Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Armed self defence illegal, while criminalscontinue to roam free down under.???

  1. #1
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Armed self defence illegal, while criminalscontinue to roam free down under.???

    What ever you do in the United States, dont ever let this happen. Australians were deprived of their right to arm and defend themselves by the Howard government. Since then, the laws have changed drasticly in favour of criminals. Not only do they feel empowered knowing the majority of 'sheeple' in Aus., are unarmed and are advised and encouraged by police not to defend themselves in any way, those criminals who have been spared jail time and are supposed to be doing community service and not turning up to do so, are having their orders terminated! Again, dont laugh, its actually happening down-under.
    Cheers, Haz.
    ____________________________

    Criminals reoffending while doing community service by: Thomas Chamberlin From: The Sunday Mail (Qld) October 28, 2012 12:00AM.

    h ttp://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/criminals-reoffending-while-doing-community-service/story-e6freoof-1226504525423

    Criminals sentenced to community service are committing crimes every month while they should be cleaning up Queensland.
    Shock figures show 62 per cent of offenders, or 1147 of 1840, broke the law while on the orders in the past financial year. That's almost 100 a month.

    Instead of working in jobs such as sorting clothes at Lifeline, and council natural revegetation and graffiti removal projects, they've been caught committing fraud, breaking into homes, stealing cars, assaulting police and using drugs.

    They originally fronted courts on assault, stealing, prostitution, vandalism, graffiti, drug and traffic-related charges but were spared jail time.

    Despite committing crimes and being sent back to court, many remained on the orders.

    Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers told The Sunday Mail criminals were "making a mockery of the system" and called for harsher penalties.

    Since 2008-09, 77 per cent of people on community service reoffended 6018 out of 7772.

    Twenty per cent of orders were terminated in 2011-12 after people failed to meet court-imposed conditions.

    The overall order completion rate was 2102 of 3499 orders or 60.1 per cent.

    Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie said in a statement: "It is always concerning when offenders treat a community service order with contempt and it is something I will continue to monitor."

    Queensland Corrective Services manager of operational practice Jo Dansey said the reoffending was a concern but it was a reality when there were no supervision or intensive rehabilitation programs involved.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I realize that Oz is no longer a colony (a penal one at that) but you are still subjects and not citizens. Why you complain about things like this when you do nothing to change into citizens is beyond me. [That was slightly sarcastic and cynical - but not completely.]

    Any day now I expect to see throngs of folks in (f)GB and Oz in the streets carrying torches and pitchforks (regardless of the laws against doing so), headed for the Parliment buildings. There are, just as there were in the American colonies, too many who just do not care as long as whatever is happening does not interfere with watching reality TV and collecting a government dole check, what the legislative types do. It is estimated that barely 3% of the colonists were active in the revolution, and look what changes they were able to accomplish at the beginning. We are now in the thrall of reality TV and government dole checks ourselves, and headed for the same spot you are in. Only time will tell if those few who are presently muttering under their collective breaths will reach the apparenrly critical mass of 3% again.

    I do believe with all my soul there was a reason that our American Founders reserved for us more than one way to adjust the way government operates. While hoping that we do not need to move to Option B I am glad it is there.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I realize that Oz is no longer a colony (a penal one at that) but you are still subjects and not citizens. Why you complain about things like this when you do nothing to change into citizens is beyond me. [That was slightly sarcastic and cynical - but not completely.]

    Any day now I expect to see throngs of folks in (f)GB and Oz in the streets carrying torches and pitchforks (regardless of the laws against doing so), headed for the Parliment buildings. There are, just as there were in the American colonies, too many who just do not care as long as whatever is happening does not interfere with watching reality TV and collecting a government dole check, what the legislative types do. It is estimated that barely 3% of the colonists were active in the revolution, and look what changes they were able to accomplish at the beginning. We are now in the thrall of reality TV and government dole checks ourselves, and headed for the same spot you are in. Only time will tell if those few who are presently muttering under their collective breaths will reach the apparenrly critical mass of 3% again.

    I do believe with all my soul there was a reason that our American Founders reserved for us more than one way to adjust the way government operates. While hoping that we do not need to move to Option B I am glad it is there.

    stay safe.
    My son-in-law is an Ozzie (Australian-American, w/dual citizenship now), and he frequently bemoans the plight of those friends and relatives that remain in Oz and NZ. He tells me that there are well-hidden individual stockpiles of "restricted" arms/ammo outside the metropolitan areas, as I am certain there are in our country, also. Do they represent the 3%? Who knows? Australia is "at that awkward stage" - autonomous in many ways, Australia is still technically "ruled" by the British monarchy, even though that monarchy does not have any right to interfere with Australian laws. There will always be those who disagree with the above, as it could be said that Australia received her independence in varying degrees, and at various times, since the Federation in 1901. Many aspects of their release from British control were granted by The Crown, and others which were taken by the Australian government.

    Australians have been "citizens" (by designation in law) since at least 1984. The term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition in the United Kingdom, and it would therefore be incorrect to describe a British citizen as a British subject. The concept of a "subject" is still recognized by the law, and the terms "the Queen's subjects", "Her Majesty's subjects", etc., continue to be used in British legal discourse. It seems to me that - in order for Her Majesty to maintain some control over the residents of the British Commonwealth states (which are yet many) the British statutes have more twists than a pretzel. The term "subject" is scheduled to be eliminated through the process of attrition, as the older members (subjects) of the British Empire cease demonstrating signs of life. Pax...
    Last edited by Gil223; 10-28-2012 at 02:20 PM. Reason: typo
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Shoobee View Post
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bard...eme_cases.html

    Back in the USA, mate, it all depends on how the US Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution.

    Throughout the centuries these interpretations have varied depending on the viewpoints of the Court.

    Prior to the current Roberts court, it was commonly viewed that our 2nd Amendment "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" had been viewed as not even applying to the state legislatures, based on commentary in the Miller case.

    After Scalia's write up of the recent Heller case, it has now been stated that the 2nd Amendment indeed does apply to the states and the DC as well, and in addition, the ruling clarifies that:

    - everyone has a right to own, possess, keep and bear a handgun of their choosing in their own homes;

    - sawed off shotguns are still not protected by the 2nd Amendment because they are viewed by the court as non-militia destructive devices;

    - the court has declined to discuss rifles, although it was noted that there is an argument for fully automatic weapons being protected by the 2nd Amendment, and that any firearm that is popular for self defense is worthy of consideration under the 2nd Amendment;

    - states and the DC may continue to regulate possession in public, whether open or concealed.

    The Heller decision is the first bit of uniformity in firearm laws since Miller back in 1894.

    And Scalia goes to great lengths to differentiate and limit Miller and dispell some of the commentary in Miller which was not relevant to the specific facts for the defendants in Miller.

    I believe America will continue to be the arsenal of democracy across the world, even if there is an assault weapons ban enacted, such as those which Romney and Obama have each voiced a belief in. Romney has promised the NRA not to support one, but with Romney you cannot tell what is his going to do from what he says. And although Obama has voiced support for an assault weapons ban, he has done nothing in the past 4 years about it.

    There is not a lot anyone can do about the rulings of the court. They are loosely bound by their own rulings in the past, and they are often victims of their own viewpoints which they bring with them. There is a currently popular myth that electing a flip flopping candidate who has made a promise to the NRA might influence the court one way or the other, but the problem with flip flopping is that nobody knows where you truly stand. And that could become a really big 4 year or 8 year mistake.

    At any rate, it looks like the good people of the State of Ohio will be those who decide the issue of flip flopping, specifically as it pertained to flip flopping on the automobile industry financial support ("bailout"), together with any one other state agreeing with them, sometime within the next 2 weeks.
    You remember all of those kushy, sincere promises Obama made back in 2008 when he was campaigning? I wonder what happened to all of that? He promised CHANGE we could believe in, and talked the talk but when he was in the Big Boy chair he abandoned nearly everything he promised the American people he would try and do. He sure talked a good game, but when it came down to acting on those promises -- to return to the values of America; to uphold and protect the Constitution; to protect our civil liberties and rights from government intrusion; to balance the budget and reduce the deficit -- he certainly flunked didn't he? He has increased the deficit by nearly 2 Trillion, we haven't had a budget since he took office, he **** on the Constitution by appointing the Supreme Court justices he appointed and by destroying it through Executive fiat and insisting on insidious legislation.

    That Obama hasn't "flip-flopped" on a single issue has he? Or, has he flip-flopped on nearly every issue except socialist healthcare? In 2008 he "Completely supported the Second Amendment and he was NOT going to come for ANY of our firearms!" In 2012, he wants to reinstate a PERMANENT "assault weapons" ban, and possibly restrict "cheap" handguns! No flip-flopping there huh?

    Oh, and the right to bear arms in this country does NOT rely strictly on how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution (like it is hard to understand -- especially the Second Amendment). The legislation at the state level, and case law at the state level determines if our right to bear arms is protected or not. I can walk in the gun store and walk out with any firearm I wish in Kentucky, and I can load it up with a hundred rounds, spare mags, body armor, etc., and walk down the street and be well within my rights (not that I would do so unless something extreme was happening). Can that be said for many other states? Absolutely not! The states are the final purveyors and protectors of our rights, and I live in a state where my rights will be protected, due to our state constitution and legislators that understand what the people they work for want! If the federal government tried banning items, the states can exert their power over the federal government, and they can nullify the legislation at the state level. The only clause the federal government uses to ban this and that is the commerce clause, and that can be easily circumvented.
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 10-28-2012 at 10:01 PM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  5. #5
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by KYGlockster View Post
    case law at the state level determines if our right to bear arms is protected or not. I can walk in the gun store and walk out with any firearm I wish in Kentucky, and I can load it up with a hundred rounds, spare mags, body armor, etc., and walk down the street and be well within my rights (not that I would do so unless something extreme was happening). Can that be said for many other states? Absolutely not!
    Yeah, it always was strange to me how so many people looked down at Wisconsin gun laws just because it didn't have concealed-carry even though it has no gun permit cards or one-a-month rules or ask your sheriff for permission rules or capacity rules or whatever other stupid rules other states may have.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    We have the natural right to defend ourselves as we see fit. The governments just come and say "no, this right is going to get you in jail"..it does not mean you never had the right nor that you still do not have the right. Gov'ts cannot take away a natural right itself, only impose its will upon those it governs.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •