Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here we have a government who is slapping down 4 demerits where it only takes one more to lose one's licence for 3 years.
Why does the government wear such an iron glove? Is it for safety or is it to have a reason to restrict the public as much as they can? If the latter, would they be so heavy handed if they knew the public could fight back?
Looking at it another way, why do they distrust the public so much that they have to be so heavy handed? If they distrust the public this much..............why should the public trust them?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the good people of Australia still elect their legislature, correct? If there is a groundswell of support for those who want to be on their cellphone while driving, the legislature can be changed to reflect the sentiment. So - again - where is the firearm relevancy?
When it comes to Australia, those on the pro side of gun control often argue that tyranny has not happened yet......but take a look at this: https://www.gotocourt.com.au/traffic...Ak-QN3odJ-kyKo
While it is all for safety, is a country that uses an iron glove against its citizens not a tyranny? Do they do it because they know the citizens can't fight back?
Would you expect the Australian population to take up arms against the government because one state made laws banning phone use while driving?
About half the US states ban the use of hand held cell phones, while driving. Are you going to round up an armed gang to fight it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the good people of Australia still elect their legislature, correct? If there is a groundswell of support for those who want to be on their cellphone while driving, the legislature can be changed to reflect the sentiment. So - again - where is the firearm relevancy?
Rights existed before government.
Government is only good for restricting/abolishing rights by edict with gun in hand.
In 2014 criminals lined up patrons of a Sydney Lindt chocolate shop into its windows, like Nell Fenwick waiting for Dudley, and the lambs weren't allowed to use effective means of self defense.
When politicians like the dotard decide to exert their power to define individual freedoms for their own gain, they will simply shut down the electronic banking system, or the internet, or both.
Guns will have little to nothing to do with it.
Pulling the plug on the citizens ability to fund themselves, have commerce, or even a job, will exact compliance to their "government" quite quickly.
When politicians like the dotard decide to exert their power to define individual freedoms for their own gain, they will simply shut down the electronic banking system, or the internet, or both.
Have you noticed that when liberals can't support their agenda, they start ranting hysterically like this?
Q: Why does the Constitution have a second amendment?
A: In case the government doesn't obey the first one.
OK, lets indulge your fantasy life where you are the best shot, the fastest draw, all around Rambo.
The government does start shutting down infrastructure. No more electricity, gasoline, banking, stop lights, stock market, schools, air traffic control.
Who will you shoot? Remember, don't waste ammo...the deep state is EVERYWHERE.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
