Skip to comments.Abbott to govern with 30-seat majority (official - conservative victory in Australian election)
Posted on 09/07/2013 5:24:25 AM PDT by naturalman1975
click here to read article
I will look into moving to Australia.
Never mind, Abbott is a gun-grabber.
I've already got one of these:
and one of these:
as well as a couple of basic hunting rifles.
I don't need anybody to give me my guns back, because they never took them away. That is a myth that has been spread around in America for domestic political purposes.
Australia does have some overly restrictive gun laws - universal registration and tiered licencing. Amending those has not been an issue in this campaign, and so I don't know what Abbott's position is on them. It's not considered a major conservative issue in Australia - we don't have an equivalent of your second amendment, so it's not a constitutional issue which would make it much more important, because conservatives expect the constitution to be followed. But also, those who want to own guns focus on doing the things you need to do to own them within the law, rather than worrying too much about the laws. I'd like to see the laws relaxed, but we're not America, and our attitudes are not the same on this.
Not necessarily. What is being proposed there are tougher sentences for people who commit crimes with guns. People who illegally import firearms. Smugglers, in other words. Not law abiding people who legally own or legally import firearms.
Personally, if we don't want controls on law abiding citizens, I think it's sensible to crack down on the actual criminals.
pinging you to my comment on guns in Australia.
I’ve asked this on a couple other threads, maybe you being Australian can answer — I read that Abbot says it the carbon tax will take 3 years to eliminate. Why so long?
You read my mind...
Then again, they shouldn’t have given them up in the first place.
The GOP's not rudderless - its rudder works very well, just only for a very few...
On the Senate question, we won't know exact Senate results for some time, but on current indications the Coalition will have 33 Senators, which is not enough to command control of the Senate in its own right.
But, it looks like the Palmer United Party will have two Senators, and Senator Nick Xenophon (an independent) will be returned. These three will almost certainly support the coalition on most issues, getting us to 36. Family First may have also returned a Senator, and again on most issues, they will support us. That's 37. And if the Democratic Labor Party take another seat (and that looks possible), and they support us as well (despite their name, they share a lot of common ground with the conservatives) then with the one they already have it's 39. The Senate has 76 members, so 39 is a majority.
In other words, if things break our way, we should be able to get our legislation through the Senate with the support of minor parties. Labor and the Greens together (our main opposition) look like that will only have 35. We might even pick up one or two more above the 39.
It's looking OK at the moment - we'd prefer control in our own right, but we do have high hopes it'll be workable.
I think he's being misunderstood. He said this in his victory speech last night and he was talking about all the things he was going to do in his first term - a term here is normally three years. So the three years was a reference to 'my first term' not a statement that it would necessarily take all three years.
Thanks for the real deal.
Ahh, okay. I went back and read the original article and yes, I think you’re right, that’s what they meant.
Congrats on the “conservative” victory.
Congrats to you guys....signs of life in the West.
I presume the L1A1 is from your service years? As a child growing up in Northern Ireland I recall the distinctive “crack-thump!” that rifle made when being fired, you could always distinguish the light crackle of an Armalite or the wheezy rattle of a Thompson, for example, from the sound of the Brits shooting back. Fortunately for me the sounds were usually heard from a mile or so away.
The right to bear arms for individual or collective self-defense is a fundamental Natural Right.
What sort of restrictions are there regarding the weapons you own, which you have just shown us?
In other words, what is the procedure to purchase or possess such arms?
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't grant the People the right to bear arms, it simply recognizes that right. It's a very important distinction to realize that government doesn't grant Natural rights; it either recognizes them or not.
The government of a Free country should, by default, trust its People with arms. Any time that is made into a difficult process, it introduces a situation where the criminal element gains an unfair and unjust advantage over the intended victim, and that should never be the norm.
Registration, of course, is the first step to confiscation. If your government suddenly took a Tyrannical turn, it would be relatively easy for them to confiscate most weapons, especially with a relatively compliant citizenry...
I purchased it after leaving the service, but the reason that is what I bought is because it is what I was most used to in the Navy. Familiarity is a good thing when it comes to weapons.
I have to have a Category C licence, which is more than the basic licence, which required me to attend a police station and talk to the licencing officer about why I wanted more than a basic licence. I also had to provide evidence that I had a safe storage location for it - a gun safe basically.
The police are allowed to check whether it's being stored safely - they never have, but they are allowed to. And if I was convicted of a serious indictable offence, or any firearms offence, whether considered serious or not, I would immediately lose my licence. They could also apply to have my licence temporarily suspended if I was even charged with an offence pending trial.
If your government suddenly took a Tyrannical turn, it would be relatively easy for them to confiscate most weapons, especially with a relatively compliant citizenry..
Yes, it would. As I've said, our laws aren't good laws. I don't like them. But they are just not as bad as they are sometimes painted.
I also, personally, don't have any real concerns about my government turning tyrannical in anything like the near future. I believe our system is stable enough to prevent that. But we have not had the same history of needing to revolt, or having civil wars that the US has had - if we had that history, my attitude towards that would be different - so I certainly believe Americans are perfectly rational to have those concerns as something they think about.
“Hey Australia conservatives: how about loosening those immigration laws and allowing some more conservatives in as new citizens? :)
Well build a new world down under.”
Australias Liberal Party victory is getting much attention from the New Media already and I suspect this week for even more attention to be focused on Down Under by American conservatives (patriots) and, yes, a wave of conservative middle and upper class Yanks could be headed to Australia, if things in this country keep going Communist.
As is well known, refugees are the inevitable by product of a Communist takeover, so English speaking Australia that reflects the same political attitude of millions of Americans could become a popular destination.
In fact, Australia could become the Galts Gulch of Atlas Shrugged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.