criminals have the upper hand and know that you, as a law abiding citizen won't have the means to defend yourself whilst they can carry a knife, a screw driver or even a gun and victimize you with it. They can also gang up on you and attack you like that. Firearms are the surest means of self defence for men and women, particularly those who are on the losing side of the disparity of force. Instead, the Australian government wants your daughters, sisters, mothers and spouses to use their keys to defend themselves against a rapist.. Forget that, my wife carries her gun and knows how to use it.

And in the USA, criminals that use guns have to use powerful automatic weapons so they can attack gun owning crazies. You've never heard of the concept of armed escalation?  Where does it end? Why don't you carry an RPG in your car just in case you are attacked by... someone with an RPG?

Your argument is literally insane.

Here in Australia there will be family fights over Christmas. A few will escalate into fist fights. In the USA however they will be gun fights. Here there will be the occasional broken nose and jaw. IN USA there will be coffins.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 6:12am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 7:32pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 5:21pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Because it was more than enough to recognise you as a one-toothed hokey, probably married to your sister and wishing for the old days of slavery. Hmmm.. Well I was born in Brunswick East, in Melbourne. I am a Muslim and I actually married a beautiful African American woman.. So I guess you're wrong about all of that... Way to go, judging me before even knowing me the slightest. mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Our idea of freedom involves the ABSENCE of guns.  Not how many people have been killed in mass-shootings in the last 19 years? NONE.  Try telling that to the 900,000 people killed by guns in USA. No mass shootings in Australia in the last 19 years? Let's examine that. Wedderburn mass shooting in 2014 Hunt family murders in 2014 Hectorville Siege in 2011 Monash University mass shooting in 2002 I guess it wasn't none afterall! As for the people killed by guns in the USA. I wonder how many of those were suicides? How many were in places where it is illegal to own a gun? As for being free relying on the absence of guns. I mean that's a little silly don't you think.. Leaving guns only in the hands of criminals and the government, both of which will usurp your rights very quickly while you have no means to defend yourself? But I can see why you wouldn't find guns useful in that situation. Australians don't know what rights are and see them as privileges so of course they won't fight to protect their rights and will bend over and take it in the tailpipe if the government wants to infringe on those rights. That's why I love the US, we have protections against that. Against what?  400 mass shootings this year alone?  35,000 gun deaths every year? And of course you are a Muslim. A muslim with a gun-love.  Might as well start your own uprising. Mother Jones disagrees with your mass shooting claptrap they are anti gun, one of the mass shootings in your list was a cop accidently shooting a few innocent bystanders. About 11,000 homicides, the majority of the suicides are white males over the age of 60. Try google for Arab wedding gunfire, why is there never any mention of muslim gun culture. So it is 399 mass shootings... How does that change ANYTHING?

Mother Jones puts mass shootings at 73 in the last 3 decades ,they disagree with the lies you present.
motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 6:16am:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 4:46am: freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 8:00pm: Crap, banning guns pushes up the price criminals have to pay - both in dollars and penalties if they are caught with them. Most criminals are junkies who would sell their mother for a fix. That's why most holdups in Australia are done with other far less lethal weapons, and why so few Australians die in armed holdups. But hey, let's not let the facts or common sense get in the way of the endless stream of mindless NRA spin that American gun nuts like to regurgitate on here. After all, owning a gun is what liberty means right? And 'respecting liberty' means parroting NRA propaganda. Banning guns or any weapon means that criminals have the upper hand and know that you, as a law abiding citizen won't have the means to defend yourself whilst they can carry a knife, a screw driver or even a gun and victimize you with it. They can also gang up on you and attack you like that. Firearms are the surest means of self defence for men and women, particularly those who are on the losing side of the disparity of force. Instead, the Australian government wants your daughters, sisters, mothers and spouses to use their keys to defend themselves against a rapist.. Forget that, my wife carries her gun and knows how to use it. And in the USA, criminals that use guns have to use powerful automatic weapons so they can attack gun owning crazies. Here in Australia there will be family fights over Christmas. A few will escalate into fist fights. In the USA however they will be gun fights. Here there will be the occasional broken nose and jaw. IN USA there will be coffins.

The criminals don't have automatic firearms in the USA, Automatic firearms have been regulated since Al Capone's day it's a closed registry.

FBI stats for 2014 show more people are killed with fists and feet compared to rifles which include so called assault rifles.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 8:00pm:

Quote: All you do by banning firearms is prevent people who have no inclination to break the law from owning them, criminals don't care and will stay armed, just like they are in Australia. Crap, banning guns pushes up the price criminals have to pay - both in dollars and penalties if they are caught with them. Most criminals are junkies who would sell their mother for a fix. That's why most holdups in Australia are done with other far less lethal weapons, and why so few Australians die in armed holdups.

Before our 1996 gun laws we had around 60-70 firearm homicides a year, guns were never really a problem here compared to the USA.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 6:16am:

And in the USA, criminals that use guns have to use powerful automatic weapons so they can attack gun owning crazies. You've never heard of the concept of armed escalation?  Where does it end? Why don't you carry an RPG in your car just in case you are attacked by... someone with an RPG? Your argument is literally insane. Here in Australia there will be family fights over Christmas. A few will escalate into fist fights. In the USA however they will be gun fights. Here there will be the occasional broken nose and jaw. IN USA there will be coffins.

So many Americans are armed here. Many even carry a firearm on them yet very few ever use their firearms. Criminals are less likely to victimize you when they know you could possibly be armed because they aren't stupid. It's just not worth the risk for most.

Very few criminals here are armed with automatic firearms also.

Australia has a massive problem with alcoholism, that isn't the fault of firearms. It is a cultural issue.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 4:46am:

freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 8:00pm: Crap, banning guns pushes up the price criminals have to pay - both in dollars and penalties if they are caught with them. Most criminals are junkies who would sell their mother for a fix. That's why most holdups in Australia are done with other far less lethal weapons, and why so few Australians die in armed holdups. But hey, let's not let the facts or common sense get in the way of the endless stream of mindless NRA spin that American gun nuts like to regurgitate on here. After all, owning a gun is what liberty means right? And 'respecting liberty' means parroting NRA propaganda. Banning guns or any weapon means that criminals have the upper hand and know that you, as a law abiding citizen won't have the means to defend yourself whilst they can carry a knife, a screw driver or even a gun and victimize you with it. They can also gang up on you and attack you like that. Firearms are the surest means of self defence for men and women, particularly those who are on the losing side of the disparity of force. Instead, the Australian government wants your daughters, sisters, mothers and spouses to use their keys to defend themselves against a rapist.. Forget that, my wife carries her gun and knows how to use it.

Yes Lafayette, we get this idiotic propaganda rammed down our throat by American NRA ideologues on a regular basis. Though it is refreshing to come across a Muslim gun nut who works in counter terrorism....

The point you appear to miss is that contrary to what you dribbled (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals.

Can you acknowledge this, or are you only programmed to parrot a slightly different version of the propaganda? I don't think I have ever succeeded in getting a gun nut to acknowledge this point.

Also, you never explained how you define liberty or what you mean by Americans respecting liberty. Does liberty mean the right to bear arms?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:27am:

Yes Lafayette, we get this idiotic propaganda rammed down our throat by American NRA ideologues on a regular basis. Though it is refreshing to come across a Muslim gun nut who works in counter terrorism.... The point you appear to miss is that contrary to what you dribbled (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals. Can you acknowledge this, or are you only programmed to parrot a slightly different version of the propaganda? I don't think I have ever succeeded in getting a gun nut to acknowledge this point. Also, you never explained how you define liberty or what you mean by Americans respecting liberty. Does liberty mean the right to bear arms?

Australia is its own continent, it has strict border controls yet illegal firearms still do get into the country.

Let me put it this way, prisons, where everything is controlled, still have illegal drugs, weapons and electonics coming into them despite the level of control. So how much control do you think you'll need to put on a society to stop guns from coming into the country and are you willing to live in a country that infringes on your freedom that much?

But let's actually assume that you could magically prevent every person in the country from having a firearm. Will that make society safer? Or less safe? Because what I see occurring is criminals not only using other weapons that are available, but also using their size and numbers to victimize people.

So what are you going to tell a 5ft 50kg woman to do when she is going to be raped by a guy that's 6'2 100kg and full of muscle? To use her keys? Give me a break.. You hope to deny innocent people the means to be able to defend their lives.

As for how firearms help to protect liberty, they act as a counterbalance to be power of government. Should the government decide to infringe on the people's rights, the people will be able to defend themselves.

But I don't suspect an Australian would be able to understand that because generally Australians don't know anything about rights. They treat them all like privileges and are not prepared to die to protect their rights.

The point you appear to miss is that contrary to what you dribbled (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals.

Can you acknowledge this, or are you only programmed to parrot a slightly different version of the propaganda? I don't think I have ever succeeded in getting a gun nut to acknowledge this point.

Also, you never explained how you define liberty or what you mean by Americans respecting liberty. Does liberty mean the right to bear arms?

freediver wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:50am:

The point you appear to miss is that contrary to what you dribbled (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals. Can you acknowledge this, or are you only programmed to parrot a slightly different version of the propaganda? I don't think I have ever succeeded in getting a gun nut to acknowledge this point. Also, you never explained how you define liberty or what you mean by Americans respecting liberty. Does liberty mean the right to bear arms?

Australia is its own continent, it has strict border controls yet illegal firearms still do get into the country.

Let me put it this way, prisons, where everything is controlled, still have illegal drugs, weapons and electonics coming into them despite the level of control. So how much control do you think you'll need to put on a society to stop guns from coming into the country and are you willing to live in a country that infringes on your freedom that much?

But let's actually assume that you could magically prevent every person in the country from having a firearm. Will that make society safer? Or less safe? Because what I see occurring is criminals not only using other weapons that are available, but also using their size and numbers to victimize people.

So what are you going to tell a 5ft 50kg woman to do when she is going to be raped by a guy that's 6'2 100kg and full of muscle? To use her keys? Give me a break.. You hope to deny innocent people the means to be able to defend their lives.

As for how firearms help to protect liberty, they act as a counterbalance to be power of government. Should the government decide to infringe on the people's rights, the people will be able to defend themselves.

But I don't suspect an Australian would be able to understand that because generally Australians don't know anything about rights. They treat them all like privileges and are not prepared to die to protect their rights.

As for how I define rightful liberty. I agree with Jefferson's definition.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 7:24am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 6:12am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 7:32pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 5:21pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Because it was more than enough to recognise you as a one-toothed hokey, probably married to your sister and wishing for the old days of slavery. Hmmm.. Well I was born in Brunswick East, in Melbourne. I am a Muslim and I actually married a beautiful African American woman.. So I guess you're wrong about all of that... Way to go, judging me before even knowing me the slightest. mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Our idea of freedom involves the ABSENCE of guns.  Not how many people have been killed in mass-shootings in the last 19 years? NONE.  Try telling that to the 900,000 people killed by guns in USA. No mass shootings in Australia in the last 19 years? Let's examine that. Wedderburn mass shooting in 2014 Hunt family murders in 2014 Hectorville Siege in 2011 Monash University mass shooting in 2002 I guess it wasn't none afterall! As for the people killed by guns in the USA. I wonder how many of those were suicides? How many were in places where it is illegal to own a gun? As for being free relying on the absence of guns. I mean that's a little silly don't you think.. Leaving guns only in the hands of criminals and the government, both of which will usurp your rights very quickly while you have no means to defend yourself? But I can see why you wouldn't find guns useful in that situation. Australians don't know what rights are and see them as privileges so of course they won't fight to protect their rights and will bend over and take it in the tailpipe if the government wants to infringe on those rights. That's why I love the US, we have protections against that. Against what?  400 mass shootings this year alone?  35,000 gun deaths every year? And of course you are a Muslim. A muslim with a gun-love.  Might as well start your own uprising. Mother Jones disagrees with your mass shooting claptrap they are anti gun, one of the mass shootings in your list was a cop accidently shooting a few innocent bystanders. About 11,000 homicides, the majority of the suicides are white males over the age of 60. Try google for Arab wedding gunfire, why is there never any mention of muslim gun culture. So it is 399 mass shootings... How does that change ANYTHING? Mother Jones puts mass shootings at 73 in the last 3 decades ,they disagree with the lies you present. motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

73 huh? in 30 years or around 2 a year?

Why would you be so gullible as to swallow that nonsense? Seriously, have you not read the news this year? There have been 400 mass shootings this year alone.

school shootings alone are more than two a year.

But thank you for demonstrating what is the thinking of a gun-nut.  NOTHING AT ALL.

---

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 9:49am:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 9:27am: Yes Lafayette, we get this idiotic propaganda rammed down our throat by American NRA ideologues on a regular basis. Though it is refreshing to come across a Muslim gun nut who works in counter terrorism.... The point you appear to miss is that contrary to what you dribbled (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals. Can you acknowledge this, or are you only programmed to parrot a slightly different version of the propaganda? I don't think I have ever succeeded in getting a gun nut to acknowledge this point. Also, you never explained how you define liberty or what you mean by Americans respecting liberty. Does liberty mean the right to bear arms? Australia is its own continent, it has strict border controls yet illegal firearms still do get into the country. Let me put it this way, prisons, where everything is controlled, still have illegal drugs, weapons and electonics coming into them despite the level of control. So how much control do you think you'll need to put on a society to stop guns from coming into the country and are you willing to live in a country that infringes on your freedom that much? But let's actually assume that you could magically prevent every person in the country from having a firearm. Will that make society safer? Or less safe? Because what I see occurring is criminals not only using other weapons that are available, but also using their size and numbers to victimize people. So what are you going to tell a 5ft 50kg woman to do when she is going to be raped by a guy that's 6'2 100kg and full of muscle? To use her keys? Give me a break.. You hope to deny innocent people the means to be able to defend their lives. As for how firearms help to protect liberty, they act as a counterbalance to be power of government. Should the government decide to infringe on the people's rights, the people will be able to defend themselves. But I don't suspect an Australian would be able to understand that because generally Australians don't know anything about rights. They treat them all like privileges and are not prepared to die to protect their rights.

What a stupid argument. Any attacker with half a brain could easily attack and restrain a woman half their size long before they fished through their handbag for their gun.

At least TRY and come up with credible scenarios.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:15am:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 9:50am: The point you appear to miss is that contrary to what you dribbled (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals. Can you acknowledge this, or are you only programmed to parrot a slightly different version of the propaganda? I don't think I have ever succeeded in getting a gun nut to acknowledge this point. Also, you never explained how you define liberty or what you mean by Americans respecting liberty. Does liberty mean the right to bear arms? Australia is its own continent, it has strict border controls yet illegal firearms still do get into the country. Let me put it this way, prisons, where everything is controlled, still have illegal drugs, weapons and electonics coming into them despite the level of control. So how much control do you think you'll need to put on a society to stop guns from coming into the country and are you willing to live in a country that infringes on your freedom that much? But let's actually assume that you could magically prevent every person in the country from having a firearm. Will that make society safer? Or less safe? Because what I see occurring is criminals not only using other weapons that are available, but also using their size and numbers to victimize people. So what are you going to tell a 5ft 50kg woman to do when she is going to be raped by a guy that's 6'2 100kg and full of muscle? To use her keys? Give me a break.. You hope to deny innocent people the means to be able to defend their lives. As for how firearms help to protect liberty, they act as a counterbalance to be power of government. Should the government decide to infringe on the people's rights, the people will be able to defend themselves. But I don't suspect an Australian would be able to understand that because generally Australians don't know anything about rights. They treat them all like privileges and are not prepared to die to protect their rights. As for how I define rightful liberty. I agree with Jefferson's definition. "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Why wont you respond to the FACT that mass shootings are largely carried out by NON CRIMINALS?  Surely we could greatly reduce the rate of gun deaths by simply disarming the non-criminals.

I dont expect you to answer that. That would require some thinking outside of what the NRA tells you to think.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

What a stupid argument. Any attacker with half a brain could easily attack and restrain a woman half their size long before they fished through their handbag for their gun. At least TRY and come up with credible scenarios.

That is, providing the attacker is close enough to do so, and there is nothing between him and her. A firearm isn't the only answer, one must be trained to use it and how to respond to violent situations. One must also be perceptive to the dangers that are around them. A man rarely appears only a few meters away. He has to get there somehow.

Let's look at a real life example:

Quote:

Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder LOGANVILLE, Ga. — A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday. The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar. But the man eventually found the family. "The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he's staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver," Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh. The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved. "She's standing over him, and she realizes she's fired all six rounds. And the guy's telling her to quit shooting," Chapman said. The woman ran to a neighbor's home with her children. The intruder attempted to flee in his car but crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a nearby driveway, Chapman said. Deputies arrested 32-year-old Atlanta resident Paul Slater in connection with the crime. Chapman said they found him on the ground saying, "Help me. I'm close to dying." Slater was taken to Gwinnett Medical Center for treatment.  Chapman said Slater was shot in the face and neck. In February, Slater was arrested on simple battery charges, according to the Gwinnett County Sheriff's Office. He has been arrested six other times in the county since 2008. Kavanaugh was the first reporter at the scene as deputies investigated. The victim's husband told Kavanaugh he's proud of his wife. He was on the phone with her as the intruder broke in. "My wife is a hero. She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner," Donnie Herman said. He said he's thankful for his family's safety. "Her life is saved, and her kids' life is saved, and that's all I'd like to say," Herman said. Channel 2’s Amy Napier Viteri learned from Chapman late Friday night that slater has been placed on a ventilator and suffers from punctured lungs, a punctured liver and a punctured stomach. Source: WSBTV dot com

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:43am:

Why wont you respond to the FACT that mass shootings are largely carried out by NON CRIMINALS?  Surely we could greatly reduce the rate of gun deaths by simply disarming the non-criminals. I dont expect you to answer that. That would require some thinking outside of what the NRA tells you to think.

Simply because you can't legislate to prevent all deranged people from carrying out the acts of a deranged person without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Perhaps it would be the case though that if more people were armed, they would be able to stop a deranged person from killing multiple people more quickly than waiting for police to arrive.

I know it is not convenient for you to do so but perhaps consider all of the situations where law abiding citizens use firearms to protect themselves against criminals.

I don't think anyone in OZ has seen the massive contradiction in our political thinking yet. Gun control laws were enacted because of a few in the community who blazed away and then somehow the whole collective was to blame for the actions of the few, hence the stricter gun laws. Keeping this in mind, when radicalized Muslims takes to the streets and gun people down (Lindt Caffee and Parramatta) the collective is suddenly immune from criticism according to Turnbull and others, the radicals were just lone nutters with mental conditions and the rest of the collective held no blame, such was the theory behind all the rhetoric

So the OZ collective was blamed for one lot of nutters, but not blamed for another lot of nutters ... how do we straighten that out, get rid of Turnbull and bring back John Howard ?

It might be better if we leave Turnbull in, the OZ collective will at least, not be blamed because of any future incidences

mariacostel wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:38am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 7:24am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 6:12am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 7:32pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 5:21pm: Lafayette wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:39pm: mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Because it was more than enough to recognise you as a one-toothed hokey, probably married to your sister and wishing for the old days of slavery. Hmmm.. Well I was born in Brunswick East, in Melbourne. I am a Muslim and I actually married a beautiful African American woman.. So I guess you're wrong about all of that... Way to go, judging me before even knowing me the slightest. mariacostel wrote on Dec 22nd, 2015 at 4:18pm: Our idea of freedom involves the ABSENCE of guns.  Not how many people have been killed in mass-shootings in the last 19 years? NONE.  Try telling that to the 900,000 people killed by guns in USA. No mass shootings in Australia in the last 19 years? Let's examine that. Wedderburn mass shooting in 2014 Hunt family murders in 2014 Hectorville Siege in 2011 Monash University mass shooting in 2002 I guess it wasn't none afterall! As for the people killed by guns in the USA. I wonder how many of those were suicides? How many were in places where it is illegal to own a gun? As for being free relying on the absence of guns. I mean that's a little silly don't you think.. Leaving guns only in the hands of criminals and the government, both of which will usurp your rights very quickly while you have no means to defend yourself? But I can see why you wouldn't find guns useful in that situation. Australians don't know what rights are and see them as privileges so of course they won't fight to protect their rights and will bend over and take it in the tailpipe if the government wants to infringe on those rights. That's why I love the US, we have protections against that. Against what?  400 mass shootings this year alone?  35,000 gun deaths every year? And of course you are a Muslim. A muslim with a gun-love.  Might as well start your own uprising. Mother Jones disagrees with your mass shooting claptrap they are anti gun, one of the mass shootings in your list was a cop accidently shooting a few innocent bystanders. About 11,000 homicides, the majority of the suicides are white males over the age of 60. Try google for Arab wedding gunfire, why is there never any mention of muslim gun culture. So it is 399 mass shootings... How does that change ANYTHING? Mother Jones puts mass shootings at 73 in the last 3 decades ,they disagree with the lies you present. motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map 73 huh? in 30 years or around 2 a year? Why would you be so gullible as to swallow that nonsense? Seriously, have you not read the news this year? There have been 400 mass shootings this year alone. school shootings alone are more than two a year. But thank you for demonstrating what is the thinking of a gun-nut.  NOTHING AT ALL.

There have been 72 mass shooting since 1982 which includes the latest terrorist attack.
Here is the list, data includes weapon type and assault rifles are not the most common yet that is what scares hoplophobes into wanting them banned.
motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

Your source redefines the FBI definition of mass shootings,your source includes police accidently shooting a few innocent bystanders while arresting someone.

Firearm homicides have dropped by over 49% in the USA since 1993, the PEW survey had around 63% being unaware of this fact.

Hoplophobes are full of bullshit and short on facts.

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 2:07pm:

I don't think anyone in OZ has seen the massive contradiction in our political thinking yet. Gun control laws were enacted because of a few in the community who blazed away and then somehow the whole collective was to blame for the actions of the few, hence the stricter gun laws. Keeping this in mind, when radicalized Muslims takes to the streets and gun people down (Lindt Caffee and Parramatta) the collective is suddenly immune from criticism according to Turnbull and others, the radicals were just lone nutters with mental conditions and the rest of the collective held no blame, such was the theory behind all the rhetoric So the OZ collective was blamed for one lot of nutters, but not blamed for another lot of nutters ... how do we straighten that out, get rid of Turnbull and bring back John Howard ?

Yes.. yes.. but the Oz collective were AUSTRALIANS.. and the aim of the game was not to prevent gun crime... but to take away the ability of the Oz people to defend themselves against a corrupt and oppressive government intent on destroying their livelihoods and their credibility and thus rendering them susceptible to control by a small man like Wee Johnny Howard...

You see.. these pricks KNEW that their policy thrusts and those of their opposition were leading us to Downfall... and that little coward Howard set out to ensure that when we were suitably oppressed, disenfranchised, and rendered financially impotent in the majority of cases ..... no Man would have the materiel with which to oppose tyranny with might and main......

A clear example of a continuation of (civil) war by other means than direct conflict... and THAT is what the 'gun laws'.. and certain others... are all about.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 24^th, 2015 at 10:15am:

freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2015 at 9:50am: The point you appear to miss is that contrary to what you dribbled (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals. Can you acknowledge this, or are you only programmed to parrot a slightly different version of the propaganda? I don't think I have ever succeeded in getting a gun nut to acknowledge this point. Also, you never explained how you define liberty or what you mean by Americans respecting liberty. Does liberty mean the right to bear arms? Australia is its own continent, it has strict border controls yet illegal firearms still do get into the country. Let me put it this way, prisons, where everything is controlled, still have illegal drugs, weapons and electonics coming into them despite the level of control. So how much control do you think you'll need to put on a society to stop guns from coming into the country and are you willing to live in a country that infringes on your freedom that much? But let's actually assume that you could magically prevent every person in the country from having a firearm. Will that make society safer? Or less safe? Because what I see occurring is criminals not only using other weapons that are available, but also using their size and numbers to victimize people. So what are you going to tell a 5ft 50kg woman to do when she is going to be raped by a guy that's 6'2 100kg and full of muscle? To use her keys? Give me a break.. You hope to deny innocent people the means to be able to defend their lives. As for how firearms help to protect liberty, they act as a counterbalance to be power of government. Should the government decide to infringe on the people's rights, the people will be able to defend themselves. But I don't suspect an Australian would be able to understand that because generally Australians don't know anything about rights. They treat them all like privileges and are not prepared to die to protect their rights. As for how I define rightful liberty. I agree with Jefferson's definition. "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

The point you appear to miss is that contrary to what you dribbled (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals.

Can you acknowledge this, or are you only programmed to parrot a slightly different version of the propaganda? I don't think I have ever succeeded in getting a gun nut to acknowledge this point.

Also, what do you mean by Americans respecting liberty. Does liberty mean the right to bear arms?

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 7:46pm:

We bought back 640,000 shotguns and rimfires for around a billion dollars to reduce our firearm homicides by 15-30 a year.

Tell me Baron, what price should we pay to save 15-30 people each year? How about we consult their families - see what they think?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 7:46pm: We bought back 640,000 shotguns and rimfires for around a billion dollars to reduce our firearm homicides by 15-30 a year. Tell me Baron, what price should we pay to save 15-30 people each year? How about we consult their families - see what they think?

pretty cheap really if of course you value human life. not so sure about gun-nuts tho. I think they value guns over people.

It is an interesting philosopgical question. Even if we take baron's lower estimate of 15 per year since the gun laws, thats juat short of 300 lives saved. For a one off payment of 1 billion.

I reckon i'd agree to cough it up

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 8:06pm:

It is an interesting philosopgical question. Even if we take baron's lower estimate of 15 per year since the gun laws, thats juat short of 300 lives saved. For a one off payment of 1 billion. I reckon i'd agree to cough it up

There is no evidence the gun laws are responsible for decline in firearm deaths, ABS data shows firearm deaths declining from 1980 to 1995.
The decline in our firearm deaths started in 1980 over 15 years before Howard used a scare campaign to push his hoplophobia.

We banned semi auto rifles which accounted for only 27 homicides from 1980-1995, the total firearm homicides was 813 for this period,military style semi autos were responsible for 1.3% of all firearm deaths.

Of course hoplophobes crap their pants at the thought of semi auto rilfes yet ABS data shows they were the least common type of gun for accidents,suicides and homicides,scroll to bottom of link.
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument

The cost of our gun laws should include the firearms registry which has also cost over a billion who knows what the cost totals today,Canada spent 2 billion on their firearm registry before they abolished it, there are over 100 Police full time in the NSW firearms registry.
The NSW police minister was on TV saying greater than 97% of all gun crimes are done by people who are unlicensed and use unregistered firearms.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 8:06pm:

It is an interesting philosopgical question. Even if we take baron's lower estimate of 15 per year since the gun laws, thats juat short of 300 lives saved. For a one off payment of 1 billion. I reckon i'd agree to cough it up

The problem is that in your vain attempt to 'protect' society, you are infringing on society's right to self defense by denying individuals the means to do so. So whilst it may make you feel all kinds of warm and fuzzy inside, you're doing exactly what my criticism of Australians is, you are acting as if you have the authority to vote away the inalienable rights of individuals present and future.

God Bless the American Founding Fathers for making it difficult to do so.

Even if we did presume however that making firearms illegal lowered gun violence. I could achieve the same goals of ending road deaths by banning vehicles. I could lower stabbings by making it illegal to have a knife with a point on the end of it and instead make a dull and rounded safety tip on every knife.

The issue here is about rights. Do people have the right to defend their rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property? Yes they do. So why deny them the means to be able to do that? To deny them the means is to deny them the right.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 8:06pm:

It is an interesting philosopgical question. Even if we take baron's lower estimate of 15 per year since the gun laws, thats juat short of 300 lives saved. For a one off payment of 1 billion. I reckon i'd agree to cough it up

it does seem like a pretty good deal and even more so when you consider the general degree of safety that has ensued as well.

It is all rather interesting to hear americans talk about liberty. In general, they mean guns and nothing more than guns.

Quote:

Even if we did presume however that making firearms illegal lowered gun violence.

No need to presume Lafayette. Contrary to what you dribbled earlier (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals.

Can you acknowledge this, or are you only programmed to parrot a slightly different version of the propaganda? I don't think I have ever succeeded in getting a gun nut to acknowledge this point.

Also, what do you mean by Americans respecting liberty. Does liberty mean the right to bear arms?

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 7:04am:

Even if we did presume however that making firearms illegal lowered gun violence. I could achieve the same goals of ending road deaths by banning vehicles. I could lower stabbings by making it illegal to have a knife with a point on the end of it and instead make a dull and rounded safety tip on every knife. The issue here is about rights. Do people have the right to defend their rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property? Yes they do. So why deny them the means to be able to do that? To deny them the means is to deny them the right.

you are a fool. the primary function of a car is to transport people. the primary function fo a gun is to kill people.

but idiots like you only ever think about guns. you have no idea at all of what liberty actually is.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2015 at 2:53pm:

My freedom to swing my arms ends where your face begins. No-one has the right not to be offended. Quote: 70% of government is via regulation and other bodies than Parliaments, and therein lie many serious dangers Democracy and liberty are not the same thing. The destruction of our freedoms can happen through entirely democratic processes. Such as Australia's compulsive voting system, which encroaches on your freedom, and is an affront to democracy! So long as they are created by and ultimately answerable to democratic processes, this is not necessarily a danger. For example there is sound reasoning for making the reserve bank as independent as possible, yet it was created by a democratically elected government and can be disbanded by it. If the majority of the population wanted to get rid of it, it would happen.

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 7:58am:

freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2015 at 2:53pm: My freedom to swing my arms ends where your face begins. No-one has the right not to be offended. Quote: 70% of government is via regulation and other bodies than Parliaments, and therein lie many serious dangers Democracy and liberty are not the same thing. The destruction of our freedoms can happen through entirely democratic processes. Such as Australia's compulsive voting system, which encroaches on your freedom, and is an affront to democracy! So long as they are created by and ultimately answerable to democratic processes, this is not necessarily a danger. For example there is sound reasoning for making the reserve bank as independent as possible, yet it was created by a democratically elected government and can be disbanded by it. If the majority of the population wanted to get rid of it, it would happen.

compulsory voting is not an affront to democracy anymore than compulsory school attendence and compulsory taxes and compulsory obedience to the law.  you're gonna heva to do better than that to claim it s undemocratic.

Yet Australia is one of the very few countries which DEMAND under pain of prosecution that its inhabitants vote, to compare that to complying with the Law of the Land, and School attendance is nonsense.

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 7:52am:

No need to presume Lafayette. Contrary to what you dribbled earlier (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals.

Convicted felons are not allowed to own guns in the USA, is that an example of their laws trying to prevent criminals from having guns.

The NSW Police minister recently said Greater than 97% of all gun crime in NSW is done by unlicensed people with unregistered firearms.

If greater than 97% of all gun crime is done by criminals how well have our laws worked in disarming criminals?

So what should our target be? 50% of gun crimes being committed by innocent people? Greater use of registered firearms in gun crime?

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

Yet Australia is one of the very few countries which DEMAND under pain of prosecution that its inhabitants vote, to compare that to complying with the Law of the Land, and School attendance is nonsense.

to compare voting with the angst you express is ridiculous.  it is JUST VOTING - a simple obligation for living in the democracy the rest of us cherish.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:16am:

freediver wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 7:52am: No need to presume Lafayette. Contrary to what you dribbled earlier (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals. Convicted felons are not allowed to own guns in the USA, is that an example of their laws trying to prevent criminals from having guns. The NSW Police minister recently said Greater than 97% of all gun crime in NSW is done by unlicensed people with unregistered firearms. If greater than 97% of all gun crime is done by criminals how well have our laws worked in disarming criminals?

because gun crime itself has halved.  basic maths.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 7:04am:

Even if we did presume however that making firearms illegal lowered gun violence. I could achieve the same goals of ending road deaths by banning vehicles. I could lower stabbings by making it illegal to have a knife with a point on the end of it and instead make a dull and rounded safety tip on every knife. The issue here is about rights. Do people have the right to defend their rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property? Yes they do. So why deny them the means to be able to do that? To deny them the means is to deny them the right.

I want a tank. I demand a tank. I want surface-to-surface missiles on my car. And I want a licence to carry an RPG in public.

all for safety you know. I will only use them to shoot baddies.


idiot

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:04am:

compulsory voting is not an affront to democracy anymore than compulsory school attendence and compulsory taxes and compulsory obedience to the law.  you're gonna heva to do better than that to claim it s undemocratic.

Not voting hurts your hip pocket, no?, compulsory this, compulsory that ! - You've got a twisted sense of democracy and rights longy

We've got no rights or freedoms at all as far as you're concerned, ain't that right?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:35am:

Fuzzball wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 8:08am: Yet Australia is one of the very few countries which DEMAND under pain of prosecution that its inhabitants vote, to compare that to complying with the Law of the Land, and School attendance is nonsense. to compare voting with the angst you express is ridiculous.  it is JUST VOTING - a simple obligation for living in the democracy the rest of us cherish.

Then call it what it is, an obligation punishable by prosecution, stop trying fluff it up and make it look like we are some sort of first world democracy with basic human rights like every other decent first world democracy.


BTW, Im off the roll again, lot harder than before, for some reason having a million Australians wanting the right to vote, has got those lazy incompetent bastards all riled up.

I fulfil all my obligations to this country by paying a sh1t load of tax, after that Im done.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:45am:

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 7:04am: Even if we did presume however that making firearms illegal lowered gun violence. I could achieve the same goals of ending road deaths by banning vehicles. I could lower stabbings by making it illegal to have a knife with a point on the end of it and instead make a dull and rounded safety tip on every knife. The issue here is about rights. Do people have the right to defend their rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property? Yes they do. So why deny them the means to be able to do that? To deny them the means is to deny them the right. I want a tank. I demand a tank. I want surface-to-surface missiles on my car. And I want a licence to carry an RPG in public. all for safety you know. I will only use them to shoot baddies. idiot

Reductio ad absurdum, the pinnacle of primary school debate, well your skills are on par with booby's now.

BigOl64 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:48am:

it is JUST VOTING - a simple obligation for living in  rest of us cherish.

"it is JUST VOTING" ... Oh ok, nothing real serious, as long as the Libs and Libs have an iron grip on everything for ever and a day


"the democracy the rest of us cherish" ... define the "rest of us"

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:54am:

BigOl64 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 8:48am: it is JUST VOTING - a simple obligation for living in  rest of us cherish. "it is JUST VOTING" ... Oh ok, nothing real serious, as long as the Libs and Libs have an iron grip on everything for ever and a day "the democracy the rest of us cherish" ... define the "rest of us"

Replied to longweekend, not BigOl64 ... sorry BigOl, a trick I have no control over, don't know how it happens

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 9:01am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 8:54am: BigOl64 wrote on Dec 26th, 2015 at 8:48am: it is JUST VOTING - a simple obligation for living in  rest of us cherish. "it is JUST VOTING" ... Oh ok, nothing real serious, as long as the Libs and Libs have an iron grip on everything for ever and a day "the democracy the rest of us cherish" ... define the "rest of us" Replied to longweekend, not BigOl64 ... sorry BigOl, a trick I have no control over, don't know how it happens

It can be frustrating teaching longy what the definition of a human right really means.  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 9:04am:

It can be frustrating teaching longy what the definition of a human right really means.

Maybe longy wants custody of all rights and hand them out to those that deserve them - like Mr Hitler did

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 7:52am:

No need to presume Lafayette. Contrary to what you dribbled earlier (ie, "criminals don't care and will stay armed") our gun laws do actually disarm criminals. Can you acknowledge this, or are you only programmed to parrot a slightly different version of the propaganda? I don't think I have ever succeeded in getting a gun nut to acknowledge this point.

Again, even if it does, it doesn't lower violent crime altogether which means that people who are the victims of violent crime are far less likely to be able to defend themselves against criminals that are either armed with even knives or other weapons or unarmed and in groups.

Ultimately it puts the advantage in the hands of criminals who don't give a damn about the law.

As for criminals no longer being armed as a result of gun laws, look at Mexico. The cartels are armed with very heavy weaponry despite the fact that it is illegal to own such firearms. Heck, even in Australia where it is its own continent, surrounded by water with no land borders with any other nation and very strong border controls illegal firearms still get into the country and into the hands of criminals.


freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 7:52am:

Also, what do you mean by Americans respecting liberty. Does liberty mean the right to bear arms?

The right to keep and bear arms is the last line of defense for liberty. Without it, the people can fall victim of tyranny.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 7:57am:

you are a fool. the primary function of a car is to transport people. the primary function fo a gun is to kill people. but idiots like you only ever think about guns. you have no idea at all of what liberty actually is.

The primary purpose for a car is whatever the user decides to use it for. I could show you Al Qaeda magazines that encourage aspiring jihadis to use their vehicles as weapons to mow down innocent people.

If I did so, however I'd be breaking Australian law, because you poor sods aren't even allowed to read documents as they are considered so dangerous. Which again shows how much freedom you really have respected in Australia.

A firearm is similar in that its purpose is whatever the possessor of it intends to use it for. He could want to kill innocent people. Or, he could want to defend innocent people.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:04am:

compulsory voting is not an affront to democracy anymore than compulsory school attendence and compulsory taxes and compulsory obedience to the law.  you're gonna heva to do better than that to claim it s undemocratic.

Compulsory voting is indeed not an affront to democracy, because it could only become law through the democratic process. That is, the tyranny of the majority.

It is an affront to liberty.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 25^th, 2015 at 11:11pm:

There is no evidence the gun laws are responsible for decline in firearm deaths

;D But Baron you just admitted it:


Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2015 at 7:46pm:

We bought back 640,000 shotguns and rimfires for around a billion dollars to reduce our firearm homicides by 15-30 a year.

Lafayette wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 7:04am:

Even if we did presume however that making firearms illegal lowered gun violence. I could achieve the same goals of ending road deaths by banning vehicles. I could lower stabbings by making it illegal to have a knife with a point on the end of it and instead make a dull and rounded safety tip on every knife. The issue here is about rights. Do people have the right to defend their rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property? Yes they do. So why deny them the means to be able to do that? To deny them the means is to deny them the right.

The 'may as well ban cars and knives' argument is a furphy. Cars and knives have a primary purpose that is not killing. Guns primary, and in fact sole purpose is to kill. The comparison brings 'apples and oranges' to a whole new level.

Since we have established that gun laws reduce gun crime and gun deaths, we get back to my original point - that your argument can only amount to saying that an increased threat to innocent people to becoming a victim of gun crime is worth the price for your liberty. Thats an ideological position that I can't really argue against - but lets not persist with the lie that putting guns in people's hands makes them more safer.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 10:14am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 25th, 2015 at 11:11pm: There is no evidence the gun laws are responsible for decline in firearm deaths ;D But Baron you just admitted it: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23rd, 2015 at 7:46pm: We bought back 640,000 shotguns and rimfires for around a billion dollars to reduce our firearm homicides by 15-30 a year.

And we have replaced every single one of them since, with a continued reduction in gun deaths.

So how does that happen, increase in guns and a decrease in gun deaths.


Must be magic, because the hysteria states more guns = more death when that is patently untrue.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 10:23am:

Since we have established that gun laws reduce gun crime and gun deaths, we get back to my original point - that your argument can only amount to saying that an increased threat to innocent people to becoming a victim of gun crime is worth the price for your liberty. Thats an ideological position that I can't really argue against - but lets not persist with the lie that putting guns in people's hands makes them more safer.

So what you're saying is that putting guns in the hands of innocent civilians who have no inclination to break the law or harm other people and giving them the training necessary to properly use a firearm to defend themselves means that they will be less safe against criminals that could be armed with guns or knives? Than them being unarmed in the first place?

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 8:25am:

So what should our target be? 50% of gun crimes being committed by innocent people? Greater use of registered firearms in gun crime?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1451092762/0#0

I could agree to stop compulsory voting, however, not until there is at least two generations of realistic, non-ideologically based political education offered in this country.

We don't live in a real democracy, we have the fake one referred to as representative...

We don't have a population educated to understand that,

a) A direct model is the ONLY one that actually works for the people

b) Voting is your only way to have your say in any kind of democratic (hell, even pseudo-democratic like we have here) system.

So, in short, to not vote, your opinion is less than worthless..

I have to laugh as well that a thread with a title about liberty is actually a vehicle for gun nuttery... Who would have guessed.

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 26^th, 2015 at 11:35am:

I could agree to stop compulsory voting, however, not until there is at least two generations of realistic, non-ideologically based political education offered in this country. We don't live in a real democracy, we have the fake one referred to as representative... We don't have a population educated to understand that, a) A direct model is the ONLY one that actually works for the people b) Voting is your only way to have your say in any kind of democratic (hell, even pseudo-democratic like we have here) system. So, in short, to not vote, your opinion is less than worthless..

I agree, but still believe 100% that compulsory voting is undemocratic........