American Elections, Down Under.
- Thread starter KeeperNine
- Start date
- Status
Hillary reminds me of Bart´s sister: Lisa.
https://www.google.dk/search?q=hill...ei=wEAKWPeHJMOhUdyGs8gG#imgrc=LMD1aai90DagIM:
https://www.google.dk/search?q=hill...ei=wEAKWPeHJMOhUdyGs8gG#imgrc=LMD1aai90DagIM:
glugger said:
Nobody seriously talks about independence in WA except for the odd crank who writes into the West Australian. Any fuckwit who's ever looked at a map can see how stupid the idea is just on a defence basis. The only thing WA's ever been pissed about with the Commonwealth was the shit percentage of take they got back from the GST, even at the height of the boom. Up the GST return and WA would happily go back to sleep mining, fishing, and fucking (in no particular order of preference) and letting Fremantle keep on decaying since the days of the America's Cup. While the state's a shitberg for finding women, it does have the benefit of being the most isolated city on the planet. You'd be surprised how decent a life you can get out there with a bit of money. Get away from Perth and most of the feminist bullshit goes as well, not that it's more than a sort of a mosquito's worth of irritation out here if you have some money.
LordMayorMuffSniff
Pigeon
I've only been to Perth once with my old man and didn't really get out other than a night at the pub with him but I was pretty impressed with the women walking around to be honest. Tall, blonde, fit, I think it's the South African influence when all the wealthy Afrikans came over after apartheid ended.
LordMayorMuffSniff said:
That impression tends to last until the moment they open their mouths. Don't be fooled, most of them have drunk deep of the feminist chalice and most of them are badly spoiled by the (until very recent) hordes of thirsty, cashed-up miners that haven't got anything but a wet lump of iron to fuck three weeks out of four.
Australia isn't exactly nuanced when it comes to women.
You can find Caucasian hotness reliably on the Gold Coast and just about nowhere else, and the guys are pretty well cut too so your game has to be solid.
The only other worthwhile watering holes are FOB asians in Sydney and Melbourne, and again your game has to be high to compete and you might as well be in an actual Asian country.
I only still live here because rural Australia is still a good place to raise kids and keep your wife traditional.
You can find Caucasian hotness reliably on the Gold Coast and just about nowhere else, and the guys are pretty well cut too so your game has to be solid.
The only other worthwhile watering holes are FOB asians in Sydney and Melbourne, and again your game has to be high to compete and you might as well be in an actual Asian country.
I only still live here because rural Australia is still a good place to raise kids and keep your wife traditional.
Last Parade
Pelican
LordMayorMuffSniff said:
Feel the same way in Canada, even though we're probably a lost cause, but a global renaissance kicked off by Brexit & a Trump presidency is the only possible chance we have.
Entire Anglosphere is hinging on this, and from there the rest of Europe... but we've known this all along.
Rob Banks said:
Yes, you can arm yourself. Still, gun laws in rural Australia are exactly the same as in the cities (read: one of the strictest in the world), why would they be any different?
I.e. For a centrefire and rimfire longarms licence, here are the necessities: The requirement to attend and pass a firearm safety course (piss easy), be proven to have had no prior police/criminal record, not be subject to any court orders, or be denied a previous firearm licence nor had one cancelled, not to have any mental or certain medical impediments, and have a "genuine reason". You need to supply a couple of forms of ID and have them certified by an "acceptable referee".
For a handgun licence, they're as above, but the "genuine reasons" are even more stringent, and you have to supply a set of fingerprints to the licensing body (the police).
There's a separate firearm licence category for heavier weapons (RPG's, heavy machine guns, etc.), but haven't checked its vital stats. I believe you can cram the total number of holders into a bus stop anyway.
Additionally, there are pretty strict laws on firearm storage (must be kept in a locked container, which has to be bolted to the wall/floor if under 150kg, the whole thing must be rigged to an alarm system if over 12 weapons are stored). Ammunition mustn't be stored in the same compartment, and your storage premises (IIRC) are subject to police visits, (I'm about to find out
).A permit to acquire form must be filled out and approved for every firearm you obtain. For your first weapon, it'll take 28 days.
There are pretty strict requirements on the private sale, and carriage or transport of firearms. All firearm sales between private people need to go through a licensed dealer, i.e. a gun shop. The idea of concealed/open carry legislation would be laughed out of Parliament before it even got there.
These all vary by state, but not by much. What I wrote is applicable to mine, Victoria.
Mind you, most of these rulings were introduced by our Liberal* Goverment, generally after the shootings at Port Arthur and Monash University. It's been pretty politically kosher here to be anti-gun without actually banning them outright. Until shortly after I was born, it was still possible to buy air rifles and .22 LR ammo at Kmart.
*That is, our main centre-right party.
Pauline is the closest thing we have to the Trumpening.
A women? I know, no blokes have the balls to step up.
Even though she sounds like she is going to cry at any moment, this little redhead has the balls, and the tenacity under leftist fire (been jailed/slandered/threatened vilified for decades)
A women? I know, no blokes have the balls to step up.
Even though she sounds like she is going to cry at any moment, this little redhead has the balls, and the tenacity under leftist fire (been jailed/slandered/threatened vilified for decades)
RatInTheWoods said:
Pauline Hanson is the closest thing by default. She's not particularly original, intelligent or charismatic, but she is a personality with an unbreakable association with an idea. An idea who's time has come.
I don't expect her to actually be Australias trump - I think the movement might recrystallise around another figure, perhaps Tony Abbott or Cory Bernardi. Regardless of who leads it, we're starting to see the same rumblings of discontent that are popping up elsewhere in the anglosphere. About fucking time, I say.
I'll be taking the 9th off here to witness the Trumpening. Sydney members holla!
Brisbane beer tnite pm me
Rob Banks said:
JWLZG has a good explanation.
The bottom line on all firearm use for self defence in Australia is this. It is explicitly illegal to own a gun for the specific purpose of defending yourself.
It is not necessarily illegal to use a gun to defend yourself (having acquired it for other reasons) if you are faced with a reasonably deadly threat HOWEVER you will have a hell of a time explaining to the judge how under deadly threat you managed to get to your gun-safe, get out your gun, access the separate locked container for your ammunition, load the gun and use it in your defence.
There have been certain instances that qualified. During a home invasion (in WA I think) an old couple locked themselves in their bedroom and got their shotgun, which was legally stored in said bedroom while the home invaders were attempting to gain entry to the room. According to the old couple the men entered the room with weapons in hand and ignored all warnings to leave. Upon one of them reaching for the gun the old man fired it and killed the intruder. The wording of the article was that "the public prosecutor declined to charge the old man with a criminal offence".
Interpretation. The old guy kept a loaded shotgun under the bed. He heard a bump in the night and armed himself quickly. He locked bedroom door. He killed one of the home invaders as they forced their way into the room then fell back on a pre-prepared story that circumvented his real life transgressions against our gun laws and barely escaped criminal conviction.
The PP declined to press charges (at that moment though maybe reconsidered after attention faded) because it would be political poison to dump an old man in jail for defending his wife from the scum of the earth the only way he was able.
If you're a strapping young man then forget about it. You'd be breaking rocks by the end of the week. Maddening since supermodel Miranda Kerr's bodyguard at her Australian mansion just drilled a home invader and the invader was charged with criminal trespass and weapons charges. Seems guns are just fine for self defence if you're rich and famous enough to hire some goon, who laughably would have no such rights himself as soon as he was off the clock.
Leonard D Neubache said:
I remember that one. That was the Valenti case.
Valenti was 77 years old and had an incapacitated wife at home. They were in a semi-rural property -- a small winery. At a guess he probably had a licence for a shotgun to keep the fucking crows off his grapes. He didn't actually kill either of them, he wounded the older bastard - shot him in the stomach, though I'm guessing it must've been just a couple of pellets that hit him because I doubt the arsehole would've survived if he took a full burst in the guts from a shotgun at point-blank range.
In that respect the old man was very, very lucky: if he had killed one of them I think he might well have been charged anyway. When a shithead does something like this and dies, invariably said shithead's extended family comes flooding in like a flock of seagulls on a chip screaming for "justice" (usually despite being absent from said shithead's life for the previous ten or fifteen years).
Also, it wasn't the local public prosecutor who dropped the charge, it was the police themselves who declined to charge him at all. They probably got the DPP's advice to begin with, but the decision was theirs. As you say, there would've been big PR problems if they had charged him. As soon as the story broke in Perth most everyone was saying "There's no way the cops are going to charge someone like that in those circumstances, and if they did there's not a fucking jury in Perth that would convict him." Certainly looked like the cops agreed with that.
One of the news reports from the time:
Note that statement from the cop - very, very rare for police to say something like that in a case like this. In the hyperlink you can also see that the inspector, Bill Munnee, also said "it wasn't like he did a pop shot while they ran away or before they came in." That's the cardinal mistake that most farmers make when some dickhead comes onto their property: they fire a warning shot before the guy's at close range or they fire a (literal) parting shot to wing the fucker as he runs. Either circumstance is arguable as not being self-defence.
At the time self-defence when it came to being attacked in your own home was somewhat easier to establish: you didn't have to establish that the force used was proportionate to the assault offered (fist vs fist, fence picket vs fence picket), you were entitled to use such force as necessary to stop the attack. But around the time of the Valenti case (not caused by it) it was standardised down to, essentially, you believing that it was necessary (on reasonable grounds) to fire and that you believe it was a reasonable response in all the circumstances.
This is why defending yourself with a gun as a young bloke in your home is going to be at best debatable: you can run, or push back, or whatever. Valenti demonstrably couldn't, and the two fuckheads had demonstrated they weren't going to stop coming until he fired. But as said there's not a jury in the world that would've likely convicted him, even if he had killed the bastard.
^ Thanks. I think I must have gotten the "friend of a friend" version.
So yeah. I operate on a "better judged by twelve than carried by six" principle, but merely living out in the sticks drops my odds of a home invasion off the chart, particularly because I'm not exactly known locally to be rolling in dough.
Best defence out here is a large, alert dog(s) that roams during the day and sleeps inside at night. The reason being that nobody is shutting that dog down without giving you justification to use the gun, and the dog buys you the time you need to get armed.
So yeah. I operate on a "better judged by twelve than carried by six" principle, but merely living out in the sticks drops my odds of a home invasion off the chart, particularly because I'm not exactly known locally to be rolling in dough.
Best defence out here is a large, alert dog(s) that roams during the day and sleeps inside at night. The reason being that nobody is shutting that dog down without giving you justification to use the gun, and the dog buys you the time you need to get armed.
Rob Banks
Pelican
Leonard D Neubache,
I am aware of Australia's strict gun laws and 1996 confiscation program. While I wasn't aware of all the details and politics behind it, my main point was that I wanted to know how you believe "rural Australia is still a good place to raise kids and keep your wife traditional" when you're not even allowed to physically protect your family by arming yourself. When I have a family, that would be one of my #1 concerns.
I live in NYC, and I don't even think I would raise a family here (or anywhere in NY state) due to the strict gun laws. And this is coming from a guy (me) who has never shot a gun, but understands he will need to buy guns and learn to shoot if he wants to start a family and be able to protect them.
Do you agree, or am I giving the issue too much importance?
I am aware of Australia's strict gun laws and 1996 confiscation program. While I wasn't aware of all the details and politics behind it, my main point was that I wanted to know how you believe "rural Australia is still a good place to raise kids and keep your wife traditional" when you're not even allowed to physically protect your family by arming yourself. When I have a family, that would be one of my #1 concerns.
I live in NYC, and I don't even think I would raise a family here (or anywhere in NY state) due to the strict gun laws. And this is coming from a guy (me) who has never shot a gun, but understands he will need to buy guns and learn to shoot if he wants to start a family and be able to protect them.
Do you agree, or am I giving the issue too much importance?
Rob Banks said:
Location is the most relevant factor in determining your safety. Being armed to the teeth in Iraq is less safe than being unarmed in a monastery in the Swiss alps. Who do you think is more safe. Me or Mr AR15 living at a cartel hotspot on the southern border of Arizona?
Consider that my measly collection of handguns, bolt action rifles and break action shotguns along with my good proficiency in the use of same puts me literally among the top 1% of my nation in that regard.
Between a good pair of dogs and Glock 21 I feel safer here than anywhere I'd chance to live in the US. I might not be able to carry that gun with me all day every day but out here my chances are still better than most odds you'll get in America, and if things get considerably worse then I'm in a perfect location to start ignoring such laws as unreasonably endanger me and my family.
That's not to say I'd never live in America, just that I'd be statistically less safe if I did, unrestrictive gun laws or not.
Rob Banks
Pelican
Leonard D Neubache said:
I personally would rather live in a dangerous neighborhood (maybe not Iraq, but a bad neighborhood in the US) and be armed than live in an extremely safe neighborhood in a country that bans guns. The reason is that in the former scenario, my odds of being shot might be higher, but at least my life is in my own hands. In the latter scenario, the reason you're safe is because other men with (military and police) keep the neighborhood safe and keep invaders out of the country. If there was ever a situation where invaders took over, or there was a civil war, you would be at the mercy of whoever in your area was armed. I realize those are very unlikely scenarios in Australia. It's just that I would rather have my life in my own hands than rely solely on others for protection (key word: solely).
- Status