Australian Politics Forum - Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52334
At my desk.

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #90 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:57pm

Quote:

Australian legislators can and have banned guns, even at the risk of public outrage

Risk? If it had cost them the next election, they would not have done it. They are not complete idiots. I don't see any major parties taking more relaxed gun ownership to the next election. Not because they lack a constitution to spur them on. But because we live in a democracy, and they make it their job to know what will win votes. Our politicians do not give a stuff how outraged you and your friends get. They care about being re-elected. Outrage does not do that, votes do.

A correlation between the piece of paper and the reality does not prove causation one way or the other, and merely pointing out that correlation is not a rational argument.

With enough public support in the US, the second amendment would either be changed, or ignored to an even greater extent than it is today.

Quote:

They haven't banned guns at all because the 2nd Amendment exists.

Note the constitution does not say the government is not allowed to ban guns. It says the government is not allowed to infringe on the right to bear arms, which it clearly does. Drawing that line at a completely different point to where the constitution draws it does not prove that the constitution dictates policy. It proves that it is meaningless and that actual power rests with the whim of the public. If you actually paid attention, you would understand this, and I would not have to repeat it for you.

The American courts were quite right to decide that arms today are different from arms way back then, but the "technically correct" response was to say that the constitution leaves no wiggle room, so you will have to change the constitution. The expedient path they took was to decide that "the right to bears arms shall not be infringed" means something other than what it actually says. Who knows what it actually means now though? Not a complete ban? Only certain weapons? The choice is left to the whim of judges and or the democratic process.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:03pm by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #91 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:10pm

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:57pm:

Quote:

Australian legislators can and have banned guns, even at the risk of public outrage

Risk? If it had cost them the next election, they would not have done it.

Rob Borbidge is at least one who risked and lost it all by supporting the 1996 NFA. In Borbidge's case, it is cited as the cause of the fall of his government.

Many rural MPs, particularly within the Nationals party, faced intense backlash. Former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer had an effigy "lynched" in the Queensland town of Gympie.

As it stands, polls indicate that most Americans do support tighter restrictions, if not outright banning, of guns in their respective electorates... but no state legislature has the authority to enact gun-banning legislation because of the 2nd Amendment, despite popular support.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 116868
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #92 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:20pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:34pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:28pm:

They haven't banned guns to the same extent as us because there is broader public support for gun ownership in the US. No other reason.

They haven't banned guns at all because the 2nd Amendment exists.

Australian legislators can and have banned guns, even at the risk of public outrage, because there are no constitutional prohibitions against doing so.

Hence, there aren't 40 million guns in private ownership in Australia.

I hate guns.
I'd like to live in a world where not even the cops carry guns but
that is just dreaming.
The problem is that criminals will always be able to get guns whether they are:

old resurrected guns,
stolen guns from registered firearm users,
illegally imported guns on the black market,
3D printed guns or locally manufactured clandestine guns.

We also have the problem of licensed gun owners who go crazy
and do Bondi massacres,
and accidents with such guns too.

In the USA it's much worse -
every crack dealer, halfwit, lunatic and criminal has a gun.
About 5 people are killed by guns every hour over there.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #93 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:23pm

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:57pm:

Quote:

They haven't banned guns at all because the 2nd Amendment exists.

Note the constitution does not say the government is not allowed to ban guns. It says the government is not allowed to infringe on the right to bear arms, which it clearly does. Drawing that line at a completely different point to where the constitution draws it does not prove that the constitution dictates policy. It proves that it is meaningless and that actual power rests with the whim of the public. If you actually paid attention, you would understand this, and I would not have to repeat it for you.

The American courts were quite right to decide that arms today are different from arms way back then, but the "technically correct" response was to say that the constitution leaves no wiggle room, so you will have to change the constitution. The expedient path they took was to decide that "the right to bears arms shall not be infringed" means something other than what it actually says. Who knows what it actually means now though? Not a complete ban? Only certain weapons? The choice is left to the whim of judges and or the democratic process.

That the Constitutional Amendments would likely become anachronistic over time was anticipated by Jefferson, who expected regular constitutional conventions every few decades to address any anachronisms.

But US governance didn't evolve the way Jefferson had hoped, and now the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as the right to bear arms, without regard to what a militia is, or what is meant by arms, which back in Jefferson's day meant muskets.

The Constitution not only dictates policy, it also prevents or causes to be struck down all legislation that can be adjudicated as contravening its amendments, and often even smothers national conversations on amendment repeal or reform.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #94 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:34pm

The US Constitution was specifically designed to intrude upon and restrict a US president's and Congress's claim of supreme sovereignty by introducing the concept of inalienable rights as bestowed by a deity - as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, "... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

These rights are codified in its amendments and are inalienable.

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 46075	Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech Reply #95 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 4:08pm
Back to top	It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using posting to the general forum now. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14602 Armidale Gender:	Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech Reply #96 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 4:53pm MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:34pm: as bestowed by a deity - These rights are codified in its amendments and are inalienable. The deity saved Trump, the guns and agents who shoot chicano.
Back to top	IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #97 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 6:57pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:34pm:

The US Constitution was specifically designed to intrude upon and restrict a US president's and Congress's claim of supreme sovereignty by introducing the concept of inalienable rights as bestowed by a deity - as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, "... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

These rights are codified in its amendments and are inalienable.

What Jefferson and his peers didn't seem to consider (or, if they did, it didn't stay their hand) was the sentiment that: an attack on one amendment is an attack on all.

The US Constitution has always enjoyed the mystique, esteem and respect of Americans as a quasi-religious document, which warns off those legislators who would 'tinker' with it or propose amendment repeals that result in a perceived loss of a currently protected and 'inalienable' right.

To date, the only U.S. constitutional amendment that has been repealed is the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) ratified in 1919 and repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933, which restored the people's right to 'choose their poison'.

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14602 Armidale Gender:	Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech Reply #98 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 7:07pm The 2nd Amendment specifically applied to Pretti bearing arms for the State. Half America is against this.
Back to top	IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #99 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 7:28pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 6:57pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:34pm:

The US Constitution was specifically designed to intrude upon and restrict a US president's and Congress's claim of supreme sovereignty by introducing the concept of inalienable rights as bestowed by a deity - as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, "... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

These rights are codified in its amendments and are inalienable.

What Jefferson and his peers didn't seem to consider (or, if they did, it didn't stay their hand) was the sentiment that: an attack on one amendment is an attack on all.

The US Constitution has always enjoyed the mystique, esteem and respect of Americans as a quasi-religious document, which warns off those legislators who would 'tinker' with it or propose amendment repeals that result in a perceived loss of a currently protected and 'inalienable' right.

To date, the only U.S. constitutional amendment that has been repealed is the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) ratified in 1919 and repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933, which restored the people's right to 'choose their poison'.

Notably, the passage of the 13th Amendment (abolition of slavery) through to its ratification was only possible due to the inability of the states 'currently in rebellion' against the Union to vote in the US Congress against its passage, and even with that, it passed by only 2 votes above the 2/3 required.

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14602
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #100 - Feb 1^st, 2026 at 7:39pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 7:28pm:

ratification was only possible due to the inability of the states 'currently in rebellion' against the Union to vote in the US Congress against its passage,

The Bible , praise the Lord, gave n------ to white men as slaves with the mark of Canaan, amen and he blesses America.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52334
At my desk.

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #101 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 9:58am

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:23pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:57pm:

Quote:

They haven't banned guns at all because the 2nd Amendment exists.

Note the constitution does not say the government is not allowed to ban guns. It says the government is not allowed to infringe on the right to bear arms, which it clearly does. Drawing that line at a completely different point to where the constitution draws it does not prove that the constitution dictates policy. It proves that it is meaningless and that actual power rests with the whim of the public. If you actually paid attention, you would understand this, and I would not have to repeat it for you.

The American courts were quite right to decide that arms today are different from arms way back then, but the "technically correct" response was to say that the constitution leaves no wiggle room, so you will have to change the constitution. The expedient path they took was to decide that "the right to bears arms shall not be infringed" means something other than what it actually says. Who knows what it actually means now though? Not a complete ban? Only certain weapons? The choice is left to the whim of judges and or the democratic process.

That the Constitutional Amendments would likely become anachronistic over time was anticipated by Jefferson, who expected regular constitutional conventions every few decades to address any anachronisms.

But US governance didn't evolve the way Jefferson had hoped, and now the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as the right to bear arms, without regard to what a militia is, or what is meant by arms, which back in Jefferson's day meant muskets.

The Constitution not only dictates policy, it also prevents or causes to be struck down all legislation that can be adjudicated as contravening its amendments, and often even smothers national conversations on amendment repeal or reform.

Either that, or it gets "reinterpreted" to mean something other than what it says.

Are you saying that the constitution guarantees rights, or that it is flexible enough to allow those rights to be taken away as needed?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14602
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #102 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 10:21am

An example of Oz altering the constitution is the Australia Act 1986 which severed the last remaining constitutional links between Australia and the UK, eliminating the power of the British Parliament to legislate for Australia. The High Court has declared it won't apply s 74 for appeals to Privy Council.

The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth) established the Queen's title in Australia as 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia'.
She was never crowned that way and the constitution is for 'the Queen' which in 1901 meant monarch of Great Britain. So the very centre of sovereignty is mutilated by a vote.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #103 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:20am

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 9:58am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:23pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:57pm:

Quote:

They haven't banned guns at all because the 2nd Amendment exists.

Note the constitution does not say the government is not allowed to ban guns. It says the government is not allowed to infringe on the right to bear arms, which it clearly does. Drawing that line at a completely different point to where the constitution draws it does not prove that the constitution dictates policy. It proves that it is meaningless and that actual power rests with the whim of the public. If you actually paid attention, you would understand this, and I would not have to repeat it for you.

The American courts were quite right to decide that arms today are different from arms way back then, but the "technically correct" response was to say that the constitution leaves no wiggle room, so you will have to change the constitution. The expedient path they took was to decide that "the right to bears arms shall not be infringed" means something other than what it actually says. Who knows what it actually means now though? Not a complete ban? Only certain weapons? The choice is left to the whim of judges and or the democratic process.

That the Constitutional Amendments would likely become anachronistic over time was anticipated by Jefferson, who expected regular constitutional conventions every few decades to address any anachronisms.

But US governance didn't evolve the way Jefferson had hoped, and now the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as the right to bear arms, without regard to what a militia is, or what is meant by arms, which back in Jefferson's day meant muskets.

The Constitution not only dictates policy, it also prevents or causes to be struck down all legislation that can be adjudicated as contravening its amendments, and often even smothers national conversations on amendment repeal or reform.

Either that, or it gets "reinterpreted" to mean something other than what it says.

Are you saying that the constitution guarantees rights, or that it is flexible enough to allow those rights to be taken away as needed?

All amendments specifying an (inalienable) right persist in law the preservation of that right, even if any of its qualifications are disregarded over time, particularly when the language falls out of use, like 'militia'. It's the reason Jefferson expected the Constitution to be reviewed every few decades to eliminate accumulated anachronisms.

It was naivety on Jefferson's part that there could have been a commitment to regular constitutional conventions, given the social and political upheavals that usually accompany the constitutional amendment process.

Although amendment proposals have been (cynically) used to further political outcomes. Reagan used the idea of a new amendment to prohibit abortion in his campaign for reelection in 1984. After he won, the idea evaporated overnight from his political agenda.

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14602 Armidale Gender:	Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech Reply #104 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:27am The implied right of political free speech persists by common consent. It can be limited to the minimum such as statements of platforms yet the public demand protects it in general.
Back to top	IP Logged