Australia whats up with this?

this, from one who suffers the most extreme case of cognitive dissonance I've ever witnessed..............
and to call someone else biased means so much coming from one who is soooooooo biased against the US. . I guess it takes one to know one........
So far I have failed to see you leading the charge on our soil to remove our BoR. Come get 'em sweetie, come get 'em.................

 

Once again, were you going to provide a counter point or like in the past when something is brought up you don't like you just resort to insults of the source....Just askin because you really haven't provided any sustenance to this thread. Now others from your country have provided some insights. those are appreciated

 

Indeed!

We're simply very rude to non-Australians -

 

Really, I hadn't noticed LOL

 

It's not a endorsement, I can tell you, it's an observation. For the record I hate that attitude we have.I think it goes a fair way back though. When the penal colony in New South Wales was established by the First Fleet in 1788 there were no other Europeans around to welcome them. But when the Second Fleet turned up apparently many of the people in the First Fleet turned out to mock the newcomers. Been that way pretty much since then.

 

Gun 'violence' is hardly out of control. Its a huge beat up.

 

so, newcomers have to fight their way in? Visitors must go through hazing? Your admitted self-proclaimed rudeness is a relief, the truth at last, because all this time you've been hiding behind a false wall of sincerity....figures why no one likes y'all.

 

Terrible isn't it? But admitting it is the first step in recovery as they say.

 

impossible for arrogant aussies...but I have met a few that are decent and don't want to rule the world

 

Yep arrogance is a problem, But then so is meekness. Reminds me of some graffiti I saw years ago.

"The meek shall inherit the Earth"
Underneath - "that's if the rest of you don't mind".

 

Nobody likes Australians?!
Seriously, if you'd done ANY international travel, you'd see that Australians are generally seen as jovial people who enjoy a joke and a drink while we Americans are seen as arrogant jerks who know nothing about the rest of the world.

Thanks for reinforcing the stereotype.

 

That article is amusing because it lists statistics that completely contradict every other source and it does so without providing any source of its own... It even contradicts the first few minutes of it's own video!
The last 3/4 or so of the video seems to be stock footage of a few butthurt individuals immediately following gun control implementation... It'd be interesting to see interviews of those same people today to see whether their perspective has changed.

 

hardly meek when you are talking about imposing your will on another country

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia

I'm not surprised.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466

How the heck did Bryant get a gun if this is true?

This kind of article makes me wonder why some from down under would support the current gun control laws. I'm starting to see a pattern here.

 

because it is not true and a perfect example of bad journalism - using weasel words at that

Diuretic will be able to tell you more but let us take some added facts here

1) Bryant, like a lot of mass shooters, did not have a conviction that would preclude him from owning a gun prior to the massacre
2) He lived on a property and was therefore deemed to have a "genuine reason"
3) Prior to the federal enactment each state had different laws (actually still do but many of the states had a much looser laws) so the statement that our gun laws were stricter than the UK's is a complete Furfy

 

The point is that even where you have draconian gun laws, there is no way to prevent mass shooting. No way at all. The fact of the matter is that he committed a crime using a firearm. Fact, it didn't matter where he got the gun, he still used it.
All this time you've been beating us up over our so-called lax gun laws that your case has just proven, it is the mind and NOT the weapon. People will be people. WE have the Right to defend ourselves.
We'll never know what happened to his mind at the end, but it could not have been prevented. But if one person on the other side had a firearm, this might have turned out differently.
Oh, and legit sources for the following statements made by you:

1) Bryant, like a lot of mass shooters, did not have a conviction that would preclude him from owning a gun prior to the massacre
2) He lived on a property and was therefore deemed to have a "genuine reason"
3) Prior to the federal enactment each state had different laws (actually still do but many of the states had a much looser laws) so the statement that our gun laws were stricter than the UK's is a complete Furfy

 

Wait... Are you saying that a law is totally without value unless everyone complies with it 100% of the time?

Is that the same standard by which you measure every law, or is this a special demonstration of hypocrisy limited to gun control? After all, I can't think of a single law in any country that's followed 100% of the time by 100% of people.

I still don't see how making guns easier for criminals to get helps anyone but the criminals and the gun manufacturers/sellers...

 

WTF makes you think I was addressing you, bub?
You still haven't figured it out, have you. ..and you claim to be soooooooooooo smart.

 

NEWS FLASH: This is a public forum, which is open for use by any member of the public. Did you think you were sending a private message?

Interesting that you couldn't respond to the points raised...

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution

Under the Australian constitution gun laws are a state matter not a federal. After the Port Arthur shootings, the Federal government instituted a national approach to gun control by asking and encouraging all the states to be on the same page. The constitution is the same reason the by back of guns existed. Under Australian law, property can not be confiscated without compensation being paid to the owner.

 

ahem...that was a quote from another poster?
and if you don't want to part company with your property?

- - - Updated - - -

you'll have to troll harder than this........and you still haven't figured it out............

 

You can take your case to the courts. This was the central theme of a delightful Australian film The Castle

 

You know, you've figured out half of the equation. Good for you.
In your country, you have to go after the government to re-secure your Privileges.
Here, the government must prevail in a court to secure your Rights from you. That is the difference between Rights and Privileges.

 

So besides your comments that no mass shootings have occurred since passage of your current laws....why would YOU support them if 1 and 2 are still true?