What do you think of our current President?

[Emac44]

I have read most all of the comments in this forum. As an Australian. We had similar attitudes to gun onwership as they do in the US and for very similar reasons due to isolation and protection of home and property but not so much from our fellow man or crime rates etc but due to the wildlife here. But definitely a different prespective to it. As an Australian. I do not see owning a gun as a individual right to bear arms but as a previlige to do so as a responsible citizen. As much like driving a car or motorbike and with the proper licenses to do so. Many might find this unusual but that is how I view gun ownership. Storage of weapons for one is here for safety reasons not due to Governments sticking their noses into our lives. I might remind you that if you want to go down the road of Governments intruding into your daily lives. You will see in the work enviroment for example that occurs on a daily basis with Governmental control over the work place from safety to work place health and safety issues to Government control on every aspect of life and at times the individual seldom recognises it or even knows about it but it is indeed there.

As for taxation in Australia. That is broken down into various factions. The Federal Government here collects income tax from all employees and employers in each state in Australia. And taxation of income is on a grading scales. For example some one earning $34,999 to $44,999 is taxed at 33 cents in the dollar over a yearly financial period plus 2.5% medicare levie is paid in the taxation period. Individual States and Territories in Australia have various State taxes and stamp duties but it is the Federal Government who legally collects income tax from the citizens of Australia.

We may not have a perfect system here in Australia as far as taxation goes. But as for Medicare every wage earner pays through the Medicare levie to the Federal Government via the wage earners wages etc. However wage earners can opt for private health cover which can be claimed back as a tax deduction at end of financial year. But the benefit of private health cover can save you literally quiet huge sums of money when such things are not covered by the Federal Medicare System. For example Federal Medicare does not cover optical dental chiropractic or physio therapy. But depending on your own private health cover these can be covered up to 85% of the cost and what the payee pays is only 15% on the actual bills that he or she receives from the services required etc. For example if one had a $1000 of dental work to be done. The cost to the payee of private health cover would be $150 and the balance is covered by the health cover of $850 etc to finalize the account to the dentist etc.


Now as for FREEDOM. That is one word that can be defined in many aspects. What is freedom to one can be defined by another as subjected to having your liberties infringed upon. FREEDOM varies to each and every one of us. But basically as I see it. We all have different freedoms but we approach it from different angles and we view it differently as we are accustomed to our own way of life and lifestyles in our various countries. And as others have quoted it isn't right or wrong. Its just different. I like rerich can travel in Queensland for 800 miles but still be in Queensland. But unlike Renrich I feel free to travel inside Queensland or any part of Australia and not have to have a gun inside my car for personal safety. See Renrich its still being free and having the freedom to do as I wish within the law. It is just different way of looking at how we view freedom. And I still have the right to either agree or disagree with laws in Australia but still having to obey those laws as a law abiding citizen. And still have the right to contact any politican I choose to do so. The one thing I will say though some seem to think their individual Civil Liberties are paramont. But their Civil Liberties are only guarantteed by our Constitution of Australia our Federal and State Laws. And that individual Civil Liberties means nothing if it means our country can not function properly. What I am trying to say the security and the well being of the country for all citizens comes before individual civil liberties

[renrich]

A person in the US who earns $35000 will pay little on no income tax to the federal government. Close to half of the wage earners in this country pay no federal income tax and yet we fund the largest and best military in the world. In 72 years I have never known anyone personally to have a criminal act visited on them on our highways. I choose to be prepared in the unlikely chance that a gun is needed. As I said, better to have it and not need it than to need it but not have it!

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Emac44

I have read most all of the comments in this forum. As an Australian. We had similar attitudes to gun onwership as they do in the US and for very similar reasons due to isolation and protection of home and property but not so much from our fellow man or crime rates etc but due to the wildlife here. But definitely a different prespective to it. As an Australian. I do not see owning a gun as a individual right to bear arms but as a previlige to do so as a responsible citizen. As much like driving a car or motorbike and with the proper licenses to do so. Many might find this unusual but that is how I view gun ownership. Storage of weapons for one is here for safety reasons not due to Governments sticking their noses into our lives.

Emac - I respect your opinion and the others that do not have a Legal Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I could even accept a State imposed stipulation that a safety course is a necessary requisite for say, hunting or carrying a firearm away from the home - subject to some very strict rules for the government (city, state or Federal).

1. the course is cheap, available on demand and irrevocable.
2. has no firearm registry associated with the course

The emerging problem for US Citizens in the past 50 years is that there are vocal political blocks that see no use for a firearm, including self defense, and have insidiously, mostly through the Democratic Party, attempted various Gun Control Bills to greatly restrict types of Firearms that law abiding citizens amy own.

The Model for these groups are UK and Australia type controls.

An equally large block, comprised of firearm owners, see this relentless push as leading to registration, further restriction and eventual confiscation. The latest Law in Washington DC attempted to prevent an owner of a pistol to even have the pistol assembled in his home - in perhaps the highest violent crime area in the States! That law was deemed un Constitutional on the basis of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual Right, not a collective one. This follows a similar ruling by the US 5th Court in 2001.

It is not about hunting, although important for many of us. It is about the simple right to possess and use deadly force if required to preserve Life or Liberty. The latter applies to all enemies foreign or domestic.

I used the illustration of attitude in the 16th through 19th Centuries in which monarchy or other forms of non Democratic governments absolutely prohibited private and universal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.
There were obvious reason for that prohibition.

Our Founding Fathers debated the whether a Bill of Rights should even be in the first Version of the Constitution to be submitted for Ratification. It was a heated debate, one that threatened the unification of the States into a Union and the anti Federalists prevailed, and the imporstance they placed on an armed citizenry is prominant by being second only behind the Right to Assemble and Speak Freely.

The Second is not all about being able to quickly form a Militia, although important, because few of our Founding Fathers trusted a centrally controlled standing army. It was widely debated and agreed that armed citizens were a barrier to tyranny.

It still is.

Regards,

Bill

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Emac44

The one thing I will say though some seem to think their individual Civil Liberties are paramont. But their Civil Liberties are only guarantteed by our Constitution of Australia our Federal and State Laws. And that individual Civil Liberties means nothing if it means our country can not function properly. What I am trying to say the security and the well being of the country for all citizens comes before individual civil liberties

Thank you emac for explaning this much more clearly then I ever could. I agree completely with this thought.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Thank you emac for explaning this much more clearly then I ever could. I agree completely with this thought.

The one thing I will say though some seem to think their individual Civil Liberties are paramont. But their Civil Liberties are only guarantteed by our Constitution of Australia our Federal and State Laws. And that individual Civil Liberties means nothing if it means our country can not function properly. What I am trying to say the security and the well being of the country for all citizens comes before individual civil liberties

Ahh, Marcel and Emac - the devil is in the details regarding the balance of civil liberties versus the security of state and country. If free speech and assembly is drastically curtailed in the name of 'security' or arms removed from law abiding citizens, one must question 'Security for whom or what"??

As terrorist actions become more widespread and effective we will have the opportunity to see what extremes will be contemplated in the name of security or resistance in the name of Liberty to those future movements?

Regards to you both

Questions to ponder - what Liberties do each of you insist are the final 'do not take away list' beyond which no level of SUGGESTED Security steps are acceptable? And what contract, and PERSONAL accountability, would you demand from politicians that wish to make your country more secure?

[Marcel]

Dear Bill,

I'm not a native english speaker and thus sometimes express myself maybe a little clumsily.
What I've been trying to point out in all my last few posts in this tread is that I believe the most important thing for freedom is controling your own country. Therefore, government is always controlled by the people. This means that as a citizen of a country, you cannot just think about what would just effect you personally, but quite often you'll have to see that you're part of a society supporting your personal situation, this society is your country. My point, and this is also the way I read emacs post, is this: your whole situation, freedom you hold dear, way of live you hold dear, depends on the wellbeing of your country. Therefore the wellbeing of your country is primairy concern, as this also saves your way of life, freedom and believes. The country has to be protected from outside and inside threads!
As your society basicly consists of more than one people it means little personal sacrifices must be made for the benefit of all. One thing must never be touched, though: In the end, the people will be in charge, so which sacrifices will be made is your descision.
As I already said, I look at this from very european point of view. My ideas about these scarifices is probably much different from your ideas as an American. We don't have to agree. What's best for your country doesn't neccesairily have to be best for mine.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by renrich

A person in the US who earns $35000 will pay little on no income tax to the federal government. Close to half of the wage earners in this country pay no federal income tax and yet we fund the largest and best military in the world. In 72 years I have never known anyone personally to have a criminal act visited on them on our highways. I choose to be prepared in the unlikely chance that a gun is needed. As I said, better to have it and not need it than to need it but not have it!

I know this will rankle a few people and its not intended to to. You have one of the largest and you do have the best equipped but unless it has changed a great deal since the early 90's would not consider it the best

[renrich]

Overall, I rate I military second to none and you are right as I am rankled.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Have to agree, but this is not the place to discuss that.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I know this will rankle a few people and its not intended to to. You have one of the largest and you do have the best equipped but unless it has changed a great deal since the early 90's would not consider it the best

It doesn't have to be the best - just better than whoever we have to fight...

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I know this will rankle a few people and its not intended to to. You have one of the largest and you do have the best equipped but unless it has changed a great deal since the early 90's would not consider it the best

Thanks - I needed that laugh.

Anyway - what is the definition of "best," anyhow? Most combat effective - since that is the role of the military. Now, what other nation can rival the US in terms of the effective combat power it can bring into theater?

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

It doesn't have to be the best - just better than whoever we have to fight...

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Thanks - I needed that laugh.

Anyway - what is the definition of "best," anyhow? Most combat effective - since that is the role of the military. Now, what other nation can rival the US in terms of the effective combat power it can bring into theater?

No one can do as well as the US getting the most with the biggest bang to theatre no one can challenge you on that
I think many militaries that are more technically challenged then the US have the equal or better in man to man skills in the various trades or MOCs . i may be dated on my knowledge and stand to be corrected but I can't think of any military as specialized as the US .

[Aussie1001]

hmm interesting..... agree with emac