chimera wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 7:39pm:


The Negros(Africans) & Arabs had a slave trade & slaves before the British white men even had an empire.

chimera wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 1:41pm:


What was the restraint on the hate on our streets for the past 27 months?

How many Jews or other non Muslims had the guns out shooting those terrorist supporting bastards all over the country?

Answer none... not one, zip, zero, nada.

But 2 of those Islamist terrorist supporting bastards
came out with guns 7 bombs & killed 15 people & injured 40 more.

As usual it's all a one way street - because the Govts weak/spineless, they take aim at the soft target law abiding Australians & are afraid of tackling & deflect from the elephant in the room - Islamists & excessive unassimilable immigration.

Meister I think you are confusing the legal fiction with the reality, as well as the correlation with causation. I am not talking about what preserves rights in the minds of lawyers and various other legal technicians. I am talking about what preserves the reality of those rights. Having a right, and having a piece of paper declaring that you have a right, are not the same thing. The only thing that actually maintains them is the democratic process. The constitution is of limited relevance here, other than as a flag in the ground. You can achieve rights with or without one. You can have those rights taken away, with or without one. But without a democratic process and a citizenry that values those rights and is alert to their erosion, it is pretty much inevitable that you will either never have them, or will lose them over time.

Thus, a constitution that establishes that democratic process (eg Australia), but not does not set those rights "in stone" as the US one does, is sufficient to achieve the same thing, and the only thing that actually sets them in stone is the will of the voting public, not a piece of paper.

That is why in the US, different states have widely varying infringements on the right to bear arms. This does not reflect different constitutions for each state, nor different interpretations of the same constitution by different states. It reflects differences in the public mood to gun control within each state. Whatever legal fiction is invented to justify those different outcomes is the response, not the cause.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 2:09pm:

I think you are confusing a right with something that can exist outside of a societal contract - in a literate society, codified in written language.

If you live alone on a desert island, do you have rights?

Jefferson and crew (all atheists, or at least copping out as deists) nevertheless introduced a deity (the creator) to assert a right as a metaphysical entity bestowed on 'men' at birth, that every civilised society should acknowledge, to avoid the argument that you're putting up.

So, having a right and having a piece of paper declaring that you have a right are exactly the same thing... No paper (or formal acknowledgement within a social contract), no right.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 2:38pm:


If you live alone on a desert Island, you have pretty much every right you can think if. It is hard to be any more free, as most restrictions on our rights are done in the name of protecting someone else's rights. You don't need a piece of paper, or a committee of your peers to tell you that you have the right to walk along the beach.

On the other hand Americans have a piece of paper saying that their right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The reality is that it is infringed in all sorts of ways, driven by the mood of the electorate in each state.

You are engaging in circular reasoning. You claim that having a right and having a piece of paper declaring that right are the same thing, but your only explanation for this logic is redefining a right to mean having a piece of paper. But rights have a meaning, even without the existence of paper or something to write with.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 2:53pm:

No... rights don't exist when you have nothing to compare with not having them.

Like the diver asking the fish, 'How's the water?'

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 3:00pm:

No, you don't have the right to walk along the beach, nor would you think of the right to walk along the beach; you just walk along the beach.

Do you believe you have a right to breathe on the desert island (or anywhere) when you breathe?

Rights only exist within a societal contract where a societal force greater than yourself can prevent you from expressing that action, but does not, because a known and acknowledged societal contract is in place, permitting your action and conduct.