Giving up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety...

Alaska.... or Russia

Somalia?

We have vacancies. There are however, some differences in our climate.

Jrewing wrote:

Welcome to Australia...
Barricaded shopping precincts, extreme gun control, prolific speed camera and radar traps up to 3 kmh over, every major road network featuring very costly tolls, multiple tiered beuracrcy channels for anything to everything. Taxation used as a deterrent for cigarette/alcohol and even to farmers using their own dams. The list grows.
We here in Australia compare ourselves to you Americans but only 20 years behind. Is this same pattern happening to you guys who might be infact 20 years behind us?
Where does one move to escape this, the Isle of Man?

If you could reverse three policies in an attempt to make Australia more to your liking, which three might those be?

Jrewing wrote:

Welcome to Australia...
Barricaded shopping precincts, extreme gun control, prolific speed camera and radar traps up to 3 kmh over, every major road network featuring very costly tolls, multiple tiered beuracrcy channels for anything to everything. Taxation used as a deterrent for cigarette/alcohol and even to farmers using their own dams. The list grows.
We here in Australia compare ourselves to you Americans but only 20 years behind. Is this same pattern happening to you guys who might be infact 20 years behind us?
Where does one move to escape this, the Isle of Man?

Mr.E wrote:

If you could reverse three policies in an attempt to make Australia more to your liking, which three might those be?

Outlaw snowmobiles
Outlaw Rhinos
Prosecute crooked mortgage salesfolk to the fullest extent of the law..........

Jrewing wrote:

Welcome to Australia...
Barricaded shopping precincts, extreme gun control, prolific speed camera and radar traps up to 3 kmh over, every major road network featuring very costly tolls, multiple tiered beuracrcy channels for anything to everything. Taxation used as a deterrent for cigarette/alcohol and even to farmers using their own dams. The list grows.
We here in Australia compare ourselves to you Americans but only 20 years behind. Is this same pattern happening to you guys who might be infact 20 years behind us?
Where does one move to escape this, the Isle of Man?

Mr.E wrote:

If you could reverse three policies in an attempt to make Australia more to your liking, which three might those be?

Darwins theory for starters..

Privatisation of state assetts. Certain gun laws. Introduction of private toll roads.

But everybody praises your gun laws and how safe everyone over there is. American sheeple love the way you guys do it down there.

* the illusion of temporary safety

Andy_Greenney wrote:

* the illusion of temporary safety

You poor fuggers can't even own a decent kitchen knife over there.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

We've given up a lot of liberty here in the US just in the last 20 years. At least they still don't have our guns... oh wait, in many ways they do with all the requirements that are now in place and limits on where you can take your guns. Won't be long before we'll just give in an let them have them.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

We've given up a lot of liberty here in the US just in the last 20 years. At least they still don't have our guns... oh wait, in many ways they do with all the requirements that are now in place and limits on where you can take your guns. Won't be long before we'll just give in an let them have them.

At least a good portion of the bleeding heart liberals are eating each other alive right now. Maybe it will slow the moral decay just a little bit.

Before they can rule you, they must first control you.

newmann wrote:

You poor fuggers can't even own a decent kitchen knife over there.

I heard that one as well, I thought Fox News was a satirical outlet...I'm still not convinced otherwise.
I'll take my chances against a nutter with a knife over one with a gun anyday

The price we pay here in the states, gun wise, is pretty high.
But, look at the alternative. Look at the aussies.
One of the biggest and worse traits about any government is it never stops growing.
They are never satisfied.
There are always a few that think, well, would it not be good if we did this, or that.
So, it never stops.
I saw somewhere it's gotten to the point here,in the states, numbers wise, that for every working guy, there is a government employee. WTF is that?

I dunno what the answer is.

Make all laws Sunset laws, that is they must have a certain lifespan and then be revoted in, I dunno.
How do you put a cap on government?

The founding fathers, one of them anyway, said something to the effect that freedom, and liberty, must be fed now
and then with the blood of revolution,

Imo. That's the reason we all must have the option to be armed.
Not only to hunt, to protect ourselves and our families, but to overthrow any group of people that become just too overbearing, too controlling, to effin big.

That's what I think anyway.
.

Jrewing wrote:

Welcome to Australia...
Barricaded shopping precincts, extreme gun control, prolific speed camera and radar traps up to 3 kmh over, every major road network featuring very costly tolls, multiple tiered beuracrcy channels for anything to everything. Taxation used as a deterrent for cigarette/alcohol and even to farmers using their own dams. The list grows.
We here in Australia compare ourselves to you Americans but only 20 years behind. Is this same pattern happening to you guys who might be infact 20 years behind us?
Where does one move to escape this, the Isle of Man?

Would you really trade your gun laws in for more mass shootings ?

I’m with you on the speed cameras tho , ours are bad enough but the level of the fines you Have for being just above the speed limit is nuts

Andy_Greenney wrote:

* the illusion of temporary safety

newmann wrote:

You poor fuggers can't even own a decent kitchen knife over there.

Andy_Greenney wrote:

I heard that one as well, I thought Fox News was a satirical outlet...I'm still not convinced otherwise.
I'll take my chances against a nutter with a knife over one with a gun anyday

And we are off to the races! Cant beat the govt? Join ‘em.

But I agree with motogrady. Cutting the size of the parts of government that aren’t protecting sovereignty, producing infrastructure, high school education, care for the elderly is a good place to start. It just getting out of control.

Roads, military, basic education, Medicare (true Medicare not scammed Medicare ) That’s it.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

We've given up a lot of liberty here in the US just in the last 20 years. At least they still don't have our guns... oh wait, in many ways they do with all the requirements that are now in place and limits on where you can take your guns. Won't be long before we'll just give in an let them have them.

I could list ten reasons why we live in a fascist police state in America. This has become a country where you can't even tell people you support the President of the United States without being threatened and attacked.
We not only accept 24-7 surveillance, we pay for it. Next up is facial recognition, drones and other technology that will utterly remove anonymity and freedom. People are now putting Amazon-linked cameras and microphones in their homes.
Google, Amazon, and Apple are quickly merging with the government. Imagine a police robot showing up at your door, that has downloaded your past 20 years of Internet activity and knows more about you than your probably know about yourself. And nobody is running for office without being blackmailed- it's worth noting that Chief Reptilian Fascist Gangster George H. W. Bush was responsible for making the Internet public, expanding it beyond a military intelligence system (which it still is).

Here is a good example. A new study finds that atomic testing in the US killed nearly 700,000 Americans. They lied and said it was safe. You used to be able to see mushroom clouds from Vegas. So we ended up killing more Americans with our nuclear weapons then we did the Japanese. That's how idiotic these people were.
You could say it was just stupid, reckless incompetence, or you could accept the reality that the federal government has no issue with killing its own people and never has. As far as nukes, we are just monkeys playing with fire.

https://qz.com/1163140/us-nuclear-tests-killed-american-civilians-on-a-scale-comparable-to-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/

motogrady wrote:

The price we pay here in the states, gun wise, is pretty high.
But, look at the alternative. Look at the aussies.
One of the biggest and worse traits about any government is it never stops growing.
They are never satisfied.
There are always a few that think, well, would it not be good if we did this, or that.
So, it never stops.
I saw somewhere it's gotten to the point here,in the states, numbers wise, that for every working guy, there is a government employee. WTF is that?

I dunno what the answer is.

Make all laws Sunset laws, that is they must have a certain lifespan and then be revoted in, I dunno.
How do you put a cap on government?

The founding fathers, one of them anyway, said something to the effect that freedom, and liberty, must be fed now
and then with the blood of revolution,

Imo. That's the reason we all must have the option to be armed.
Not only to hunt, to protect ourselves and our families, but to overthrow any group of people that become just too overbearing, too controlling, to effin big.

That's what I think anyway.
.

It's not just your opinion, it is fact. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It's sole purpose is as a check for the people over a tyrannical government. Where there is debate is what they meant by "shall not be infringed". In my opinion "shall not be infringed" means "exactly" what it says. There should be no registration or any law limiting the "people's" "right" to "bear arms". Just like there should be no law limiting the "people's" "right" to speak out against the government. Or to limit them from practicing any religion they want. Purchasing and owning a gun should be no more difficult than purchasing and owning a hammer, and you should be able to carry it wherever you like. In fact we don't even have a "right" to own a hammer and there are far less hammer laws than gun laws.

I may sound like a right wing nut job, but I am far from that. I just strongly believe in the constitution and in my opinion, it's becoming more and more diluted every year.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

It's not just your opinion, it is fact. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It's sole purpose is as a check for the people over a tyrannical government. Where there is debate is what they meant by "shall not be infringed". In my opinion "shall not be infringed" means "exactly" what it says. There should be no registration or any law limiting the "people's" "right" to "bear arms". Just like there should be no law limiting the "people's" "right" to speak out against the government. Or to limit them from practicing any religion they want. Purchasing and owning a gun should be no more difficult than purchasing and owning a hammer, and you should be able to carry it wherever you like. In fact we don't even have a "right" to own a hammer and there are far less hammer laws than gun laws.

I may sound like a right wing nut job, but I am far from that. I just strongly believe in the constitution and in my opinion, it's becoming more and more diluted every year.

Do you think that owning any weapon the government has should be allowed as well ?

It's about attitude, not really guns etc. This seemingly ever encroaching, authoritarian, "nanny knows best" attitude surrounding almost every facet of our lives - curtailing personal liberty and individual agency. Take defence in the UK: Here it is illegal to carry/prepare ANY item for the purposes of defence. You're free to use what is at hand (including a firearm) in defence of your life, but must provide a good reason (assuming you survive) as to why it was there otherwise. Don't count on not getting prosecuted regardless.

So grabbing a baseball bat and using "reasonable force" in the scenario of a home invader coming at you with a screw driver etc is legal. Having that baseball bat on standby for such a scenario, isn't... Why can't law abiding people with a clean record carry pepper spray? Because it goes against this BS feminine nanny state ideology we find ourselves under. As far as I'm aware it's roughly the same situation in Australia and much of Europe.

..

..

The saddest part is the majority of people ive crossed paths with have no concerns and/or are unaware with our rapid transition to enforced slavery. 50+ hour weeks and fatigue will bring you to that.

motogrady wrote:

The price we pay here in the states, gun wise, is pretty high.
But, look at the alternative. Look at the aussies.
One of the biggest and worse traits about any government is it never stops growing.
They are never satisfied.
There are always a few that think, well, would it not be good if we did this, or that.
So, it never stops.
I saw somewhere it's gotten to the point here,in the states, numbers wise, that for every working guy, there is a government employee. WTF is that?

I dunno what the answer is.

Make all laws Sunset laws, that is they must have a certain lifespan and then be revoted in, I dunno.
How do you put a cap on government?

The founding fathers, one of them anyway, said something to the effect that freedom, and liberty, must be fed now
and then with the blood of revolution,

Imo. That's the reason we all must have the option to be armed.
Not only to hunt, to protect ourselves and our families, but to overthrow any group of people that become just too overbearing, too controlling, to effin big.

That's what I think anyway.
.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

It's not just your opinion, it is fact. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It's sole purpose is as a check for the people over a tyrannical government. Where there is debate is what they meant by "shall not be infringed". In my opinion "shall not be infringed" means "exactly" what it says. There should be no registration or any law limiting the "people's" "right" to "bear arms". Just like there should be no law limiting the "people's" "right" to speak out against the government. Or to limit them from practicing any religion they want. Purchasing and owning a gun should be no more difficult than purchasing and owning a hammer, and you should be able to carry it wherever you like. In fact we don't even have a "right" to own a hammer and there are far less hammer laws than gun laws.

I may sound like a right wing nut job, but I am far from that. I just strongly believe in the constitution and in my opinion, it's becoming more and more diluted every year.

scott_nz wrote:

Do you think that owning any weapon the government has should be allowed as well ?

I "especially" think owning a weapon that the government has should be allowed. That's pretty much the point of the 2nd amendment. In fact, it's a "right" which means there is no "allow" about it.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

It's not just your opinion, it is fact. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It's sole purpose is as a check for the people over a tyrannical government. Where there is debate is what they meant by "shall not be infringed". In my opinion "shall not be infringed" means "exactly" what it says. There should be no registration or any law limiting the "people's" "right" to "bear arms". Just like there should be no law limiting the "people's" "right" to speak out against the government. Or to limit them from practicing any religion they want. Purchasing and owning a gun should be no more difficult than purchasing and owning a hammer, and you should be able to carry it wherever you like. In fact we don't even have a "right" to own a hammer and there are far less hammer laws than gun laws.

I may sound like a right wing nut job, but I am far from that. I just strongly believe in the constitution and in my opinion, it's becoming more and more diluted every year.

scott_nz wrote:

Do you think that owning any weapon the government has should be allowed as well ?

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

I "especially" think owning a weapon that the government has should be allowed. That's pretty much the point of the 2nd amendment. In fact, it's a "right" which means there is no "allow" about it.

I kind of agree with Void.
To a certain extent.
If, the reason to bear arms was given to us, the citizens, as a check to match the government when they get out of line,
then yes, common sense would dictate an even balance of firepower.

But, to let everyone that wanted to make a mini, dirty atom bomb that would fit in a backpack, I dunno about that,
In theory, if you could afford a German Panzer tank with live ammo, or an A 10 warthog, you should be able to have one.

It was Al Capone and the Thompson machine gun, that seems to have become the line in the sand.
Did The St. Valentine's Day massacre, help us, the citizens, or the government more?

Castro in Cuba, Ho Che Ming in Vietnam, showed, light weapons, in numbers, can be instrumental in overthrowing a government.

I say put a freeze on it as it is, maybe roll back the registration a bit, so they don't know how many and who have them.
Keep em guessin.

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

It's not just your opinion, it is fact. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It's sole purpose is as a check for the people over a tyrannical government. Where there is debate is what they meant by "shall not be infringed". In my opinion "shall not be infringed" means "exactly" what it says. There should be no registration or any law limiting the "people's" "right" to "bear arms". Just like there should be no law limiting the "people's" "right" to speak out against the government. Or to limit them from practicing any religion they want. Purchasing and owning a gun should be no more difficult than purchasing and owning a hammer, and you should be able to carry it wherever you like. In fact we don't even have a "right" to own a hammer and there are far less hammer laws than gun laws.

I may sound like a right wing nut job, but I am far from that. I just strongly believe in the constitution and in my opinion, it's becoming more and more diluted every year.

I don't think you sound like a right wing nut job at all. It seems very black and white.

motogrady wrote:
I kind of agree with Void.
To a certain extent.
If, the reason to bear arms was given to us, the citizens, as a check to match the government when they get out of line,
then yes, common sense would dictate an even balance of firepower.

But, to let everyone that wanted to make a mini, dirty atom bomb that would fit in a backpack, I dunno about that,
In theory, if you could afford a German Panzer tank with live ammo, or an A 10 warthog, you should be able to have one.

It was Al Capone and the Thompson machine gun, that seems to have become the line in the sand.
Did The St. Valentine's Day massacre, help us, the citizens, or the government more?

Castro in Cuba, Ho Che Ming in Vietnam, showed, light weapons, in numbers, can be instrumental in overthrowing a government.

I say put a freeze on it as it is, maybe roll back the registration a bit, so they don't know how many and who have them.
Keep em guessin.

My point is that if everyone is allowed a dirty bomb then when will some nutcase use it , and once you have a tank. Someone needs a bigger tank to stop you

The days of a private militia overthrowing the us government are long gone , only a coup in the military would do it