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



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.

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



"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 9:01am:




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

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

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:

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 8:04am:

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.

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


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 10:23am:

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?

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..