Sunday, December 16, 2012
Ever wonder why the Jews didn't fight back?
Their weapons were taken from them a few years before the Nazi atrocities began in earnest.
Now Obama wants to take our arms right before our economy collapses.
That makes a dictatorship easier when the time comes.
The Government isn't joking with these Zombie Apocalypse exercises.
They guy was mentally ill. You want to stop these attacks? get the mentally ill off the street. Better for a few people to lose their rights than an entire country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LS
ReplyDeleteMentally Ill? Are you sure you are pointing in the right direction.
With the best will in the world I cannot envision a scenario where the second amendment is used to overthrow a tyrant as described in the debates leading up to the Bill of rights.
Nowhere else in the world can I see a country so corseted by the "rule of law". Surely the American people will not need to rise up to preserve their liberty. What they may well need to do though is to acknowledge that those inclined to own and carry firearms do in fact diminish the rights of those who are unarmed. As an example, not all who carry a concealed weapon go in fear of their life; many do so in order to instill fear for their life into others.
Cheers from Aussie
King, if our forefathers had allowed the British to disarm us we would still be living under the queen, in servitude.
DeleteLike you remain.
1773-2009 On December 29th we celebrate the 239th year of the Philadelphia Tea Party declaration.
Don't tread on me!
DeleteWilliam
Delete"had allowed the British to disarm us we would still be living under the queen, in servitude. Like you remain".
Now, two points. (1) The word "if" William; "if" your aunt had balls she would be your uncle. As she has not, so the English did not disarm you.
Now your point re living in servitude. I am sure even the first graders in America do not believe that rubbish. However, if you require me to enunciate the position as a fully independent country within the British Commonwealth of nations, I shall be happy to do so.
King, weather the Queen has balls or not, you remain a subject. So please do not lecture me about gun control.
DeleteInsane people have killed other innocent people through out the ages. It was and will never be easy to stomach.
We will retain our 2nd amendment, thank you very much, to protect ourselves from the likes of our current Caesar.
Australia is a constitutional monarchy. This means that the head of State is a monarch, or sovereign, who is governed and bound by the Constitution.
DeleteAustralia’s Head of State is Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II. She is represented in Australia by the Governor-General.
Whilst the Constitution gives the monarch and the Governor-General extensive powers
Powers of the Governor-General
The Governor-General is assigned a number of specific functions in the Constitution:
Section 2: Queen’s Representative.
Section 5: Appoints sitting times for Parliament, as well as being responsible for its prorogation and dissolution.
Section 28: May dissolve the House of Representatives.
Section 58: May assent, or withhold assent, to laws passed by Parliament, or reserve laws for the Queen’s assent, or return laws to the parliament recommending amendments.
Section 61: Exercises the executive power of the Commonwealth.
Section 62 & Section 63: Chooses and summons members of the Executive Council to hold office during his pleasure and to advise him in the government of the Commonwealth.
Section 64: May appoint officers (ministers) to departments of State, such officers holding office during his pleasure.
Section 68: Command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth.
Section 126: May appoint person or persons to be his deputy or deputies, exercising such powers as he assign, subject to limitations or directions given by the Queen.
Most of these powers are exercised by the Governor-General on the advice of his ministers, through the Prime Minister of the day.
Those powers relating to the dissolution of parliament and the appointment of ministers are known as reserve powers and are the subject of controversy, particularly since the actions of the Governor-General in dismissing Prime Minister Whitlam in 1975.
Honestly King, why don't you just get rid of your Queen?
William
DeleteMy thanks for the reply and your efforts understand our Constitutional arrangements concerning the head of state. By the way, as I have been trying to understand your history and your constitution for years, I do believe ours is a little less difficult to "get a handle on".
Now, I cannot disagree with your summation of the constitutional wording but here we do have a much wider gap in our interpretation of the words.
Just a few examples. The "Reserve Powers" as written into the constitution are indeed powerful weapons but you must remember that the holder of these powers is an AUSTRALIAN, and that as G>G he must in most cases follow the wishes of the government. (Not the other way round) so this gets us over the difficulty in which you see us as subjects of the Queen.
The reserve powers were properly used to dissolve the Whitlam government when it became apparent that the government could not pass the supply bill in the Senate. The Governor General asked for and received advice from a previous very senior high court judge The government was “on the nose” at the time and there was a list pf ministerial scandals making Australia the laughing stock of the world. Kemlami affair, the Morosie affair (a bit like Bill Clinton and the white house hooker (sorry staffer).Here you see the difference in our system and yours.
You must please appreciate that the Queen here is simply a figurehead without power. In fact we held a referendum some time back which rejected the idea of Australia becoming a Republic simply because the yes and the no supporters could not agree on the method of appointing/electing a head of state. I can confidently predict that when the Queen dies; Australia will, within five years become a Republic. I support the move towards Republicanism but, sorry to say I cannot support your views concerning gun control. I have been a shooter all my life and also as a Medic in the Navy and an x-ray tech, I have dealt with more than my share of victims of guns and the fools who were holding them when they “went off”,
Cheers friend from Aussie
Oh by the way, can anyone get a debate going about the Tea Party in Boston. Hancock, a smuggler Adams (Samuel) an agitator the Brits completely out of their depth. The beginnings of the fame John Adams was to achieve. Now there was a slice of history to get our teeth into!
King, we will welcome you with open arms when you send the queen packing. Don't get me wrong, Americans admire and thank your people for standing with us during the past century and our common military endeavors.
DeleteDo a bit of reading about Philadelphia's role and their tea party which predates that in Boston. Phillie was a much wealthier and more influential revolutionary city. The nearby turning point battles of Trenton, and Princeton led our republic to fruition.
As for gun control, we struggle with the evil present in the world like everyone else. Our bill of rights protects us from tyrants. That is our starting point to freedom. The second amendment is non negotiable.
Surely the American people will not need to rise up to preserve their liberty.
ReplyDeleteSurely? What makes the US or Australia ... or France any different than any one of the soviet satellites or Cambodia except possibly the rule of law?
Rule of law, LOL. We enforce only the laws our leader likes.
DeletePrecisely...
Delete