NewsMax story: Australia Wants to Let Army Shoot Citizens
WorldNetDaily story: Freedom’s erosion
Long have proponents of second amendment rights said that disarming civilians is a step toward martial law or a fascist state; were we right? Is it happening in Australia?
This is exactly why I say that those who say “get rid of all guns” are as crazy as the other side who thinks any restrictions which might make it tough for uzi stands on the roadside to exist is an infringement on their rights.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two weeks, one day, 20 hours, 4 minutes and 9 seconds.
5513 cigarettes not smoked, saving $689.18.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 5 days, 3 hours, 25 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/sub]
You wouldn’t happen to have a copy of the proposed law, as opposed to its opponents strident objections?
It may be as bad as portrayed, but all I saw was hyperbolic ranting without a single item of substance.
As an Australian, I don’t see how the two laws are linked in any way. One law, which was very popular in the wake of a mass killing at Port Arthur, was to ban high powered weapons in a country which does not have as much of a ‘gun culture’ as the US, and therefore should not be used as an example by US lobbyists on either side. The second law is a very unpopular one that relates to the army being able to be called in during a situation like the Seattle riots last year. I’m not sure how the two are being linked - would members of the NRA prefer armed battles between anarchists and police? What is the practical difference between armed police or armed military personnel responding to a riot situation? The rise in crime rates has definitely been overplayed - where is the evidence that it is because of the different gun laws? It simply doesn’t make sense to make a statement like that regarding a country like Australia.
Maybe society is getting worse, but there is no state of siege at the moment, and I say that as someone whose house was recently broken into. Sure, that pissed me off, but burglary has been going on for many years. I’m not sure how having a gun in the house would have stopped an intruder when nobody was home. I don’t mind America debating whether they need gun control or not, and I don’t consider myself in a good position to put in my 2 cents on that argument, but don’t make up stories about Australia turning into a police state when this is total nonsense.
HenrySpencer
Apparently, this is the amendment:
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/bills/0/2000/0/0642439303.htm
Hmmmm…interesting sources. Journalistic license seems to be a bit out of control, though.
NRA propaganda, and wrong at that. The crime rate hasn’t increased, but the number of people shot by high-powered automatic weapons has decreased.
The second part is a beat-up. The military has always been ‘allowed to be used in civilian emergencies’. Hell, they even get them in to load the ships when the wharfies go on strike. Let’s be clear about ‘civilian emergencies’. this whole thing is about The Five Ring Circus, and it alone. It is not about ‘unruly citizens’, nice emotive language, that. It is about using the armed forces to provide assistance to the police and counter-terrorist groups.
Who’s ‘they’? When did they say this? Names, dates, and actual quotes, please!
The constitution doesn’t say that the federal govt. requires permission, the 97-year-old law does. The constitution allows the Federal Government to change the 97-year-old law.
In short, no. We don’t have a ‘second amendment’ (well, we do, but it hasn’t got anything to do with arms, and it isn’t called “The Second Amendment”), never have had. We have no ‘right to bear arms’, but the various governments have a right to legislate guns out of our hands. And personally, I have no problem with this.
Now, for the sake of context, giving the military special powers in case of civil disorder is about THE BLOODY OLYMPICS. That’s all. Don’t make the mistake of comparing the US Federation to the Australian one. It isn’t the same sort of thing - for example, earlier this century Western Australia conducted a secession referendum, which came in at a large amount in favour od seceding from the federation.The rest of the Federation said ‘no, you aren’t allowed to go’, so they didn’t. Different.
FWIW, the current Australian Government has no balls at all. If they announced that they were instituting martial law, the response would be “You and who’s army?”. You can laugh any time now.
This whole thing should not worry you Americans at all. Read nothing into it. What happens here has no meaning for you guys. I just wish Charlton Heston would realise that.
I totally agree the law change is all about the Bloody Olympics but I just cannot imagine that Howard would have the balls to shoot protestors while the world is looking on.
Bet he still wouldn’t say sorry though. Heh.
HenrySpencer:
Well, as was said in the Sydney Morning Herald:
Or, as I would less-charitably put it, the police are trained to, when possible, capture and arrest criminals, whereas the army is trained to travel to foreign lands and shoot people. From the same article:
You don’t find that alarming at all?
Raptormeister:
Not according to Australia Defence Minister John Moore, who, in a letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, said:
I rather take that as an indication that the Games are not a legitimate reason but rather a convenient excuse to ram the legislation through. If it is in fact just for the Olympics, why is there no “sunset clause” that will dissipate the legislation after the games? Apparently you’re less critical of your government than I.
Anyway. I brought this up in the first place because many of our past gun control debates have involved images of a future wherein a government could push a law like the above on a disarmed civilian population. Maybe that’s not exactly what’s happening in Australia, but maybe it is. Hence, the Great Debate.
Note that the proposed law allows the government to place the army in situations where domestic violence is occurring or is “likely to occur.” The approval/disapproval of the individual State is not a consideration. And apparently this bothers me more than it bothers Australians…
Max,
Point taken - I just don’t see how this has anything to do with the change in the gun laws, and if you asked 1000 Australians about what their thoughts on the new law were, I doubt 10% would even make the connection. I would ask, how do you think the 2nd Amendment helped the situation for the protesters, police or general public in the riots in Seattle? Australia is just far away enough from the USA so that it can be used as a source of scaremongering by organisations who know the people they are scaring don’t have enough knowledge of Australian society to see through it.
Also, I’m not sure what the individual state’s opinions on anything have to do with the issue. The Australian constitution, political system and attitude towards those things by the people is nothing like the equivalents in the USA. Federation grants particular powers to the federal government, and that’s the end of that. State governments handle issues like health and education, and don’t have any say in how the military is used. There is no historical conflict between the states and the federal government, except regarding how much tax money each state is given each budget.
HenrySpencer
What about the rest of the letter? Not into spam, since you supplied the link, but that little chunk you quoted is way out of context.
Here’s the entire thing, in all its spammy glory…
The important bits:
The bill does not change the circumstances where the military can be used…
It is intended that the military is used where the police can’t handle it…
It requires the military to co-operate with the police. Note the precendence here.
Now, that doesn’t look much like the comment from Bob Brown, does it? Not that I’d expect it to. Sure, there are probably problems with it bill as it stands, but that’s not a major deal. We have an upper house which is stacked against the government, and it has to get through that first. There is no real issue with ‘ramming’ the legislation through, unless, of course, they do a deal with the opposition parties. Not unheard of, but not that likely in this case if there are serious problems with it.
Note to Self: make sure you bring up the comment by Brown about the ‘Americanisation of our domestic security operations’, in order to cast aspersions on him as a reliable commentator.
By no means. I hate them - they are pathetic, compassionless ideologues with no sense of common decency. I’d just rather criticise them for the things that actually matter, IMO.
Just a quick further note re: ‘a disarmed population’. What needs to be understood is that Australia has no ‘armed’ population, and never has had. Firearms are uncommon: farmers, people who go out and kill animals on the weekend, the military, police and criminals are basically the only armed people. Certain types of weapons have been banned, that’s all - the ones that you can shoot lots of people in a short space of time, and the ones which turn wild pigs into jelly at half a mile.
Like I said, it’s a beat-up, so the connection with this legislation is a non-sequiter, or however the hell you spell it.
Max: a bit of a faux pas on your part, friend; we Americans don’t like it when foreigners harshly criticise US. So let’s not bash our friends Down Under about this.
If they’re content with this situation, who’s business is it of ours to critique and editorialize?
Raptomeister:
NRA propoganda? While the article the NRA actually posted concerning new gun control legislation in Australia (a few years back) is no longer available, I’ll dredge my memory to bring up a few points the NRA “propaganda machine” made about the whole affair:
1. They [NRA] noted that Australia already had low crime rates; not only compared to the USA, but to other industrialized nations as well.
2. With low crime rates, and with no history of mass shootings, why would they [Australian Parliament] seek or need such broad, sweeping gun control?
3. Why would they also target purely hunting weapons? Bolt and lever action rifles, with small internal magazines, and all handguns?
4. Article summary: Australia’s gov’t is having a knee-jerk “do something!” reaction to a single, isolated incident. The people will soon come to their senses and repeal this legislation.
It seems the NRA (which, by the way, is a 3.5 million+ organization of American Citizens, not a lobby of manufacturers and lawyers) had more faith in the average Australian citizen than their government.
I’m not going to quote crime rates; your crime rates are your concern, not mine. If and when you are finally fed up about your perceived crime problem, read More Guns, Less Crime by Prof. John Lott. You can get it online at Barnes & Noble or Amazon.
After you’ve read it, then maybe we’ll talk about the effects of gun control on crime rates.
Some gun control is necessary; but there is a point of diminishing returns, when you are no longer affecting the criminals and infringing the rights of free, law-abiding citizens.
America crossed that line in '94, after creeping up on it one law at a time since '34. Handgun bans, poorly conceived and even more poorly worded “Assault Weapons” bans, buy-back plans, non-existent “loophole” bans; all these are being pushed and fought for and against in Congress.
Which certain people (namely the resident(s) of 1600 Penn. Ave.) seems to have forgotten are the representatives of The People, in our government of, for and by the People.
It ain’t perfect; but it’s what we have, and it’s lasted longer and performed better than any other form of government on Earth.
So I think I’ll hold on to it a bit longer, before Premier Comrade Bill and Hillary, and their meat-sock Commissar Al, “Executive Order” it, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights out of existence.
ExTank
Damn, this is getting out of hand and turning into a gun-control debate, which I am admittedly ill-equipped to deal with, and I might add, that isn’t going to change much.
First, ‘propaganda’ was inflammatory, and for this I apologise. So pretend I didn’t say it 
I was referring to some TV ads which the NRA ran in the US earlier this year, based on the said research which was some years out of date by then. It caused quite a stir over here, and the statistics were shown quite clearly to be ‘inaccurate’ - and the NRA wouldn’t tell anyone where they got them from in any case.
The issue is not about crime rates, which I think is at the core of divergent thinking on this issue. the legislation was put in place to make it harder for mass-shootings to occur in the future, ie. make it harder for the mass- shooter. Whether it accomplishes this or not is another question - we have them so rarely that statistics wouldn’t be able to tell us. But I doubt it!
This sort of answers points 2 and 3 , IMO.
This needs some comment.
The first bit is probably right, but the second bit is way way way off base, to slip into a bit of an American patois for a moment. “The people” will do no such thing. The number of people with firearms is staggeringly small, as a percentage of the population, and has very little lobbying power. And not all firearm owners disagree with it either, whereas most non-owners seem to. So chances of having the law changed through lobbying are very small indeed.
This needs a smartarse comment 
Well in that case, would they please desist from funding politically motivated lobby groups (eg. the Shooters Party) in this country?
Thankyou.
A handgun is “purely a hunting weapon”? Have I misread that?
Australian Gun control debate posted by Max Torque
IMHO you are quite right there Max Torque, and long may that remain so.
Raptormeister and HenrySpencer make their points better than I can but FWIW I think you are falling into the trap of placing American constructs where they don’t apply.
At the severe risk of trivialising the historical perspective, Australia didn’t conduct a war for sovereign independence, hell we can’t even do it via a ballot box. We haven’t had a civil war (I’ll accept points of order aka the subjugation of the indigenous population). We have never annexed or aspired to acquire territory militarily. Our most vitriolic interstate rivalries are about football matches.
Possibly as a consequence, guns are not perceived as essential for independence and freedom . This may well be naif from an American perspective. Vive la Difference!
Australians have no right to bear arms, and it has never been sought. Australians have no codified right to free speech either. Neither would seem to prevent us from being classed as a open and tolerant society.
During the Port Arthur aftermath, the Prime Minister copped a pasting from the gun lobby because he addressed one of their protest meetings wearing a badly fitting flak jacket.
The reason why it was badly fitting is that he’d never worn one before, and it might have been the first time a PM had ever worn one. Australians seem to retain a quaint prefererence to voting our leaders out of office.
Wrong, at least in part. Read this. I assure you it is not “out of date” and is from your own government. Yes, crime commited with firearms has gone down slightly. However, crime in general has increased slightly. So the crime rate has increased, and the knee-jerk reaction of your legislators has not had its intended effect.
Maybe I am reacting with an American point of view. However, you can stick your head in the sand and say everything’s ok for just so long.
Yes, Raptor, there are handguns (almost universally large-caliber revolvers) that are used in hunting; just as there are bows and arrows, crossbows, rifles and shotguns.
These handguns are more often than not used for a coup de grace mercy shot, when the animal has been wounded and immobilized, but not killed.
Most people do not realize that the object of every hunter’s shot is to kill, quickly and cleanly. Heart shots are the most common by far, as “head” shots are too difficult to achieve with consistency.
But even the best hunter will occasionally miss the heart shot, instead shattering the shoulder and incapacitating or immobilizing the animal without killing it. In which case the hunter will usually approach, pull out the revolver and finish it quickly, to end the suffering.
BUT…
There are also hunters who go out into the woods with these large-caliber habdguns, typically scoped and sighted in, as their primary hunting weapon.
These handguns are not large-capacity handguns; as I said before, they are almost universally revolvers, limited ot five or six shots.
And I wasn’t aware that the NRA was helping to fund the Australian gun lobby’s efforts. Could you clarify that a bit for me? Some specific instances where the NRA spoke out publicly in an Australian forum in favor of repealing or easing the firearms restrictions in Australia?
ExTank
The legislation had and has nothing to do with the ‘crime rate’. The economic situation is the best correlate of crime in this country, most especially the wealth divide.
Just for your information, here’s how the NRA ad campaign was reported in this country. The 7:30 report is generally the most reputable of the current/public affairs stuff.
Raptor: on behalf of the rest of America, let me offer our sincere apologies for trying to tell y’all how to run your country.
If there is, as you say, no “grassroots” (an Americanism denoting a popular movement starting down at the voter-level) support for repealing or amending your gun control legislation, then fine.
After all, it is your country, not ours.
Any blips in statistics, real, imagined or fabricated, are your concern, not ours.
This arrogance in our positions and opinions is one of the reasons Americans are so disliked worldwide.
ExTank
Raptormeister, welcome to the SDMB. And add my apologies to those of ExTank. (Although I won’t go so far as to apologize on behalf of all of us Yanks!)
One comment though. The ABC reporter who wrote that copy should really learn the difference between “accept” and “except”. :rolleyes: