Australian Gun Control into the Future

Not murders - injuries which are far higher than murders

 

Never underestimate our judiciaries love and adherence to the principles of natural justice.It is those principles that run through every document in parliament that mean we do no need a piece of paper outlining "rights"

 

The High Court has been relatively decent at restraining Commonwealth power in recent decades. That doesn't mean their interpretation is always correct, or that their rulings have any more weight than those of some guy on the street, but yeah - the case isn't nearly as dire as it is elsewhere around the world.

Where there is a written constitution the judiciary almost always adopts a view of it as a living document where the meaning of the words are able to change with the times. So in effect the two systems are relatively similar.

 

Sure it is. Couldn't be the fact that you're an isolated continent without a land border, and you don't have the warring demographics we have here. Couldn't be that at all. Nope. Not at all. Nothing to see here folks, its only the guns, that's the only factor involved in crime as we all know.

 

Its not totally cut and paste as yall don't have a constitution, you have these implied rights and granted privileges. I'll check that movie out.

 

The thing is congress should not have stood for FDR's court packing threat, neither should the populace, and FDR should've been removed from office at that point for overstepping the bounds of his office.

Adams said it best (paraphrasing) "The constitution is only sufficient for a moral people" if people don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what you're doing as long as you're giving them a handout, or are too uneducated to know what you're doing is wrong, it won't work. As you might imagine: it doesn't work so often anymore.

 

We have a constitution, we just have a system of implied rather than explicit rights. The case for a bill of rights is not as concrete as it might seem. People forget that the US bill of rights didn't come around until 3 years after the ratification of the constitution.

In fact, in the context of the current US debacle, it's arguable that you would have done better without a bill of rights, but with much less vague language granting government power in the first place. A bill of rights makes rights not recognized seem insignificant - your "right" to own a gun is no more noble than your "right" to smoke a joint, but one is listed, and one is not. Free men should be able to own both.

So yeah - we do have a constitution. Quite an elaborate one.

 

I wouldn't call what you've got a constitution. A constitution attempts to codify restrictions against government and rights of the citizenry into a single document and from that all other laws derive. Yall seem to have a different set up.
As to the bill of rights: If people would read the damn thing it wouldn't be such a problem. The bill of rights in addition to the constitution is just fine, you just can't have a nation populated by morons.
But I take your meaning.

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution

 

Feel free to present your credentials to validate your claim. That is beyond your personal opinion of course

 

See how I lead with "I wouldn't call" < That should be a giveaway that it is my opinion.

 

I just wanted to be sure you didn't have a clue. Thanks for confirming it

 

Well bless your little heart, you're welcome Mr Man Behind the Curtain whom I'm to pay no attention to.

I think your system is less than satisfactory, and commented as such. I think a constitution should attempt to enumerate the rights of the citizenry in some fashion in addition to how representation is selected etc. In my opinion the enumerated rights are part and parcel to the constitution itself. Sue me.

 

Shootings have the same trend as murder. Accidental shootings are uncommon, the vast majority of firearm injuries are just attempted murder that have failed. Exclude those same major cities and the result is the same - America is not a war zone.

 

But you still have to overcome the problem of interpretation. A written bill of rights just pushes the interpretation back a step.

As for us not having a constitution, I'm going to have to disagree on that one. Were you living under a constitutionless government until 1791? The bill of rights has done very little to restrict the growth of government. Just look at the 10th amendment, what a joke. Most of the others are violated frequently, and the judiciary often agrees with the government's obviously fallacious interpretation.

What makes a constitution a system of higher law is not explicit rights. It's a list of powers given to government - we still have that. In fact, in many ways our states have more power than yours.

 

Shrugs don't care - we have little influence on your society but you, by virtue of the "entertainment industry" do have a significant influence over cultures world wide. Part of what drives your horrific firearm death rate is culture

I just want a chance to tell the world that the American way is not the ONLY way

 

And that is one of the fundamental differences - theirs is explicit ours are implicit. "Procedural fairness" along with Natural Justice is the system that is inherent in governmental dealings (yes I know that there are times when this is breached by government and I am expecting the Abbott government to do exactly that but usually if an unfair law is enacted then it does not stand for long as challenges in court remove the teeth of the law over time)

I think in NOT having a constitution we are aware (or should be) that we have to be on guard for our rights - speak out when we see them infringed and that means not taking them for granted

I am stonkered and gobsmacked by the responses I have had to the NRA's attempt to circumvent the first amendment in America by getting legislation passed in Florida preventing paediatricians from asking about whether or not a home has a gun - they could ask about unsecured swimming pools, unsecured poisons but not unsecured guns. Fortunately it was overturned by a higher court but so many on this forum have defended the NRA;s action because they believe that having a right written down means it will never be infringed

 

Sorry we are talking ED experience here and when a gunshot comes into ED they do not care if it is a "rare" accidental shooting or a gangland meltdown - gunshot injuries are gunshot injuries

And America pays

http://www.violencepreventioninstitute.com/gangs.html

 

I don't care about the NRA, but yeah. Any constitution is only as good as those living under it.

 

Accepting that there is no such thing as an "absolute right" - oh! It is impressive rhetoric but it falls far short of moral reality. You do not even really have a "right to life" not if that life is at the expense of others

We negotiate always between individual liberty and freedom and the good of society as a whole

 

I emphatically agree.

I couldn't give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about society as a whole.

 

One of your problems is that you don't even understand rights. Preventing government from requiring doctors to ask questions the government, by law, has no right to ask and report them to government is not freedom of speech but coercion. Petitioning government is also on of our rights. You seem to think that central control of people is what government is for. Maybe in your country but that is not how this country was set up.

- - - Updated - - -

Still showing ignorance of rights. No right can oppress another right. The right to life cannot oppress the right to self defense. Criminals give up their rights when they decide to violate others rights.

 

You are changing the subject. You claimed America was a war zone based on the experience of ONE person working in an unnamed ER. I showed that America is not a war zone. Gun related deaths & injuries are concentrated in in specific locations in a handful of major cities (notably DC, Detroit, Chicago), these few places could be described as a "war zone" but not the US as a whole. I'm sure AUS has its crime hot spots as well.

As to the cost, medical care costs money. It would be great if there were no crime. It would also be great if there were no car accidents and and doctors did not make mistakes and pharmacists did not deliver the wrong medication (each of which causes far more injury and death than firearms). It would also be great if the govt stopped meddling in the health care system and insurance programs.

BTW, how much has AUS saved in health care costs with its gun laws? A tiny drop in gun crime in exchange for major increases in assault, many of which probably result in lengthy treatment & recovery and some in life long disability. AUS spends a dollar to save a penny.

 

And when you make things at least partially explicit you have a leg up in interpretation. You can point to it and say "under the rules of the english language this is what this sentence means.". I'm not saying its perfect or infallible obviously. Just that I like it better.
Were we living under a constitutionless government until 1791? In my opinion? Yes we were.
You do indeed have to sheperd your liberty and a constitution is no guarantee. That's what we're supposed to have the guns and state legislatures for. The SCOTUS used to strike things down more often and on important issues until FDR. Since then it has been (*)(*)(*)(*), more or less. Though you can see the beginning of the problem under Jackson with his let them enforce it quip. The problem was that when jackson said that congress and the military didn't immediately remove him, have him taken out back, and shot him. Same thing with FDR. When he threatened separation of powers he should've been impeached, tried, and hanged. (jackson gets to get shot because he was once in the military. Fdr was not therefore he gets to hang).

Your states DO have more power under the implied system. Which is sort of my point.

 

I have exactly as much sway over the entertainment industry as you do: my wallet. I'll just go ahead and tell you: I'm a prospective 1L. I've got ZERO money for the most part and I do work a good job. You've got more disposable income than I do, I guarantee it. Vote with your wallet like everyone else.
No one is stopping you from having your opinion. No one told you to (*)(*)(*)(*). I simply disagree with your idea (as to the solution, I acknowledge there is a problem, and even acknowledge that culture has something to do with it. Though I expect not in the way you mean).
The world obviously agrees with you about the American way not being the only one. And that's great for yall. Have at it. But leave me out of it. I value my rights, with good reason, and I'll not see them removed while I draw breath. I don't intend offense but I would quite literally rather die than see, for example, australia's laws in my native land. As I'm sure you feel similarly passionate in the reverse.