Australia's ahead of the U.S.,,,,

Status
Not open for further replies.
Our cultural differences mean we will see totally different ways on this
Click to expand...
Yes, but I would have thought that the passage of time would have allowed Aussies to overcome their penal colony victimhood outlook.

I guess not though.
 
Yes, but I would have thought that the passage of time would have allowed Aussies to overcome their penal colony victimhood outlook.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's it. It's a matter of having started from a different position, not that they haven't moved. Canada is far more deferential to authority than the US, but they have changed significantly over time. They now have a bill of rights roughly modelled on the US. But the "distance" between Canada and the US on both deference for authority and socio-economic policy hasn't changed much in over a century. (See S.M. Lipset's book: Continental Divide) In addition the three primary "settler societies" represent three different class-oriented waves of immigration. Canada: upper class/tory. US: middle class/whig. Australia: working class/labor. The class/ideology wave with the greatest resistance to noblesse oblige politics was the middle one.

(I'm sure this is more than you ever wanted to know about the topic, of course.)

Update: The other thing that's almost totally unique about the Aussies is the notion of "mateship," which is far deeper than mere friendship. I just saw a great documentary about the "reall story of the bridge over the river Kwai" that talked about how this process of partnering between close friends saved many lives.
 
Gotta add my 2 bits...

I sure can't call myself an expert on things Aussie, but though I was born in the USA, back in 1973 I went to Oz, and stayed for thirty years. Now I'm back in the USA & feel a bit like Rip Van Winkle; this country's changed since I left (or I have, or both.) Now Oz is a beautiful place, I'm still in love with it and its people, (and here it comes!) BUT...

Even in Western Australia, where I spent over 25 years, it's getting too dangerous. My son's still there, and he got mugged last New Year's Eve; luckily he's OK, just got a mild concussion, bruises, cut lip and black eye. Naturally everything he had on him was stolen. Yeah, that could happen here too... but here it's still (barely, but still) legal to defend yourself. Even if my son had had a weapon, if he'd used it he would have been in more hot water than the criminals who assaulted him. Must be my American upbringing, but that just ain't right.

I was present in court (Armadale Court of Petty Sessions) when an interesting case came up; a man had been stopped for a "random breath test" (which he was never given) and the policeman noticed a baseball bat in the back seat of his car. Asked what the bat was for, the man (who was not some young gang-banger, but a guy in his 30's, well-dressed, looked like a solid citizen to me) said that it was for self defence. He said that some low-lives had moved in close to where he lived, and he'd made it clear to them that if they messed with him, he'd fight back. He'd never had to use the bat; just the fact that he had it was sufficient deterrent. The magistrate gave this man a lecture about how he wasn't going to allow Australia to become a "wild west" like in America, found the man guilty of carrying a weapon, and fined him A$150 (about US$100, at that time.) I couldn't believe what I was hearing. So now this guy's got a criminal record, just because he was willing to defend himself! When he hadn't done ANYTHING. (Oh, and his baseball bat got confiscated, too....)

I've often wondered if the low-lives down the street beat him up, once they found that he was disarmed. I guess he could ask them to wait, while he called the cops on his mobile phone!

Thanks everyone for making this a very memorable thread- there has been much wisdom imparted here. And like most, I'm worried that we too are losing the ability to exercise our rights, even though (unlike Oz) we do have some of them enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Those rights have been sadly eroded here in the "People's Republic of California", that's for sure!

Esky
 
As near as I can tell, the problem can be compared to this:

The people of OZ have been eating government issued sandwiches for years. They've been told that they're peanut-butter sandwiches but actually, the filling only looks like peanut-butter. They've never tasted real peanut-butter so they don't know the difference and are willing to defend their particular sandwich maker to the death. Once in awhile one of them gets to taste the real stuff and he suddenly realizes just what he's been fed all these years.

The bad part is-- When he goes to his friends to tell them what he's found out, they tell him he's full of s**t.
 
Esky writes:I'm worried that we too are losing the ability to exercise our rights, even though (unlike Oz) we do have some of them enumerated in our Bill of Rights. Those rights have been sadly eroded here in the "People's Republic of California", that's for sure!

Esky
Click to expand...
Yeah, but besides the enumerated rights, we have the 9th and 10th, which refers to other rights and powers not therein enumerated. What this means is that all rights that have been traditionally held by Americans are protected by the 9th and 10th. All you need to do is prove that we Americans have traditionally possessed the right of self-defense (a piece of cake), and the right of self-defense is protected from violation by the government, i.e,. they are not Constitutionally allowed to pass a law, or decide a case, which will have the effect of stripping a citizen of that right.
 
(I'm sure this is more than you ever wanted to know about the topic, of course.)
Click to expand...
Not really. I was already aware of the "dialectical materialism" explanation for people acting like sheeple. I've never really bought into marxism though, and as such the "class warfare" thing doesn't have legs.

Thanks anyway. :rolleyes:
 
...in Australia because you are simply not allowed to use them against another human for any reason whatsoever, so they may aswell be in a safe.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is total bulldust. There is NO state or territory in Australia where you can not use a firearm for self-defence if the situation warrants it -- if you feel in immediate, mortal fear for your life or that of your family. Yes, you may get charged by police. No, there won't be a court in the country that will find you guilty.

I can't believe any Australian can be other than outraged by our gun laws. To say that most Australians buy a gun for recreation, not for hunting or self-defence, is just absurd. More firearms are licensed for recreational hunting or shooting than for any other reason. The only caveat on "self-defence" is that it may not be used to justify "need or reason" for possession of a firearm.

The very presumption of "innocent until proven guilty" has been reversed for gun owners in Australia. If a firearm is involved, police do not need a warrant to enter your home. All they need is a stated belief that they thought the firearms laws were being broken. And you can't sue because that has been written into the legislation as well.

And it doesn't stop with guns, does it? Slingshots (catapults, wrist rockets, whatever you call them) are banned in some states, double-edged knives are banned here in the West, crossbows are banned in some states, legislation is being put forward now to ban compound bows, I was told by a copper that a screwdriver in my car (propping open a broken air vent) was an "offensive weapon", Victoria's banning swords, Sydney is instituting "random weapons checks" using metal detectors on people just walking down the streets. . .

Incidentally, there is no need to "pass legislation" to alter storage requirements. The "uniform gun laws" of 96-97 took care of that little detail by granting the power to the Police Minister or Commissioner to "amend by regulation". That power also extends to the right to totally ban any further class of firearms, without the messy necessity of having to go through parliament. It is possible now to totally ban firearms ownership without referral to parliament or a vote being required.

I think threeseven said it all when he said he was still playing with LEGO when the gun "steal back" was in progress ...

Esky
I'm in WA, too. Yes, there are some weird things go through our courts -- a man had his firearms licence revoked and his firearms seized because the police turned up for a storage inspection when he wasn't home and his wife opened the safe for them. The police alleged that, since she wasn't a licensed user, he had breached the law by allowing her access. Another man was charged when the police turned up for a safe inspection and spotted some cartridges for which he no longer held a licence (or even a firearm, for that matter).
 
I'm sorry, but that is total bulldust. There is NO state or territory in Australia where you can not use a firearm for self-defence if the situation warrants it -- if you feel in immediate, mortal fear for your life or that of your family. Yes, you may get charged by police. No, there won't be a court in the country that will find you guilty.
Click to expand...

Yeh? Geepers, I thought you'd be hung for it. I was thinking about if you used a gun that is supposed to be in pieces, locked away in a safe for defence. I said the wrong thing.
 
Mate, no offence meant by my post. But your type of thinking is exactly what the authorities, the media and the anti-gunners want.

We still have an inalienable right to self-defence in Oz. I can't shoot someone for trying to steal my DVD player -- but if they come at me or mine with a weapon and an intent to kill, then I sure can respond with lethal force. It may difficult to do, given our storage laws, but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Chap in Adelaide did it a little while ago. Had prowlers in the house. Confronted one with a .303. Prowler rushed him with raised arm and tomahawk (from memory). Man fired, .303 round went through the prowler's hip. Howeowner charged by police, found not guilty by the court. Prowler then went for civil action, suing the homeowner. :cuss: Again, fortunately, prowler lost the case.
 
A physical firearm census? They must care for your safety an awful lot! :rolleyes: Governments use census information to plan for the future. Knowledge is power. I'd be extremely hesitant to allow anyone to know my state of defensive readiness. But then as was pointed out we Americans are different. We have a right to expect being "secure in our possessions".

Not to offend but since you Aussies are all such reasonable people I'd like to hazard a reasonable prediction. Once their reasonable inspection is reasonably complete and crime doesn't drop to a reasonable level in response to their previous reasonable confiscation they will come for the rest of your unreasonable guns. When's that next inspection?

Government use of absolute power has a bad reputation. You're right about one thing, this "bastion of liberty" here is drowning under the weight of it's own laws. But freedom is lived, it isn't something written on a piece of paper. Over 2 million currently incarcerated. Anybody's guess what percentage of our population has been there and done that (20-50 million?).

The main difference here (as I see it) is that people don't automatically relinquish freedom when it's demanded. Freedom comes with a price. If you play, you have to pay. Best of luck to you all over there.
 
I just found this:

Bill of Rights is probably Article 7, which reads as follows:

"Subjects' Arms - That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."

ok, I'm not fully understanding what "their conditions" means. Does it mean the weapon's or the person's? And is it the mental state, or the state of condition of the weapon or what?
 
No offence taken Bruce, I guess I'm more un-edefecated on the subject than I thought, and I need to learn.

It is good to hear that defending yourself isn't seen as a heinous crime.
 
Class Warfare

quote:(I'm sure this is more than you ever wanted to know about the topic, of course.)

Not really. I was already aware of the "dialectical materialism" explanation for people acting like sheeple. I've never really bought into marxism though, and as such the "class warfare" thing doesn't have legs.

Thanks anyway.
Click to expand...

Well, it may be a kind of "class warfare" thesis, but it's definitely not a Marxist one. The point is that there's a kind of elitism buried in the Marxist doctrine that appeals, in most countries, to the "upper class." Lipset discusses this at length in most of his books, and I think it has a great deal of validity. So in every country that once had a king and nobility the people who were in that "class" have an attitude toward the poor that used to be called "noblesse oblige." This attitude translates without much difficulty into a certain receptivity to socialism. (In England this attitude is manifested in the "red Tories" or the "wets.") Americans aren't familiar with this history, or how it developed, but I think it's critical to understanding the affinity between the upper class elites or the wealthy (many of whom are motivated either by this noblesse oblige attitude, or plain old guilt) and the so-called "poor."

Lipset, and a few others like the philosopher Frederick Turner, have recognized the symbiosis between these two groups. Consider, for a moment, how people like FDR, Teddy Kennedy, and Soros got to be the way they are. And believe it or not, this also translates into voting behavior. Contrary to popular belief, the well-off are most likely to vote for social programs, and the welfare state, partly out of self-preservation. It's certainly a theory of class, but you sure won't find in anywhere in Marx.

Think about it.
 
I sure can't call myself an expert on things Aussie, but though I was born in the USA, back in 1973 I went to Oz, and stayed for thirty years.
Click to expand...

Well, that gives you a kind of expertise that I don't possess. I'm sure you've heard the terms "currency" and "silver" as they were applied to the people who settled Australia? All I'm saying is that Aussies just never had as much "natural immunity" to the politics of class as Americans did. As regards the self-defense versus the protectionist state, I think the latter is collapsing. You mention the crime trends, but you can point to the same thing in England... and most Brits are aware of the rise in breakins. A recent program on the BBC got a surprise when it found that most people wanted the discretion to use deadly force to defend their homes, and that there's growing support for a right to self-defensive weapons. I use the example of the fourth 9/11 plane passengers as the archetype of this new attitude toward the state. In other words, I think we're winning that argument, although it's sure too soon to rest on our laurels. There are obviously a lot of people who still don't get it.
 
I just found this:

Bill of Rights is probably Article 7, which reads as follows:

"Subjects' Arms - That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."
Click to expand...
This last phrase, "as allowed by law," is a typical ploy of Communist nations. It is what lawyers call an "illusory guarantee." It is illusory because it places absolutely zero obligation on the government to recognize any sort of right belonging to subjects. It is as if I said to you, "If you will give me $10,000 today, I promise in return that on Monday I will give you my '75 Corvette, should I be so inclined."
It is the last part that makes the deal illusory.
 
This last phrase, "as allowed by law," is a typical ploy of Communist nations. It is what lawyers call an "illusory guarantee." It is illusory because it places absolutely zero obligation on the government to recognize any sort of right belonging to subjects. It is as if I said to you, "If you will give me $10,000 today, I promise in return that on Monday I will give you my '75 Corvette, should I be so inclined."
It is the last part that makes the deal illusory.
Click to expand...

Want a scary thought? look at your state constitution section about arms -- here's Utah's:
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.
Click to expand...

The same kind of thing, except for the fact that defense of persons, property, and security of the state are explicitly mentioned. However, like we know with the 2A, ambiguity can cause a lot of trouble -- so why do they put in things like this? :scrutiny:

Wes
 
Consider, for a moment, how people like FDR, Teddy Kennedy, and Soros got to be the way they are.
Click to expand...
I have, and I don't think that they are as motivated by noble obligation as one might think. I do believe that it is the face they put forward to the public, but I think that all of the people you mentioned (and more) figured out long ago that a majority of people will vote for socialism if given the chance.

FDR et al. are just betting the odds. They count on at least 50% of the population wanting something for (seemingly at least) nothing, they roll the dice, and they win.

It's much harder to sell people on the idea that they can be self-sufficient. It's much harder to convince people that self-defense is - by it's very definition - one's own responsibility. And men of weak character, men of questionable morals, will sell people short every time. And so they exploit the weakness of their fellow man. They count on niggling at a person's own self-doubt, of their uncertainty that they can make it on their own. In doing so, they sow the seeds of our destruction.

The worst part of all is that they have more allies every day. Public schools, colleges & universities, major media outlets... all of them preach the same garbage. The lessons they teach are always the same, no matter what the subject, look for the excuse. Not wealthy yourself? Blame the rich! Too much of a sheeple? Blame class! Being picked on? Blame racism, sexism, ageism, classism, speciesism, or whatever nonsense designer buzzwords are in vogue at the time.

The result is people like Kerry. A man (I use the term loosely) who is for, and against, EVERYTHING!!! Or how about Johnny Jihad bin Walker? Daddy leaves mommy for another man? Boohoohoo. Definitely a justification for joining death-cult psychotics in Trashcanistan. Most definitely.

It all makes me want to :barf:
 
H.G.:

Well, you're partly right in the sense that it's driven more by self-interest than nobility of spirit. But it's a pattern that goes far beyond those particular politicians. I don't know what I need to do to convince you. It's not simply a matter of an isolated electoral strategy here and there. People of great wealth are more likely to vote for social democratic (i.e. quasi-socialist) policies than laissez-faire policies, across the board. It's not like the folks I named are class traitors, or anything. They're typical. You don't need to appeal to idiosyncracies of individual politicians to explain a pattern that's at least a couple of centuries old.

Of course why this pattern exists is even more fascinating. The most straightforward explanation I've heard about this class allegience is that the position that elites hold in society depends upon maintaining a client base among "the poor," or the "oppressed." (I think this is what you were saying, more or less, right?) So I think you have the hang of it, but your focus is too narrow. The issue is, are they more interested in the oppressed, or in having a perpetual problem that demands their particular "service?"

As Frederick Turner observed in an article for Tech Central Station awhile ago (although I can't find the cite) this claim to the "noblesse" part of "noblesse oblige" begins to look a little thin when you consider that most of these self-styled elites would rather Iraqis had remained oppressed rather than allow them to be liberated by the likes of George Bush. And even more to the point, if the oppressed somehow ceased to be oppressed, or poor, they simply wouldn't need anyone looking out for them. Which, of course, puts many of these elites out of a job. Or, at least, it seriously undermines the game they play. Turner's point is that "liberation" is about the last thing these folks really want to see the US doing.

And I maintain that it's the middle class that represents the primary resitance to this nonsense. The Scottish Enlightenment, including Locke, Hume, Adam Ferguson, Adam Smith etc., was a middle class phenomenon. It makes perfect sense when you think about it. The poor have an interest in benefactors, and the wealthy have an interest in being benefactors in order to keep power. The middle class only have an interest in the work they do, and how well they do it, because that's what they get paid for. They have no strong class allegience, because they simply assume most people are like them.

It may be an orversimplification, but the following generality also has a lot of truth:

1. Canada was founded primarily by royalist tories, so they *were* the authority figures, and of course maintain that value set. Canada is the country of the counter-revolution. The heros of their wilderness expansion period were benevolent policemen (RCMP).

2. The US was founded by the middle class escaping the mother country's attempts to suppress their freedom, and also escaping the status and economic constriaints of the class system. The US is the country of the revolution. The heros of their wilderness expansion were outlaws, mostly. Or at least people who were on the edge of outlawry, like the Earps.

3. Australia was founded by working and lower class (mostly) who had been caught up in England's overflowing prison system. They weren't so much escaping the mother country as being driven out. Heros of their wilderness expansion were reformers, reformed convicts, and labor leaders.

Of course it's an oversimplification, but it's still a very useful one.

But even with all those differences between them, the three settler societies are really more alike than different.
 
The issue is, are they more interested in the oppressed, or in having a perpetual problem that demands their particular "service?"
Click to expand...
They will always go for "... having a perpetual problem that demands their particular service..."

Liberalism = poor helpless slob can't possibly think/do/make anything for himself, so it is the duty of "enlightened progressives" to create a government that will do for the helpless slob.

What the helpless slob (who votes for the liberal wanks) doesn't understand is that a government that does for one, will subsequently ALWAYS do to one. Whether one likes it or not.
 
"Subjects' Arms - That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."
Click to expand...

From memory, the High Court of Australia has ruled that subsequent legislation in Australia has overruled this clause -- that is, it is no longer valid.
 
Yes I know, I read after I posted that British and thus australian parliments have the power to over-ride anything, even if it goes against the constitution. Well, anything EXCEPT any legislation that gives them less power to legislate. OMG. So what is the point of the constitution? Are we going to get another chance to break off from British rule and become an independant country?
 
Home Invasions Up?

I seem to recall someone making the claim that home invasions in Oz are up. I have no doubt that this is the case, but does anyone have a citation? Someone is pressing me for it, and I thought folks here might have more knowledge of where such a statistical trend may be explored.

How about those Terps, huh?
 
Yeah, me too, Esky......

"Now Oz is a beautiful place, I'm still in love with it and its people, (and here it comes!) BUT..."
************************************************************


I also emigrated to Oz in 1973, but didn't stay that time.

I've got ten years in Oz and seven in N.Z., and things have changed for the worse in both nations.:mad:

But then, so have they in the U.S. as well:eek: .

Maybe it's a "global liberty degeneration" sort of thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Gun registry database errors. (Aus.)
Replies
7
Views
726
fallingblock
F
F
  • Locked
Australia's gun buyback - a bit less than successful, I think!
Replies
2
Views
518
ArfinGreebly
ArfinGreebly
D
  • Locked
(Australia) Gun check proposal cops a blast
Replies
2
Views
456
PromptCritical
PromptCritical
D
  • Locked
(Australia) Firearm storage under spotlight
Replies
2
Views
570
Deadman
D
B
  • Locked
(Australia) Toy gun = real drama
Replies
10
Views
798
DrPsycho
D
Back
Top