How do these Social based countries keep doing it?

Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
True story's:

It was the Federal Liberal Party (that's our conservative party BTW) that introduced the gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre. To do so it had to get ALL the states OK. It did.

My state Tasmania. Perhaps the most rural and conservative state with possibly the highest gun per person percentage had an election just this year, the Liberal party won (remember that's the conservative party) and talked about relaxing some of the gun laws. It decided not to introduce the bill/s to parliament after a public uproar. There are just no votes in softening our laws. We see on the news nearly every week a mass shooting in America and something that not many realise is our male suicide rate went down.

Hears an older but relevant you tube clip of the Liberal (conservative remember) Prime Minister who introduced the laws being interviewed.


and a very important clip I urge you to watch. America and Australia are different.

 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
Why would the police threaten them for? Is the person with the gun being aggressive or threatening?
Why would the police shoot them for is the person pointing the gun at them or someone else?
Click to expand...
1) "Just doing their job"

2) I already mentioned the "illegal" gun owners were peaceful but had no intention of asking for permission to possess a gun

3) Because police enforce laws, whether the law makes sense or not, and it makes no difference if the force they are applying is offensive (most frequently) or defensive force (seldom) .


So if a person disobeys a law, should police shoot them ? What is the purpose of the police having guns?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
scumrot derelict said:
I don't understand. Are you implying that I'm upset? or saying that you are?

I was only asking some friendly questions, dude. Everything Ok?
Click to expand...

I was high on bath salts. Please forgive me.

I'm having a little difficulty typing this, as I may have gnawed a few digits off both hands. Thank you for asking, I think I'll be okay. Ooops there goes a pinky, damn, now how will I pick my nose?
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
1) "


So if a person disobeys a law, should police shoot them ? What is the purpose of the police having guns?
Click to expand...
What the fk are you talking about man? Why would the police shoot them? Why does someone "need" to carry a firearm in public? More firearms mean more people shot. I don't know if you have ever seen someone snap before? They snap..Like for real..

If I looked Im sure id find that by head of population your cops shoot more than ours and by a large margin to.
 
scumrot derelict

scumrot derelict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I was high on bath salts. Please forgive me.

I'm having a little difficulty typing this, as I may have gnawed a few digits off both hands. Thank you for asking, I think I'll be okay. Ooops there goes a pinky, damn, now how will I pick my nose?
Click to expand...
Forgiven. You're silly. Hey, while I have your attention. Can you answer a few honest questions for me?

Do you believe that property is sacred?
Do you believe that government, any government is bad?
Can you dispel the myth that capitalists are heroes?
Is worker activism evil?
Are poor people even worth talking to?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
What the fk are you talking about man? Why would the police shoot them? Why does someone "need" to carry a firearm in public? More firearms mean more people shot. I don't know if you have every seen someone snap before? They snap..Like for real..

If I looked Im sure id find that by head of population your cops shoot more than ours and by a large margin to.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about how disobedience to laws ultimately carries a death penalty, even when the law is based in a contradiction and is a victimless crime, you seem intent on avoiding the reality of that message.

So you're not in favor of police being armed in public or you don't consider police to be people ?

If a person snaps, isn't time of the essence? Wouldn't it be great to be able to defend yourself from them and not face legal repercussions for defending yourself?

Also, you seem to have a difficult time answering my questions, is it because everything in Australia is upside down and you're just trying to hang on?
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I'm talking about how disobedience to laws ultimately carries a death penalty, even when the law is based in a contradiction and is a victimless crime, you seem intent on avoiding the reality of that message.

So you're not in favor of police being armed in public or you don't consider police to be people ?

If a person snaps, isn't time of the essence? Wouldn't it be great to be able to defend yourself from them and not face legal repercussions for defending yourself?

Also, you seem to have a difficult time answering my questions, is it because everything in Australia is upside down and you're just trying to hang on?
Click to expand...
For answers to all of your questions please go back to page one. The good for the many is a Human trait, its why we formed tribes and survived.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
scumrot derelict said:
Forgiven. You're silly. Hey, while I have your attention. Can you answer a few honest questions for me?

Do you believe that property is sacred?
Do you believe that government, any government is bad?
Can you dispel the myth that capitalists are heroes?
Is worker activism evil?
Are poor people even worth talking to?
Click to expand...
1) Sometimes

2) I believe that government is a superstitious belief (it's really just people) and just a mechanism to control people, most often arising via coercion

3) Not a fan of government protected (crony) capitalists. Am a fan of consensual free market. I like some myths, but Bigfoot is definitely real.

4) It all depends if the workers are behaving evilly or not

5) Often they are, but it really comes down to the individual and the topic doesn't it?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
For answers to all of your questions please go back to page one. The good for the many is a Human trait, its why we formed tribes and survived.
Click to expand...

Except you can't create something good if you use means which involve offensive force, if your definition of "good" includes reducing the use of offensive force.

Were those members of those tribes allowed to carry sharp sticks or only the cavemen police could have them?
 
scumrot derelict

scumrot derelict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
1) Sometimes

2) I believe that government is a superstitious belief (it's really just people) and just a mechanism to control people, most often arising via coercion

3) Not a fan of government protected (crony) capitalists. Am a fan of consensual free market. I like some myths, but Bigfoot is definitely real.

4) It all depends if the workers are behaving evilly or not

5) Often they are, but it really comes down to the individual and the topic doesn't it?
Click to expand...
These are fairly sensible answers to a direct question. Would you agree that libertarianism is just a requirement, when faced with an issue - to ask yourself, "how can we get this done with more freedom ?"

I would also like to know - How do you feel about the current political landscape? Are you totally content, or pissed off?

Thank you again for your honest answers. I would also like to ask if I can use your responses for a paper that I'm planning to publish soon. I can direct message the information or post it publicly if you want.
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Except you can't create something good if you use means which involve offensive force, if your definition of "good" includes reducing the use of offensive force.

Were those members of those tribes allowed to carry sharp sticks or only the cavemen police could have them?
Click to expand...
Good? I think its more primitive than that. Its survival.
I haven't mention offensive force at all, that's you.

Edit: and yes probably the warriors had them, everyone had a job to do- just like today.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
scumrot derelict said:
These are fairly sensible answers to a direct question. Would you agree that libertarianism is just a requirement, when faced with an issue - to ask yourself, "how can we get this done with more freedom ?"

I would also like to know - How do you feel about the current political landscape? Are you totally content, or pissed off?

Thank you again for your honest answers. I would also like to ask if I can use your responses for a paper that I'm planning to publish soon. I can direct message the information or post it publicly if you want.
Click to expand...
1) Interesting way of putting it. Has merit.

2) It's a circus designed to distract people.

3) It's a free country (chuckle) and I don't believe in "intellectual property", so do what you want. I'd appreciate it if you didn't mention the bath salts thing though, I don't know what got into me.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
Good? I think its more primitive than that. Its survival.
I haven't mention offensive force at all, that's you.

Edit: and yes probably the warriors had them, everyone had a job to do- just like today.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't mentioned offensive force, because you are studiously avoiding seeing it, when it is embodied within a democracy and carried out by police who you exempt from acts of offensive force, probably because if you didn't cherry pick thru what really occurs. your argument would crumble.

Sharp stick warriors lost to the atlatl and sling. Those technological advances helped physically inferior people to defend themselves against brutish aggressors.
 
scumrot derelict

scumrot derelict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Except you can't create something good if you use means which involve offensive force, if your definition of "good" includes reducing the use of offensive force.

Were those members of those tribes allowed to carry sharp sticks or only the cavemen police could have them?
Click to expand...
Rob Roy said:
1) Interesting way of putting it. Has merit.

2) It's a circus designed to distract people.

3) It's a free country (chuckle) and I don't believe in "intellectual property", so do what you want. I'd appreciate it if you didn't mention the bath salts thing though, I don't know what got into me.
Click to expand...
This is very cool of you.

I will do my best to not sound a like a dick when describing your answers (as they have been the most honest and enlightening ones that I've received without an additional death threat or small dick joke attached in the 27 people that I've asked)

Thank you for your honesty.

::edited for spelling::
 
Last edited:
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
and for those playing along, mother and farther in law had yet another Dr's appointment today for $0 out of their pockets. They also got some more pills for $0. Her chemo went well yesterday BTW but her husband ate her sandwiches and jelly.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
and for those playing along, mother and farther in law had yet another Dr's appointment today for $0 out of their pockets. They also got some more pills for $0. Her chemo went well yesterday BTW but her husband ate her sandwiches and jelly.
Click to expand...

If transfer of other persons money or property against their will is theft does that same action become something else if it is legalized and backed by threats of gun use by police, for failure to comply?
 
scumrot derelict

scumrot derelict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So was Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, George Bush etc.
Click to expand...
Nope. Nope. Nope.
Rob Roy said:
If transfer of other persons money or property against their will is theft does that same action become something else if it is legalized and backed by threats of gun use by police, for failure to comply?
Click to expand...
Why do you always appeal to a moralized notion of coercion? Can you make an argument for a better solution in this circumstance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top