This is such BS it's unbelievable!

Post Reply New Topic

The harder the Government tries to take our guns away from us, the more convinced I become that we'd better hang on to them.

(btw, this liberal/libertarian belongs to the NRA)

I don't personally like guns, but it's a person's right to have one. I also don't want anybody messing with the Constitution, whether that means taking away a person's right to own a gun or the Bush administration trying to 'preserve the sanctity of marriage' . My stance hasn't changed. Freedoms shouldn't be taken away just because a person doesn't like something. Free speech is one example. There are groups who want to censor radio and television because they don't like the language some programmes use. In my opinion, if you don't like it, change the station.

If they begin by taking away one freedom, it'll be easier for them to take away more in the future. Then where does it stop?

I'm concerned for poorer people who rent apartments in densely populated cities with an extremely high cost of living such as San Fransisco or New York. A land developer could buy out one of the few rent-controlled tenements and build luxury housing in its place, leaving the tenants no choice but to find more expensive housing they can't afford.

First off, let me say that I'm not trying to say "blame the liberals for all of society's problems", because the conservatives are probably guilty of some precedents that I may have overlooked as well.

The best example of a bad precedent that helped start the precedent of tamering wit hthe constitution that I can think of is liberal inner-city activists that tried to reduce violent crime by banning some handguns in some cities in the late '70s. For about the last 25 years there have been groups that thought they could tamper with the Second Ammendment for their own personal agenda without affecting the rest of the Constitution. The more people refered to the Constitution as a living document that can be changed to fit changes in society in order to eliminate legal obsticles in the way of their agenda, the more socially accepteble it became to undermine the Constitution to accommodate social trends. Now instead of using the safeguards built into the legal system to address and remedy situatins that posed a challenge to it, the political trend is to now dismantle the legal safeguards to accommodate the problem. What started as a problem with street crime that could have been addressed by increasing senctences handed down for them, which would have upheld Due Process. Instead, some people supported passing laws of questionable Constitutionality to ban guns, which in turn undermined the legal safeguards afforded to law abiding citizens as well as their personal safety. Now with this precedent in place, not only is the right to bear arms in jeopady, but so is free speech, freedom of religion, freedom from search and seizure, self-incrimination, speedy tials, public trials, States rights, and even Due Process itself is now in jeopardy as well. There are both Democrats and Republicans responsible for this.

Heh, Australia doesn't even have a constitution. Legally we don't even exist as a country. o_O

This sort of problem only exists when you let people dictate the fate of other people. Voting DOES NOT work. It is a failed and deeply flawed system.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

Actually Australia does have a Constitution (at least from what I've heard)

GA

SO nobody's really sure if Australia has a cnstitution or not? That's FUBAR! I've been wondering about how the Australian parliament gets away with se of the stuff that it does.

Such as?

GA

I wanted to find out about the Australian constitution so I just looked up information about it. Australia has a constitution, but it doesn't include an entire section like the US constitution's Bill of Rights. Section 80 is about the right to a trial by jury. Section 51 is about the right to just compensation. Section 116 is like the US constitution's first amendment.

See I was right!

I'm always right, except when I'm wrong, in which case it's not my fault, but the Universe's fault for contradicting me. Evil Universe....


:D

GA

That is really screwed up.
The poeple on the left are their because they were voted in by the generally lower classes.
Wait, that doesn't work because these judges are appointed.
If a Judge wants to be liked by the lower classes then why do something against people who believe in you?
I smell corruption or changing sides.

Maybe some judges do need to get voted in.

Do the people get reimbursed for thier property?

The judges are nominated by the President and voted onto office by the Senate.

The people get reimbursed at market value without consideration of any bidding competition that would take place when selling under normal circumstances which would have yielded a higher price.

I'll have to retract part of my comment about government abuses in Australia. From an official legal standpoint, everything looks neat and ehtical. However, there's enough rumors of conspiracies and coverups as the Bush and Clinton administrations combined. Something appears to be inherently wrong, but I can't put my finger on it. Is it true that in 1975, the British Governor General removed the Prime Minister from office? And then there's the Port Arthur massacre, how does a ret*d (IQ 66) with no previous firearms experience kill 32 (20 headshots), wound 19 more, and disable 2 cars in under 90 seconds firing 64 shots from the hip? Then received a travesty of a trial and the government covered up the details.

In Aussie culture we tend to 'pay out' our 'pollies' far more often than what the US seems to do. And the media cashes in on this.
There's not so much conspiracies, as blunders, and stuffups, which are covered up.

And yes it is true the Governor General Of Austrlia did sack the Prime Minister, as is he duty.
Though being a nation, Australia is still a member of the British Empire, as such our highest head of state is the Monarchy, who is represented by the Governor General, he has the power to remove the Prime Minister (amongst other things). Though normally the 'GG' is merely a figure head.

This is probably one of Australia's only conspiracies (though I'm sure one of my friends would dispute that, (she know more than I)). PM Gough Whitlam was making radical changes in Australia, in an effort to balance out the poor and the rich,(I think, i could be wrong), the Opposition Leader Malcolm Fraiser, colluded with the Governor General, and had Whitlam, this almost incited a riot with the public. Immediatley after he was removed from office Whitlam made a speech, he could've easily incited the crowd to lynch the GG, and evict Britain from Australia forever. But Whitlam being diplomatic as he could merely said "May well you say God Save The Queen, because no one will save the Governor General."
It's one of the most famous lines in Australian political history.
Though that's not the full story, and I don't know the full story.

The Port Arthur Massacre, I don't understand how the trial was a travesty? He got life I believe. And how would you know it was a travesty if the Government covered it up?
Interesting side note: There was some speculation the Martin Bryant (the supposed "ret*d" (Sean: NEVER use that word)) was Autistic. I'm not sure that's ever been proven or refuted.

GA

Eminent Domain is but the Kinder, Gentler version of Manifest Destiny.

That being said, I'm shocked that the supreme court vote came out the way that it did. Then again, I like niether of the real political choice I have in this Country ( Democrat or Republican), they're both the same in the end.

That would be one of the terms which has caused offence here, please take note folks.

Edit: Fogman - the Bob avatar is very cool...

Last edited by duncvis on 28 Jun 2005, 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.