I see jason's argument there all over the internet, but it's never made sense to me. The logic seems to go that we protect gun rights to hold the government in check in case it ever tries to oppress us, but if it tried to oppress us, not only would they almost certainly outlaw guns, whether they outlawed them or not, rising up against your government is illegal, and according to these same people, making gun control laws just means that only outlaws will have guns. So in other words if you need to revolt against your government, the laws don't matter anymore and they won't stop you from getting a gun anyway once your mind is made up to oppose the laws. So what's the point of legal gun rights to support illegal action against your government that would never be legal to do whether the guns are legal or not? It's just crazy, circular logic. If you need to revolt against your government, the legality of guns is the least of your worries, but we're not there yet.

I mean that if the government begins to oppress its people more outside of taxes. Its the people responsibility to fight back.

I'm not saying that there should be no gun control. I'm just saying that in NZ the laws seem strict enough that I dont see the need for any more gun control besides making it harder for people not fit to have guns to get guns.. They already have background checks which should be enough. They can pass laws that make it harder for menatlly ill people to get guns but banning different type of guns like someone suggested earlier is too much imo.

Your government might not be opressing you guys now but you never know when they will pull some oppressive shit. If that were to happen then your people will equiped to fight back and protect yourselves from the government.

Shoot, I missed that angle of it. It's even more self-defeating that I first realized.

I know what you meant. It just wouldn't make sense because the way it works now the little mice (us normal people) are turning the wheel slowly earning them money.

Could they do it? Sure but that is at a very high risk of a fight back from the people and loosing everything they have built. It is easier and better to oppress by stealth which gives people some perceived freedom, then to oppress them physically till the breaking point of where the person says "you know what fuck you I will now fight back".

It is no different then some charities who supposedly have like 95% administration costs and only 5% goes to the cause they claim to be supporting. Shit like that should be outlawed. If you can't run a charity where say 70% minimum goes to the cause, then there is def something fishy going on within it.

The offender acted alone, he planned for years to carry out an attack, there is no mental impairment, he chose to commit this massacre due to his extremist views fuelled by hate.

So basically... What you are condoning is violence against the Government on a what-if slippery-slope scenario? Do you know who else condoned violence because of a what-if scenario? (Muslims being potential terrorists) The shooter in Christchurch, New Zealand.

If you think a small group of people waving firearms is going to be able to beat a Government with a MODERN and capable military, navy, airforce, coast guard, police, intelligence agencies and more... Then I think you might need to reassess things, untrained civilians holding weapons won't change a single damn thing.

There are other ways to fight back... And that is through appropriate avenues available in all modern, stable, advanced democracies... Like peaceful protests, appropriate voting and so on.

Clearly they aren't strict enough if dozens of people just got slaughtered by a right-wing conservative terrorist.

You never know when we might get invaded by aliens either.
The argument you are sticking to is a logical fallacy, aka. The Slippery Slope argument and is thus entirely redundant.

Do you ultimately know what keeps the Australian government humble and from being oppressive? The Media.
The Media isn't afraid to report on the governments happenings and create a shit storm... Which then means the Governments chances of being re-elected essentially implodes, it's happened tons of times.

Plus the constitution and other checks and balances in our Democracy keeps things in check.

But leveraging the politics of fear for a what-if scenario that might not ever happen is just silly and nonsensical and shouldn't be adhered to, regardless of what side of the political divide you fall on.

Sad stuff. I hope I will never ever get to see that video accidentally.

The boy got charged, which is fair. Assault is assault. Both are in the wrong 

*Edit* accidentally deleted Pem's name, oops 

The boy egged a politician... Sure he should be charged with assault... But considering Fraser Anning's comments were disgusting, you can't blame him. Egg boy is a hero in my books. Haha
In saying that, I once called John Howard (Old prime minister of Australia) a "royal wanker" years ago when I met him, felt good. No repercussions.

...In saying that, hitting a minor is also illegal... It's one thing to whack someone in self defense, but to do it multiple times? To someone deemed a child in the eyes of the law? And then go on record later by stating that his mother should have done the same thing a long time ago is also crossing a line.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/fraser-anning-says-eggboys-mum-slapped-around-040930945.html

The petition to kick Fraser Anning out of Government has reached almost 1.3~ million, the largest petition in Australian history. (In retrospect our population is only 24~ million, so it's significant.)
https://www.change.org/p/the-prime-minister-remove-fraser-anning-from-parliament

Don't want to open another thread but I wonder; Erdogan misused the video in his propaganda and now today we have a 'Turkish' 'Dutch' citizen commit a shooting in The Netherlands.