The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1 Viewer)

[jennyfromdabloc]

Should we have similar protection of our right to bear arms here in Australia?

So far the debate has been about whether access to guns reduces or increase crime. In my view this is not the most important reason for allowing ordinary citizens to own guns:

I am not a conspiracy theorist of doomsayer. However, I think it is important to acknowledge the very real possibility that the peace and stability that we have enjoyed in the developed world since the end of World War II will probably not last forever, and may indeed come to an end during our lifetimes. Some possible threats to current stability are: nuclear war, catastrophic climate change, overpopulation, rapid exhaustion of fossil fuels such as oil, invasion from a foreign power or shift in our own government towards totalitarianism.

So even if you think the police and military do a reasonable job of protecting us now, there is a very real possibility that at some point they may no longer be able to do so. We could be abruptly forced into a state of anarchy, or confronted with totalitarian rule. In such a situation it is crucial that ordinary people have guns. Without access to full military grade weapons, ordinary people are completely at the mercy of those who do have guns. In a natural disaster type event this would mean the criminals who have guns. In the case of our own army or a foreign army invading, it would mean these soldiers could effectively round us up and enslave us or kill us.

It may sound melodramatic, but historically it is just a mundane fact. The only reason many people in Australia are hesitant to believe it is because they have lived through a period of prosperity and stability which is in fact a historical anomaly. In Nazi Germany, one of the first things Hitler did was to pass a law restricting firearms to military personnel only. Guns were quickly banned in the USSR and communist China. The only way tyrants and despots can use a small group of soldiers to control a massive population is to ensure that the soldiers have all the weapons and the masses are disarmed.

 

[jb_nc]

Should we have similar protection of our right to bear arms here in Australia?

I think we should strip you of your right to make shit threads.

 

[murphyad]

No way in hell should Australians have a constitutional right to bear arms.

That US provision was more applicable in the days of the Wild West and would be in no way good for Australia. Except, perhaps, the Shooters Party.

If you increase the availability of lethal weaponry, you increase the potential for violence.

 

[Iron]

 

[Freedom_]

Every individual has the right to own his person and property, it then follows that he has the right to employ violence to defend himself against the violence of criminal aggressors. But for some odd reason, liberals have systematically tried to deprive innocent persons of the means for defending themselves against aggression.

Not only has the carrying of guns been banned by the government, but the government has extended this prohibition to almost any object that could possibly serve as a weapon—even those that could only be used for self-defense. As a result, potential victims of crime have been barred from carrying knives (TDT sydney last week?), tear-gas pens, etc, and people who have used such weapons in defending themselves against assault have themselves been prosecuted by the authorities.

It should be clear that no physical object is in itself aggressive; any object, whether it be a gun, a knife, or a stick, can be used for aggression, for defense, or for numerous other purposes unconnected with crime.

 

[murphyad]

But for some odd reason, liberals have systematically tried to deprive innocent persons of the means for defending themselves against aggression.

Rule of law > Rule of the gun. The whole 'defence against aggression' tag can be subject to incoherence; what constitutes 'defence'? Is lethally wounding someone who is brandishing a stick at you 'self-defence'? If you allow more leniency for the use of lethal or non-lethal weaponry for self defence, that weaponry will inevitably be used for bad ends; it will be used against those who wish to defend themselves. Furthermore, some pacifists oppose any means of violence and it is unreasonable to suggest that they should be required to resort to violence if threatened by another party, meaning that some controls should be implemented to remove or mitigate the chance of any such threat occurring. Thus the liberal conception of this topic is one of positive freedom; by removing or hindering the ability to gain access to harmful implements, the aim is to allow the common citizen to be free from the chance of such coercion altogether.

It should be clear that no physical object is in itself aggressive [....]

I would argue that any physical object designed with the purpose of terminating the life of another human being is very aggressive. Hence we should not discuss the physical characteristics of an object only, but also the purpose of that object, wherefrom a perception of aggression originates.

Btw one is in fact legally empowered to defend themselves as per the following stipulations:

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 418 Self-defence-when available

 

[Freedom_]

Rule of law > Rule of the gun. The whole 'defence against aggression' tag can be subject to incoherence; what constitutes 'defence'? Is lethally wounding someone who is brandishing a stick at you 'self-defence'? If you allow more leniency for the use of lethal or non-lethal weaponry for self defence, that weaponry will inevitably be used for bad ends; it will be used against those who wish to defend themselves. Furthermore, some pacifists oppose any means of violence and it is unreasonable to suggest that they should be required to resort to violence if threatened by another party, meaning that some controls should be implemented to remove or mitigate the chance of any such threat occurring. Thus the liberal conception of this topic is one of positive freedom; by removing or hindering the ability to gain access to harmful implements, the aim is to allow the common citizen to be free from the chance of such coercion altogether.



I would argue that any physical object designed with the purpose of terminating the life of another human being is very aggressive. Hence we should not discuss the physical characteristics of an object only, but also the purpose of that object, wherefrom a perception of aggression originates.

Btw one is in fact legally empowered to defend themselves as per the following stipulations:

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 418 Self-defence-when available

If guns are restricted or outlawed like the liberals ideology wish for, there is no reason to expect that determined criminals are going to pay much attention to the law. The criminals, then, will always be able to purchase and carry guns; it will only be their innocent victims who will suffer from the solicitous liberalism that imposes laws against guns and other weapons. Just as drugs, gambling, and pornography should be made legal, so too should guns and any other objects that might serve as weapons of self-defense. I don’t see any positive freedom at all.

The inevitable result of a liberal enforced policy, as in the case of drugs marijuana laws, would be harsh penalties and yet highly selective enforcement which can already be seen. The Law would be enforced selectively against those people whom the authorities didn’t like or are prosecutable. ie druggies vs bikies.

 

[murphyad]

If guns are restricted or outlawed like the liberals ideology wish for, there is no reason to expect that determined criminals are going to pay much attention to the law. The criminals, then, will always be able to purchase and carry guns; it will only be their innocent victims who will suffer from the solicitous liberalism that imposes laws against guns and other weapons. Just as drugs, gambling, and pornography should be made legal, so too should guns and any other objects that might serve as weapons of self-defense. I don’t see any positive freedom at all.

Obviously, laws must be enforced. The solution to your scenario is: good policing. The idea is not simply to say 'oh, guns are illegal' as you are suggesting may be the case, but to a) make the law, b) enforce it properly and c) try those who disobey it.
If you cannot see any positive freedom in this, then you must not have looked. Hence: through the application of the above three processes, the overall preponderance of harmful weaponry can be reduced, thus allowing the general citizenry to be more free from their being used against them. Just as firemen do not fight fire with fire, so we should not fight violence by empowering people to commit further violence.

Furthermore, you completely missed another point of mine: what about those who are unwilling to act with force, even retaliatory? How can they be protected in a society where people are free to acquire lethal weaponry? Why should I, as a citizen, be expected to resort to force to defend myself if I find the idea of doing so morally objectionable, and given that, with the proper enforcement of gun control, a situation necessitating my use of force would be less likely to eventuate? Is it too much to ask to be able to go out in public without a defensive weapon without expecting to be deprived of my liberty by some assailant?

The inevitable result of a liberal enforced policy, as in the case of drugs marijuana laws [....]

The legalisation of drugs, which only harm their user, is a different story to the legalisation of implements that can be used to maim or kill other people.

Finally, it appears to me that, if it were a virtual necessity to carry some defensive weapon to prevent me from being harmed by someone else (which it would be, in a society where these weapons were freely available), this thought hardly inspires 'freedom'. When you must act with force in order to prevent the deprivation of your own liberty, how exactly are you exercising personal freedom? - you are virtually mandated to carry out one course of action! Ergo - bad, bad, bad idea.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Re:Freedom.


Again one if forced to ask the question.....why dont you and your 'whites-only' biker pals go 'off-the-grid', leave Australia to go and live in Sibera or something?
You can hoard all the weapons you like, and there'd no 'liberals oppresors' to chain your disturbing blood-lust for 'self-defence' (which is itself obviously some disgusting euphimism)
You like the repulsive 'gun-nuts' before you also always fail to follow your own logical eventualities, what would stop people from holding high-grade explosives, or anti-aircraft missles, or mustard gas?
We all know you'd love to set traps in your basement with this kind of stuff, torturing and butchering 'tresspassers'.
The bloody annexation of innocent life, faciliated with the very weapons you worship, must stop.We say no to you, the entertainment of your hellish 'judge, jury and executioneer' fantasy will be denied, you will never have such a right</p>

 

[Freedom_]

human history is a record of irrepressible conflict between Power and Liberty, with Power (government) always standing ready to increase its scope by invading people’s rights and encroaching upon our liberties. The left who are ready to give up nearly all of its natural rights for some utopianism social good which in fact has failed since day one and will continue to fail until they realize that they are wrong.

You advocate policing? What right does the government have, or what right does some legislator or bureaucrats have to stop me from owning a gun? I just cannot fathom how anyone could actually agree with this. This is just a waste of public funds especially when police should be operating against the real criminals, the aggressors against person and property. This, after all, is supposed to be the function of the police in the first place. Not stopping me from owning a gun to protect my family. What is this? Iran? Saudi Arabia
?
But say we do increase police. Nothing will change. If you are going to be gunned down police will never reach you in time. However, if you were carrying an gun you would have the choice to protect yourself or engage in whatever the thugs want from you. If you believe that police will reach you in time to protect you, then you are living in a fairy land.

comingupforair: im not white; and you're shit.

 

[dieburndie]

Re:Freedom.


Again one if forced to ask the question.....why dont you and your 'whites-only' biker pals go 'off-the-grid', leave Australia to go and live in Sibera or something?
You can hoard all the weapons you like, and there'd no 'liberals oppresors' to chain your disturbing blood-lust for 'self-defence' (which is itself obviously some disgusting euphimism)
You like the repulsive 'gun-nuts' before you also always fail to follow your own logical eventualities, what would stop people from holding high-grade explosives, or anti-aircraft missles, or mustard gas?
We all know you'd love to set traps in your basement with this kind of stuff, torturing and butchering 'tresspassers'.
The bloody annexation of innocent life, faciliated with the very weapons you worship, must stop.We say no to you, the entertainment of your hellish 'judge, jury and executioneer' fantasy will be denied, you will never have such a right</p>

Way to ensure that no one takes you seriously ever again (assuming there were some that did previously). Whites only? It's so telling how people revert to using absolutely ridiculous strawmen when attempting to take down libertarians/ancaps.

 

[John McCain]

I don't believe more liberal gun laws would make Australia better at present.

Vote for status quo.

 

[murphyad]

Just quickly, before I trot off to bed:

[...] if you were carrying an gun you would have the choice to protect yourself or engage in whatever the thugs want from you. If you believe that police will reach you in time to protect you, then you are living in a fairy land.

No, what I believe in is the potential for good policing to remove the threat of such weapons being used against me by removing ways to procure such weapons as well as confiscating them from those who illegally possess them. I agree, expecting the police to save your skin in every individual circumstance is unrealistic, which is why we should instead stem the flow at the source.

Oh and on the subject of you owning a gun: if you want to roll with the non-agression axiom of libertarianism, the government is restricting your capability to initiate force against others, to prevent you from ever depriving the liberty of others, for the collective social good.

 

[dieburndie]

Oh and on the subject of you owning a gun: if you want to roll with the non-agression axiom of libertarianism, the government is restricting your capability to initiate force against others, to prevent you from ever depriving the liberty of others, for the collective social good.

Absolutely incorrect. No individual, including those collectively calling themselves the government, is justified in coercive agression against another unless acting in self-defense. The axiom makes no mention of vague notions such as the 'social good'.

 

[chelsea girl]

guns are the worst thing man has ever invented. i wish they would all disappear.

 

[dieburndie]

I appreciate that many people don't like guns. I don't like them either on a personal aesthetic level, I associate them with violent, aggressive, controlling behaviour and the types of people that act this way. Having said that, there are some points here I feel are important:

Firstly, the government banning things doesn't make them disappear. It merely alters the channels of distribution, which when dealing with potentially dangerous goods can be incredibly hazardous. In the case of outright criminalisation of guns, the consequent lack of market transperancy means information on the details of supply and distribution are an unknown. It is not beneficial for the most dangerous goods in existence to be controlled by a criminal channel in secrecy. They are always going to exist, I would feel far more comfortable knowing where.
This is far too frequently ignored for both weapons and drugs.

Secondly, who the fuck am I, or anyone else to tell other people they are not allowed to possess a gun? Whether its for self-defence, sport or and unconvential kitchen utensil it's not ANYONE's concern unless they are using it to harm others. When did we start assuming people were violent criminals by default?

The government is not some magical protection blanket. If only more people would start realising this and cease their insistence that all of us be treated like children.

 

[chelsea girl]

I don't have any opinion on whether guns should be illegal or not or what is a person's right to own a gun blah blah blah. I just wish they never existed. As far as I am concerned, the fact that they do exist means that it's always going to be a aspect of society that gets people all up in arms. It would be great if they never existed. I don't mean banned, but literally never existing. And I don't care that it's a pointless thought because they do exist, I still wish they never existed.

 

[chelsea girl]

And, actually, as far as I am aware, statistically the countries where owning a gun is legal have far higher percentages of deaths caused by guns than places where they are illegal. Whether that is a direct result of availability, or more to do with certain places having an ingrained gun culture, I do not know - but it is certainly something to consider.

 

[dieburndie]

And, actually, as far as I am aware, statistically the countries where owning a gun is legal have far higher percentages of deaths caused by guns than places where they are illegal. Whether that is a direct result of availability, or more to do with certain places having an ingrained gun culture, I do not know - but it is certainly something to consider.

No it isn't, because broadly speaking, it's not true.

 

[Iron]

Harm principle HARM PRINCIPLE