So What's Life Like in the Land Down Under?

[ZXRobyn]

...you can't buy alcohol in supermarkets...here - you have to go to a liquor store!

Not in Canberra, unless things have changed. My local corner store had a grog section.

Yep, we can buy it in supermarkets in Canberra

I stand corrected!
I might have to move to Canberra and become part of the HCC hey guys?

[mick_dundee]

You can also buy it at an Aldi's supermarket and (I believe) that would be the same Aus wide.

[Glen]

...-kangaroos everywhere, theres more than humans. they in the streets and everything...

This is particularly true in Canberra, the nation's capital, where the fuckers jump out in front of your vehicle at every opportunity but it's front page news if people talk about culling them

Ahh yes but you see putting their head through their arse with a car is much more humane than a tranquiliser and an injection (which i thought was a pretty big concession to the do gooders. Whatever happened to Roo Shooters)

[Wattie]

You can also buy it at an Aldi's supermarket and (I believe) that would be the same Aus wide.

nope. thats only victoria...

why do you think Madkaw always takes the car to PI, its not for the caravan and kids, its so he can smuggle aldi booze back across the border!!

[graemec]

Btw, COS im a pedantic fakka

The Second Amendment provides that
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The 2nd amendment does not actually give individuals the right to bear arms.
The NRA amongst others have been fighting to keep guns for individuals tooth and nail for a long time, and winning i might add BECAUSE that wording is more than a little ambiguous.

The Supreme court clarified the 2nd amendment and actually ruled in 2001 that individuals DO NOT have the right to bear arms.
That right is only the right of the states to maintain formal, organised militias. IE National Guard Units.
Small problem though...
The US Justice Department (the people who enforce federal laws) who also do not hold that an individual has the right to bear arms, backing up the supreme court are actually (right now) powerless to change anything..

The reason is... TADA! drum roll if you please...
The Second Amendment only concerns federal efforts to regulate firearms, state gun control efforts do not implicate or affect the Second Amendment, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand 95% of US gun laws are written into law at the state level.

Soooo people in the US can happily go around breaking federal laws ( filling their basements with as many semi automatic weapons as they like ) and not break most state laws where they live, cool hey

Thus endeth the lesson for today.

[fireyrob]

Btw, COS im a pedantic fakka

The Second Amendment provides that
blah blah blah

Thus endeth the lesson for today.

IE Their System Is Farked...

[Possum]

Thus endeth the lesson for today.

What do you do for a living?

[Gosling1]

........I might have to move to Canberra and become part of the HCC hey guys?

I'll help you pack !!

....Thus endeth the lesson for today....

that was a good read ! thanks for the info. I always thought the 2nd actually did give them the right to 'bear arms', but its not quite that simple....

well, Charlton Heston is dead now, so maybe its time the anti-gun lobby got serious again....??

[graemec]

What do you do for a living?

I'm a spy

[Goose7R]

Btw, COS im a pedantic fakka

The Supreme court clarified the 2nd amendment and actually ruled in 2001 that individuals DO NOT have the right to bear arms.
That right is only the right of the states to maintain formal, organised militias. IE National Guard Units.
Small problem though...
The US Justice Department (the people who enforce federal laws) who also do not hold that an individual has the right to bear arms, backing up the supreme court are actually (right now) powerless to change anything..

Whoa! Where did you get this fine piece of malarkey sir?!! The Supreme court has ruled anything on the 2nd amendment since 1939!

The only thing that happend in 2001 of significance regarding this issue was a ruling of a high court (below the Supreme court) that upheld the individual right, although they did throw in the law could "restict the right". This pissed off the Attorney General, and he laid the smack down, said he endorsed the individual right, put it in writing, and sent it to all 93 U.S. attorney's to adopt as their official position.

[graemec]

Someone i worked with a in NY is with the Justice dept
By a coincidence I was actually talking to him about it a few weeks ago, it'll get him to dig out the exact ruling if you like

[Goose7R]

Someone i worked with a in NY is with the Justice dept
By a coincidence I was actually talking to him about it a few weeks ago, it'll get him to dig out the exact ruling if you like

Well, he's bloody insane!

No worries, though, won't change the fact it's all screwed up anyway...

[Blurr]

this is just personal observation but I I am lead to believe the traditionally the states will follow the national gov when it comes to all matters surrounding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The US and it's people are very patriotic when it comes to politics and national history. So when the 2 are combined in extrodinary circumstances such as the Boston Tea party it becomes the emotions run high when it comes to change the laws proceeding the bill and how it should be interpreted.

So much easier over here when no one gives a shit and would happily go out and buy you the gun to shoot the prime minister

[graemec]

As i said its murky.

I'll explain how murky.

In a letter to the NRA, The then Attorney General John Ashcroft claimed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to be armed.
This actually conflicts with the Justice Department's official legal position, which holds that Second Amendment rights are limited to the collective rights of states to regulate their own militias. THAT is their official position
As an aside, In fact it actually does give you the right to bear arms, but only insofar as it relates to them being a part of a Militia.
The expression "to bear arms" means to hold a gun in defence of country or state, NOT privately

The case i mentioned is
The United States v. Miller (2001) The Supreme Court

This ruling has now been used as the bench mark for all subsequent cases.
The ruling is as follows, this is a direct quote.

The Supreme Court explained that the purpose for the second amendment was
"To assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the militia spoken of in Article 1 of the Constitution.
"[b]The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organising, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made.
It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." ' End quote

An obvious problem here is that the HEAD of the Justice Dept. does not actually hold with his own Dept.s Official policy.

Last but not least your right it is all screwed up

Peace

[Slow and wobbly]

Having said all that do you still have the right to arm bears though?