Oh I understand just fine what you are doing. You're using subterfuge in order to bypass the law that would prevent you from getting the gun. Just like the guy that wants to buy the gun to assassinate a POTUS (Hi FBI/NSA!!!) would. As you discerned the gun dealer would not sell him the gun...in fact it is illegal in the US to sell a gun to a person that you know is going to commit a crime (gun dealer or not). You cannot buy a gun for self defense in Australia. Not officially. That you can do so by lying to the government does not change that fact. Both you, and the guy wanting to buy a gun to assassinate the POTUS (again, Hi FBI/NSA!!!), are using legalities in order to bypass the law that if you had told the truth would have prevented you from buying the gun. It's called a loophole. You can try and justify it all that you want. But in the end that is exactly what you are doing. Bypassing one part of the law by not telling the truth and using another part in order to reach your end goal, self defense. Thanks for the analogy btw. It worked perfectly for proving my point.
~ Australia's Freedom death rate is on par with Nazi Germany. Don't worry about Covid in the USA. American's have a saying : " Live Free or Die ". Apparently Oz has a saying too : "Better Red than Dead. " Congratulations ...
I didn't see your question, but so I'll respond here. From your original post: 1. "Yes they occurred" 2. You charged hyperbole, but not to a description of the incident. 3. Protestors=violent mob. We've seen that one before in the States. 4. Did not explain what Carlson "distorted." 5. Again, no factual disagreement, you just didn't like it. 6. Did Tucker claim vaccines didn't work? Didn't see that in his report 7. Carlson never claimed Australians couldn't go to church 8. Again, not disagreeing with the facts, merely if the action (or overreaction) was justified 9. Not sure how this related to Carlson's report? In short, you didn't seem to disagree with Tucker's report on the facts at all. In stead, you disagreed on whether it was justified or not. And that was all I was saying in my previous post. You didn't challenge the facts in the report, just how it made you feel.
I did see that, and defense was not one of the reasons listed as a legitimate reason to own a weapon. If I understand Australian law correctly (and it's unlikely that I do but still...) you can not own a weapon solely for home defense, correct?
You’re splitting hairs… My son-in-law provides a perfect example… He has a licence which permits him to hunt kangaroos with a couple of high powered rifles that he possesses. However, if while in possession of those weapons, his family was, say, threatened by a home invasion and he used that weapon to defend them from a credible mortal threat, he would not be found to be at fault. Now, was his licence granted specifically for ‘family protection’…? Of course not. Your argument is silly….
That's stupid reasoning. You're okay with invasive searches of news companies, even when there is no evidence that company has done something illegal. Don't you realize that for the same reason it should be legal for news reporters to report a government secret, they should also not be subject to forced searches for it? They were searched because the information they broadcasted MIGHT have come from a government leak. And you don't see a problem with that.
What was his original reasoning for getting the gun? Was it really just to hunt kangaroo's? Or was it self defense? Bush has admitted that he wanted the gun for self defense and that he's using the shooting range as an excuse to do that. And he's using the shooting range as an excuse because he knows that he cannot get a gun if he told them straight out that it would be for self defense. As such he believes that there being a law against getting a gun for self defense is an unjust law. Yet he hollered about me admitting that I do not follow unjust laws. Yet here he is, making up an excuse to avoid a law that he feels is unjust. That's called hypocrisy.
We all know that you understand the difference between unjust laws, which makes something lawful but wrong, and lawful laws that are not wrong. You've made that perfectly clear in this thread that you know the difference. So why are you avoiding answering his question?
If you had fully complied with the law then you would have told them straight out that you wanted the gun for self defense. Not used a side excuse. At best you can say that you "partially" complied with the law.
@kazenatsu said: "Don't you realize that for the same reason it should be legal for news reporters to report a government secret, they should also not be subject to forced searches for it?"
The answer is simple. Sure, blow Govt secrets if you want, but don't expect Govt not to react if you do. There are always consequences. I can see we are heading to an Assange argument here.
I am not required by Law to do any more than be a Member of a Club like the SSAA and attend a safety course. That done, I get Licence. Get Licence, get gun. Keep as required by Law in House. Shoot arzehole invaders of my home, if my safety warrants it.
Once upon a time this same Tucker Carlson was on a CNN show called 'Crossfire' He was a conservative firebrand, a moderately effective advocate for the Reagan policies considering the format of the show, with none of this Trumpist dogma, or conspiratorial nonsense. In short, he was good, not silly. Now he's just another Fox/ Trump toadie working for his contract, and throwing every ounce of reputation down the tubes.
Has nothing to do with Assaunge. But here in the US news media does not get invaded every time they report wrong doing by the government based on documents that they received. ESPECIALLY based on a "might have". If that happened then the news media would be curtailed by fear to report on the wrongdoings of government.
Pretty sure that your government requires some sort of telling the truth. Here in the US it's called fraud. Unless it's in a courtroom where it's called perjury. Whatever it's called in Australia, I'm sure that there is an equivalent. Governments usually don't like being lied to and have laws against it. And you lied to your government by not telling them that you only wanted the gun for self defense.
