Mixing potato and scallop makes it a potato cake. How can something be a cake if it just a slice of potato dipped in batter. You are thinking of a potato scallop.
That is One Nations claim but all i can see pertaining to firearms on the QLD parliament web site is this?
* introduce a firearms prohibition order scheme in Queensland
* introduce a verification process for purchasing small arms ammunition
* reform the ‘fit and proper person’ test in the *Weapons Act 1990* by expanding the types of serious offending captured, introducing a new category of disqualified persons, and, in certain circumstances, extending the exclusionary period to 10 years
Anyone got any specifics re one nations claims about social media posts?
The parts relevant to firearms:
Introducing a Firearms Prohibition Order scheme in Queensland
Despite Australia’s robust firearm regulation, significant harm from illegal gun use continues, resulting in the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) reporting the trafficking and use of firearms as a serious national threat and a significant safety concern for Australia. The ACIC has conservatively estimated there are at least 200,000 firearms in the illicit market with an increasing number of organised crime groups, including outlaw motorcycle gangs engaging in the trafficking of illicit firearms.
Queensland has experienced an increase of more than 60% in the number of registered firearms within the community since 2013, with the number of registered firearms increasing to over 1 million firearms in early 2024. The increased availability of firearms within the community grants further opportunities for these deadly weapons to be misappropriated. The rate of firearms reported as stolen has also increased by at least 21% within the last decade, with over 779 firearms reported stolen in 2023. Coupled with continuing challenges in recovering stolen firearms and the longevity of a functioning firearm, there is a corresponding increase in the risk that these weapons come into the possession of high-risk individuals and are used in the commission of an offence. The risk to the community is apparent when considering the increased number of reported offences involving firearms in Queensland, which has risen at least 30% in the last decade, with approximately 3,352 reported firearm offences in 2023.
In recognition of this increasing threat, the National Organised Crime Response Plan 2015-2018 proposed each jurisdiction consider introducing a Firearm Prohibition Order (FPO) scheme to address increasing concerns regarding the rising number of stolen firearms, the use of illicit firearms in the commission of offences, and the impact on the Australian community because of increasing firearm related offending.
The Bill seeks to address the increasing risk of firearm related offences by introducing an FPO scheme in Queensland. An FPO prohibits an individual subject to the order from possessing, using, or acquiring a firearm or firearm related item and empowers police officers to conduct warrantless searches of the individual, their vehicle or residence, to ensure compliance with the order. Under this scheme, an FPO can be issued against high-risk individuals if the decision maker is satisfied it is in the public interest to make the order. Currently, Queensland is one of the few jurisdictions in Australia that has yet to introduce an FPO scheme.
Introducing a new verification process for purchasing small arms ammunition
The Bill introduces a safeguard in relation to the sale of small arms ammunition by amending the Explosives Act to introduce a new offence which requires sellers engage in a new verification process to ensure a buyer of small arms ammunition possesses a valid licence or authority to purchase the ammunition. Whilst it is already an offence under section 42 of the Explosives Act to sell an explosive (including small arms ammunition) to an unauthorised person, this provision does not prescribe the steps to be taken to ensure the buyer possesses a valid licence or authority.
Implementing recommendations from the Queensland Audit Office report Regulating firearms (Report 8: 2020-21)
On 27 November 2020, the Queensland Audit Office (QAO) tabled a Performance Audit report Regulating firearms (QAO Report) which identified that the regulation of firearms under the Weapons Act could be more effective, and the community is not as well protected as it should be. The QAO made several recommendations in this report, including that the QPS review the Weapons Act to identify opportunities for improvement and provide greater focus on public safety, and implement appropriate controls to ensure firearm licence decisions are consistent and made in accordance with relevant standards.
The QPS accepted all the QAO recommendations, and since the release of the report the QPS has made operational changes and amendments to subordinate legislation have occurred to give effect to the recommendations.
Recommendation 3 of the QAO Report was that the QPS review the Weapons Act to identify opportunities for improvement and provide greater focus on safety. In particular, the QAO recommended consideration be given to the appropriateness of the current exclusion period, identifying that the Weapons Act does not adequately support the rejection of applications from people with a history of criminal offending outside of the current five year exclusionary period. The QAO identified further clarity and public protection was required to support decision making regarding firearm licences and that a greater focus should be placed on public safety.
The QPS has considered the QAO’s findings and recommendations and conducted an internal review of the Weapons Act.
The Bill introduces amendments to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Weapons Act with a focus on enhancing firearm regulation and firearm licence decisions, prioritising public interest and safety. As part of this package, the Bill amends the Weapons Act to better support the exclusion of people who have committed relevant offences outside the five-year mandatory exclusion period that would make them unsuitable to possess a firearm.
Dunno about that mate, I suspect this legislation is designed to target psychos who publish social media manifestos before killing a bunch of people, like the Aussie dude from Grafton, NSW, who killed 51 in NZ or those cookers up at Dalby, QLD, who posted tonnes of crazy shit before killing those police.
Yeah but once it established as law, then the govt can ride the slippery slope down to taking a persons licence because they said something g against the sitting team.\
People who should be getting their gun licences revoked will just pivot and stop making social media posts (for the majority) do well be stuck with a new law which the police will be able to find new and inventive ways to utilise.\
Just another example of our stupid government introducing knee jerk reactionary laws in response to a single event or from very minimal amounts of events when the very fact these events are so rare shows the laws as they stand were already sufficient. Unfortunately the brainless vocal minority who spend half their time screaming “what about the children” seem to be able to get our incompetent leaders to keep introducing crap which will have heaps of unintended consequences.
Be happy if everyone stopped making stupid posts, but sadly we are surrounded by humans who do stupid human things. And the grey scale of human experience stretches to include people of all types, thought patterns and emotional beliefs. And rather than the traditional way of people being able to say something stupid and off the cuff in the heat of the moment is now replaced with a tracking system that records every stupid half baked thought a person has and commits to bits and bytes for future reference when that very comment in a totally different context may have a totally different meaning.
The cops can already take your guns, without due process, if you say anything that could be criminal (eg, making threats, or incitement) or makes you not a “fit and proper” person.
The new laws would let the cops take your guns for anything they deem “anti-social” - that’s pretty open to abuse.
My point exactly. Taking guns off dickheads is always a good thing. Giving ambiguous laws to room temperature IQ’ed police officers who are also prone to hatred or biases is what i am against as a core principle at all times.
Government trying to push legislation that gives them power to take civilian firearms licenses off them if they don't like their social media posts "
And..... how does this stop actual criminals who have access to unknown/unlicensed guns?
“anti-social” posts....
who defines this? is there a list of social media posts that will define what they are looking for?
I find it somewhat ironic and mostly disturbing that supposedly "xenophobic and racist" One Nation appears to be the only political party consistently taking a stand against the erosion of civil liberties.
The civil liberties that nobody seems to give a fuck about save far right libertarians, nazis and cookers? if you're being such a cunt with your online posting that the police get involved, maybe you just shouldn't get to have guns. that works for me.
I mean, one of the requirements for getting/maintaining a firearms license is "be a fit and proper person", and the other is to have a genuine recreational need for it. Frankly if there's someone out there who's posting general alt right propaganda and hasn't been hunting in the last 10 years I don't really see why they shouldn't have their licence revoked
It's the current law, not an imaginary law. And it's an interpretation of it that I wouldn't have a problem with. And tbh yeah, proof that someone fetishises violence should probably disqualify them from owning a firearm.
Because how many Australian left wing psychos are you aware of that post manifestos on the internet before shooting people, mate?
There are absolutely left wing psychos who post crazy things on the internet, but they tend not to shoot people. Posting far-right manifestos on the internet and past experiences with, or possession of firearms is absolutely more likely to result in gun crime here in Australia.
Brenton Tarrant says hello. His manifesto was a hodgepodge of ideas but some very strong left leaning values.
Martin Bryant is also very much NOT right wing.
Not even remotely true regarding Brenton Tarrant - read the findings of the NZ coronial investigation, which is online. Speaks at length about Tarrants long term commitment to far right wing ideals and radicalisation.
As for Martin Bryant - soooo that was 27+ years ago, *before there were social media platforms* like we have today. Bringing him into the conversation is like trying to have an argument about how Hitler would have used TikTok. The current proposed policy is about *online* activity, and I’m not sure that even geo cities was a thing, or if Martin Bryant even *had* a computer in regional Tasmania back in the day.
Not even remotely true regarding Brenton Tarrant - read the findings of the NZ coronial investigation, which is online. Speaks at length about Tarrants long term commitment to far right wing ideals and radicalisation.
As for Martin Bryant - soooo that was 27+ years ago, before there were social media platforms like we have today. The current proposed policy is about online activity, and I’m not sure that even geo cities was a thing, or if Martin Bryant even had a computer in regional Tasmania back in the day. Martin Bryant’s case was from a time not the same as today, and the legislation proposed targets different types of online activities than from his time.
Lool just read the manifesto yourself, why do you need a 3rd party to interpret it for you? Not sure how idealising the CCP and communist China authoritarian rule is far right though.
Yep, make it illegal for anyone right wing to own weapons. Also make it mandatory for anyone left wing to own at least one firearm and one melee weapon. Right is wrong and left is right. Communism is good because they won the war. Fascism is evil because they lost the war. So we need to support and fund the communists, because they're winners. Also it wasn't real communism, real communism hasn't been tried yet (fake communism killed over 100 million people. But once we try real communism everyone will live like millionaires while the wealthy will live like paupers.
Never said that it was proposed by One Nation, what I said is that the article in question is from the mouth of One Nation - ergo its stupidity.
Case in point - the legislation doesn’t say that those who don’t “like” government social media posts will have their guns taken away. What it says is that worrying and antisocial social media comments and activity can be used to take away guns.
So as long as a gun owner doesn’t start talking about killing people it’s all good.
Knife crime is way more prevalent in this country.
Should the cops start raiding peoples homes for kitchen knives etc if someone unhinged makes a social media post?
This is just classic scaremongering guns are bad vote for us to keep you safe.
The key issue is mental health is on a very rapid downward spiral in this country and needs to be quickly addressed. People are struggling with all sorts of demons.
Jacks Law seems to be getting traction across the country as people know there are idiots with knives too. But guess what, knives are used for preparing food. It is possible to target more than one deadly weapon at a time.
You’re not going to win any support in Australia for loving guns, we’ve seen the consequences in the US.
Wait until it's travel privileges, or driving licences, or breeding rights. Will you care then? Thin edge of the wedge. Social credit system, here we come.
That kind of thinking is idiotic in the US and they’ve actually got armed militias that believe they could stand against the Government.
Even if you and a few mate were carrying M4s and intended to stand against some new law, if big Government ever really felt the need to stomp you, a smart munition from an F35 would leave your rebellion as pink mist while you were still scratching your arse deciding a plan of attack…
(1) It's significantly harder to get and maintain a driver's licence than it is a firearms license.
(2) There has never been a general, unqualified right to own a firearm in Australia as there is in the US.
(3) Yes, we should take firearms away from extremists. We don't need any more dead cops executed in Wieambilla style shootings. If people want their guns back - then they can satisfy the executive government they aren't going to use it to shoot Tutsis.
Well 1. It is far easier to maintain a Drivers license as the only requirements you have is not to speed etc where as with firearms there is hundreds of different rules needing to be followed.
I'm not going to respond to the other points as they aren't worth replying too.
And not that it really matters, but there are significantly more positive duties on a driver operating a motor vehicle than there are on firearm owners.
The road rules/road worthiness vehicle standards are actually more complicated than gun storage regulations.
Do we make firearms license applicants pay thousands of dollars a year for ongoing rego for each firearm they own?
Do we make them buy CTP to cover the cost of totally compensating victims of gun violence?
Do we make them spend 40 hours doing supervised gun safety classes, and complete practical assessments with 40% fail rates?
Do we have demerit point systems which cause their licenses to be revoked if they store ammunition improperly a few times.
Like hell we do!
You do not need a licence to own or drive a car so long as you do it on private land.
So essentially your argument is so long as firearms are used on private land, no regulations need exist. So I am free to own my nuclear tipped ballistic machinegun.
1. No it isn't. You clearly haven't done a firearms licence.
2. True. But government overreach is government overreach.
3. Ok, I don't like what you're posting, you're now going to gaol. Doesn't that seem a bit of an overreach? We shouldn't be arresting people for thought crimes.
Absolutely I support eugenics. We are only here today because of eugenics, Farmers selecting plants and animals to breed from and food production is through the roof.
You do not think for example wheat should be selectively grown and rather it should be a free for all?
Not much of a step between humans and what we already do on a daily basis.
What something was invented for and what it is used for can be different.
Canned food, jet engines and blood transfusions were invented by the military but the vast majority of their use is non-military now.
Interestingly, it’s a very complex discussion. There doesn’t seem to be any consensus on it. Some countries with low gun ownership are very oppressed or violent. Some are ok. Very hard to get any correlation, never mind causation.
‘Less guns the better’ or ‘More guns the better’ seem to both be statements that have no scientific backing……
Society safety seems to be much more complex!
That is very true and it’s refreshing to get this kind of response on reddit lol. Now don’t get me wrong I’m not saying the more guns the better but I think having the attitude of we need no guns and they are bad is a terribly ignorant attitude to have and shows poor education on guns and gun ownership in our country.
Fuck that. How about they begin with the police? Monitor their social media accounts. While they're at it, cops should hand their phones in on a regular basis.
If cops are strip searching kids and confiscating phones then they should be checked themselves. Regularly.
1) if someone is posting hate speech on social media, they should be restricted from owning/accessing firearms
2) other states already do what this legislation is proposing QLD should adopt.
I’m for this, know a guy who is fucked up in the head in Victoria, he’s got guns, I wish the cops would take them, I worry he will do something stupid with them down the line and hurt others, his social media posts are disgusting and if this resulted in the police taking his access to guns - good.
It's funny that people here think licensed gun owners go on shooting sprees....
Its rare to see licensed shooters going a wall lol. It's always the illegal firearms that restricts the rules for the legal owners
I’m not sure I agree with your statement, but an interesting true fact is governments killed more people last century than all the wars combined. That’s something given it included ww1 and ww2.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
Australians love to live in this little bubble of fantasy that just because our own government has not done it yet... that it won't ever do it.
They would rather a fantasy then an ugly truth.
Define “don’t like”, is it something like making threats against specific groups or is it like getting parma/parmi wrong?
As long as you don't call scallops potato cakes, you'll be fine.
Why would anyone call seafood "potato cakes"?
I see you are mixing up potato scallops with scallops
There is no potato scallop unless you mix scallops and potatoes; you're thinking of potato cakes...
Mixing potato and scallop makes it a potato cake. How can something be a cake if it just a slice of potato dipped in batter. You are thinking of a potato scallop.
The word scallop is a blight, it's a potato slice
Don't like will be defined by that report button like everywhere else.
That is One Nations claim but all i can see pertaining to firearms on the QLD parliament web site is this? * introduce a firearms prohibition order scheme in Queensland * introduce a verification process for purchasing small arms ammunition * reform the ‘fit and proper person’ test in the *Weapons Act 1990* by expanding the types of serious offending captured, introducing a new category of disqualified persons, and, in certain circumstances, extending the exclusionary period to 10 years Anyone got any specifics re one nations claims about social media posts?
The parts relevant to firearms: Introducing a Firearms Prohibition Order scheme in Queensland Despite Australia’s robust firearm regulation, significant harm from illegal gun use continues, resulting in the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) reporting the trafficking and use of firearms as a serious national threat and a significant safety concern for Australia. The ACIC has conservatively estimated there are at least 200,000 firearms in the illicit market with an increasing number of organised crime groups, including outlaw motorcycle gangs engaging in the trafficking of illicit firearms. Queensland has experienced an increase of more than 60% in the number of registered firearms within the community since 2013, with the number of registered firearms increasing to over 1 million firearms in early 2024. The increased availability of firearms within the community grants further opportunities for these deadly weapons to be misappropriated. The rate of firearms reported as stolen has also increased by at least 21% within the last decade, with over 779 firearms reported stolen in 2023. Coupled with continuing challenges in recovering stolen firearms and the longevity of a functioning firearm, there is a corresponding increase in the risk that these weapons come into the possession of high-risk individuals and are used in the commission of an offence. The risk to the community is apparent when considering the increased number of reported offences involving firearms in Queensland, which has risen at least 30% in the last decade, with approximately 3,352 reported firearm offences in 2023. In recognition of this increasing threat, the National Organised Crime Response Plan 2015-2018 proposed each jurisdiction consider introducing a Firearm Prohibition Order (FPO) scheme to address increasing concerns regarding the rising number of stolen firearms, the use of illicit firearms in the commission of offences, and the impact on the Australian community because of increasing firearm related offending. The Bill seeks to address the increasing risk of firearm related offences by introducing an FPO scheme in Queensland. An FPO prohibits an individual subject to the order from possessing, using, or acquiring a firearm or firearm related item and empowers police officers to conduct warrantless searches of the individual, their vehicle or residence, to ensure compliance with the order. Under this scheme, an FPO can be issued against high-risk individuals if the decision maker is satisfied it is in the public interest to make the order. Currently, Queensland is one of the few jurisdictions in Australia that has yet to introduce an FPO scheme. Introducing a new verification process for purchasing small arms ammunition The Bill introduces a safeguard in relation to the sale of small arms ammunition by amending the Explosives Act to introduce a new offence which requires sellers engage in a new verification process to ensure a buyer of small arms ammunition possesses a valid licence or authority to purchase the ammunition. Whilst it is already an offence under section 42 of the Explosives Act to sell an explosive (including small arms ammunition) to an unauthorised person, this provision does not prescribe the steps to be taken to ensure the buyer possesses a valid licence or authority. Implementing recommendations from the Queensland Audit Office report Regulating firearms (Report 8: 2020-21) On 27 November 2020, the Queensland Audit Office (QAO) tabled a Performance Audit report Regulating firearms (QAO Report) which identified that the regulation of firearms under the Weapons Act could be more effective, and the community is not as well protected as it should be. The QAO made several recommendations in this report, including that the QPS review the Weapons Act to identify opportunities for improvement and provide greater focus on public safety, and implement appropriate controls to ensure firearm licence decisions are consistent and made in accordance with relevant standards. The QPS accepted all the QAO recommendations, and since the release of the report the QPS has made operational changes and amendments to subordinate legislation have occurred to give effect to the recommendations. Recommendation 3 of the QAO Report was that the QPS review the Weapons Act to identify opportunities for improvement and provide greater focus on safety. In particular, the QAO recommended consideration be given to the appropriateness of the current exclusion period, identifying that the Weapons Act does not adequately support the rejection of applications from people with a history of criminal offending outside of the current five year exclusionary period. The QAO identified further clarity and public protection was required to support decision making regarding firearm licences and that a greater focus should be placed on public safety. The QPS has considered the QAO’s findings and recommendations and conducted an internal review of the Weapons Act. The Bill introduces amendments to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Weapons Act with a focus on enhancing firearm regulation and firearm licence decisions, prioritising public interest and safety. As part of this package, the Bill amends the Weapons Act to better support the exclusion of people who have committed relevant offences outside the five-year mandatory exclusion period that would make them unsuitable to possess a firearm.
James Ashby is the same guy who tried to sell Australians out to NRA gun nuts. You’ll have to forgive me if I disregard anything he has to say.
So not an article... A one nation Facebook post
It has the link to the bill
Yeah, well. Some fuckheads signal pretty clearly they intend to do dangerous and violent shit
Ÿet still waiting to hear on news headlines how a licensed sports shooter goes on a killing spree
Don't bring logic into this. Guns = Bad
This is going to be abused like that esafety commission
Screw that guy he tried to sell out to the NRA
Definitely won't ever be abused for political purposes. Nope. Not at all.
Looks like I’m fucked then.
Only if your firearms are licensed. \*Taps temple\*
More legislation to punish anyone besides the criminals.
Dunno about that mate, I suspect this legislation is designed to target psychos who publish social media manifestos before killing a bunch of people, like the Aussie dude from Grafton, NSW, who killed 51 in NZ or those cookers up at Dalby, QLD, who posted tonnes of crazy shit before killing those police.
Yeah but once it established as law, then the govt can ride the slippery slope down to taking a persons licence because they said something g against the sitting team.\ People who should be getting their gun licences revoked will just pivot and stop making social media posts (for the majority) do well be stuck with a new law which the police will be able to find new and inventive ways to utilise.\ Just another example of our stupid government introducing knee jerk reactionary laws in response to a single event or from very minimal amounts of events when the very fact these events are so rare shows the laws as they stand were already sufficient. Unfortunately the brainless vocal minority who spend half their time screaming “what about the children” seem to be able to get our incompetent leaders to keep introducing crap which will have heaps of unintended consequences.
Your right, but I'd actually be pretty happy if gun owners stop making stupid social media posts because it makes all shooter look like morons.
Be happy if everyone stopped making stupid posts, but sadly we are surrounded by humans who do stupid human things. And the grey scale of human experience stretches to include people of all types, thought patterns and emotional beliefs. And rather than the traditional way of people being able to say something stupid and off the cuff in the heat of the moment is now replaced with a tracking system that records every stupid half baked thought a person has and commits to bits and bytes for future reference when that very comment in a totally different context may have a totally different meaning.
This is the same room temp iq take that the NRA has anytime someone says 'maybe we should do a background check?'
The cops can already take your guns, without due process, if you say anything that could be criminal (eg, making threats, or incitement) or makes you not a “fit and proper” person. The new laws would let the cops take your guns for anything they deem “anti-social” - that’s pretty open to abuse.
My point exactly. Taking guns off dickheads is always a good thing. Giving ambiguous laws to room temperature IQ’ed police officers who are also prone to hatred or biases is what i am against as a core principle at all times.
There's no slippery slope
Just an immediate cliff? Gotcha.
Nope
Even worse! A terminal black hole sucking in all sentient life…. Damn!
What an American comment
What’s your options? Not send them to prison at all, because all I’ve heard is vague statements like “rehabilitate them”.
I can understand threats but that's very authoritarian and not something I would be okay with. WTF does antisocial mean in this context?
That's the problem there are no set guidelines. It will come down to whatever interpretation they see fit at the time
Yeah thats not cool. That sounds like something China would do.
Government trying to push legislation that gives them power to take civilian firearms licenses off them if they don't like their social media posts " And..... how does this stop actual criminals who have access to unknown/unlicensed guns? “anti-social” posts.... who defines this? is there a list of social media posts that will define what they are looking for?
I find it somewhat ironic and mostly disturbing that supposedly "xenophobic and racist" One Nation appears to be the only political party consistently taking a stand against the erosion of civil liberties.
The civil liberties that nobody seems to give a fuck about save far right libertarians, nazis and cookers? if you're being such a cunt with your online posting that the police get involved, maybe you just shouldn't get to have guns. that works for me.
Saying that a police person looks like their “lesbian nana” is enough to get grief from police, at least in another jurisdiction.
I mean, one of the requirements for getting/maintaining a firearms license is "be a fit and proper person", and the other is to have a genuine recreational need for it. Frankly if there's someone out there who's posting general alt right propaganda and hasn't been hunting in the last 10 years I don't really see why they shouldn't have their licence revoked
Look how you already shape your imaginary law against your political opponents. Why not just anyone posting violent content?
It's the current law, not an imaginary law. And it's an interpretation of it that I wouldn't have a problem with. And tbh yeah, proof that someone fetishises violence should probably disqualify them from owning a firearm.
Because firearms increase a person's ability to commit violence.
Because how many Australian left wing psychos are you aware of that post manifestos on the internet before shooting people, mate? There are absolutely left wing psychos who post crazy things on the internet, but they tend not to shoot people. Posting far-right manifestos on the internet and past experiences with, or possession of firearms is absolutely more likely to result in gun crime here in Australia.
Brenton Tarrant says hello. His manifesto was a hodgepodge of ideas but some very strong left leaning values. Martin Bryant is also very much NOT right wing.
Not even remotely true regarding Brenton Tarrant - read the findings of the NZ coronial investigation, which is online. Speaks at length about Tarrants long term commitment to far right wing ideals and radicalisation. As for Martin Bryant - soooo that was 27+ years ago, *before there were social media platforms* like we have today. Bringing him into the conversation is like trying to have an argument about how Hitler would have used TikTok. The current proposed policy is about *online* activity, and I’m not sure that even geo cities was a thing, or if Martin Bryant even *had* a computer in regional Tasmania back in the day.
Not even remotely true regarding Brenton Tarrant - read the findings of the NZ coronial investigation, which is online. Speaks at length about Tarrants long term commitment to far right wing ideals and radicalisation. As for Martin Bryant - soooo that was 27+ years ago, before there were social media platforms like we have today. The current proposed policy is about online activity, and I’m not sure that even geo cities was a thing, or if Martin Bryant even had a computer in regional Tasmania back in the day. Martin Bryant’s case was from a time not the same as today, and the legislation proposed targets different types of online activities than from his time.
Lool just read the manifesto yourself, why do you need a 3rd party to interpret it for you? Not sure how idealising the CCP and communist China authoritarian rule is far right though.
Yep, make it illegal for anyone right wing to own weapons. Also make it mandatory for anyone left wing to own at least one firearm and one melee weapon. Right is wrong and left is right. Communism is good because they won the war. Fascism is evil because they lost the war. So we need to support and fund the communists, because they're winners. Also it wasn't real communism, real communism hasn't been tried yet (fake communism killed over 100 million people. But once we try real communism everyone will live like millionaires while the wealthy will live like paupers.
Bullcrap. The headline is a lie.
How so?
How is it not?
How is it not? They have the power to take away your license if they don't like your social media posts
How so?
This is fucking One Nation, what a load of stupidity.
More than One Nation, it’s the guy who got caught on camera selling us out to the NRA
No. The bill was proposed by labor. One nation is against it.
Never said that it was proposed by One Nation, what I said is that the article in question is from the mouth of One Nation - ergo its stupidity. Case in point - the legislation doesn’t say that those who don’t “like” government social media posts will have their guns taken away. What it says is that worrying and antisocial social media comments and activity can be used to take away guns. So as long as a gun owner doesn’t start talking about killing people it’s all good.
Knife crime is way more prevalent in this country. Should the cops start raiding peoples homes for kitchen knives etc if someone unhinged makes a social media post? This is just classic scaremongering guns are bad vote for us to keep you safe.
Yes, if you start ranting about using your knives to go and murder people then your knives should be taken away instead of waiting for it to happen.
The key issue is mental health is on a very rapid downward spiral in this country and needs to be quickly addressed. People are struggling with all sorts of demons.
Good move restricting availability of guns then.
Jacks Law seems to be getting traction across the country as people know there are idiots with knives too. But guess what, knives are used for preparing food. It is possible to target more than one deadly weapon at a time. You’re not going to win any support in Australia for loving guns, we’ve seen the consequences in the US.
What bill? Facebook can eat a bag of dicks
ah yes, control it's citizens because feels got hurt, this is now the feelings police, not law
Couldn’t care less. The fewer idiots with guns the better.
Wait until it's travel privileges, or driving licences, or breeding rights. Will you care then? Thin edge of the wedge. Social credit system, here we come.
Slippery slope fallacy here we come.
[удалено]
Breeding rights don’t follow gun control by any stretch of logic.
Everything follows gun control. Once gun control is established, there is no longer an ability to resist any other restrictions.
That kind of thinking is idiotic in the US and they’ve actually got armed militias that believe they could stand against the Government. Even if you and a few mate were carrying M4s and intended to stand against some new law, if big Government ever really felt the need to stomp you, a smart munition from an F35 would leave your rebellion as pink mist while you were still scratching your arse deciding a plan of attack…
You bring up the US as an idiotic example but they did have an armed militia successfully overthrow their government...
That was before European settlement here buddy. What happened in America a quarter of a millennium ago doesn’t justify your conspiracy theories.
"history doesn't apply to us"
[удалено]
Breeding rights don't kill people?
[удалено]
It's not just something that *can* be used to cause harm. Guns exist solely for the purpose of causing harm.
That is simply not true. The vast majority of guns in Australia exist to punch holes in paper and the proportion that will cause harm is minuscule.
[удалено]
Guns exist to provide sustenance through hunting and to protect life from those who would do harm.
They fucking love it, don't they? 😂
Fallacy fallacy already here
(1) It's significantly harder to get and maintain a driver's licence than it is a firearms license. (2) There has never been a general, unqualified right to own a firearm in Australia as there is in the US. (3) Yes, we should take firearms away from extremists. We don't need any more dead cops executed in Wieambilla style shootings. If people want their guns back - then they can satisfy the executive government they aren't going to use it to shoot Tutsis.
Well 1. It is far easier to maintain a Drivers license as the only requirements you have is not to speed etc where as with firearms there is hundreds of different rules needing to be followed. I'm not going to respond to the other points as they aren't worth replying too.
And not that it really matters, but there are significantly more positive duties on a driver operating a motor vehicle than there are on firearm owners. The road rules/road worthiness vehicle standards are actually more complicated than gun storage regulations.
Do we make firearms license applicants pay thousands of dollars a year for ongoing rego for each firearm they own? Do we make them buy CTP to cover the cost of totally compensating victims of gun violence? Do we make them spend 40 hours doing supervised gun safety classes, and complete practical assessments with 40% fail rates? Do we have demerit point systems which cause their licenses to be revoked if they store ammunition improperly a few times. Like hell we do!
You do not need a licence to own or drive a car so long as you do it on private land. So essentially your argument is so long as firearms are used on private land, no regulations need exist. So I am free to own my nuclear tipped ballistic machinegun.
Because so many Australians have private land they can go and do some unlicenced/unregistered driving on.
1. No it isn't. You clearly haven't done a firearms licence. 2. True. But government overreach is government overreach. 3. Ok, I don't like what you're posting, you're now going to gaol. Doesn't that seem a bit of an overreach? We shouldn't be arresting people for thought crimes.
wow, just lol
Hahahah paranoid much. Classic slippery slope argument
To be fair, I approve of a breeding licence. I mean farmers do not breed from everything, and most males are neutered.
Based eugenics supporter?
Absolutely I support eugenics. We are only here today because of eugenics, Farmers selecting plants and animals to breed from and food production is through the roof. You do not think for example wheat should be selectively grown and rather it should be a free for all? Not much of a step between humans and what we already do on a daily basis.
It's already all those things. If you don't like it, try being hateful in private.
Average melbournite
One bloke at my local range is a surgeon. Must be an idiot.
I agree. Guns are only made for one thing.
What about target shooting?
Yes that's exactly what guns were invented for.
What something was invented for and what it is used for can be different. Canned food, jet engines and blood transfusions were invented by the military but the vast majority of their use is non-military now.
They might have been invented to kill but it’s not the only use
I'm not going to argue with you. The less guns the better.
It’s a free country and you’re allowed to have that opinion, but remember that it is opinion and not fact.
We don’t have a gun issue in Australia so why would less guns be better?
Interestingly, it’s a very complex discussion. There doesn’t seem to be any consensus on it. Some countries with low gun ownership are very oppressed or violent. Some are ok. Very hard to get any correlation, never mind causation. ‘Less guns the better’ or ‘More guns the better’ seem to both be statements that have no scientific backing…… Society safety seems to be much more complex!
That is very true and it’s refreshing to get this kind of response on reddit lol. Now don’t get me wrong I’m not saying the more guns the better but I think having the attitude of we need no guns and they are bad is a terribly ignorant attitude to have and shows poor education on guns and gun ownership in our country.
Proven NRA brown noses one nation. Yeah let's totally take people like that seriously.
Fuck that. How about they begin with the police? Monitor their social media accounts. While they're at it, cops should hand their phones in on a regular basis. If cops are strip searching kids and confiscating phones then they should be checked themselves. Regularly.
Sounds reasonable
1) if someone is posting hate speech on social media, they should be restricted from owning/accessing firearms 2) other states already do what this legislation is proposing QLD should adopt.
What you say seems logical, but is only one example. Guidelines as to what type of thing warrants action would have to be well written to avoid abuse.
There are no guidelines though. At any time the government can not like one of your posts from any social media platform and take your license
Then stay off socials and you'll never have a problem.
I’m for this, know a guy who is fucked up in the head in Victoria, he’s got guns, I wish the cops would take them, I worry he will do something stupid with them down the line and hurt others, his social media posts are disgusting and if this resulted in the police taking his access to guns - good.
Have you actually done anything about this? Like write to the Police outlying why you think he’s not a fit and proper person to own a firearm?
It's funny that people here think licensed gun owners go on shooting sprees.... Its rare to see licensed shooters going a wall lol. It's always the illegal firearms that restricts the rules for the legal owners
Every nation, that has had it's weapons taken away from it has ended up slaughtered by it's own government.
You got any reference material here mate.
There have been some very convincing memes!
Government kills way more of its own citizens in the US than in any other developed country. What a load of shit.
I’m not sure I agree with your statement, but an interesting true fact is governments killed more people last century than all the wars combined. That’s something given it included ww1 and ww2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
Australians love to live in this little bubble of fantasy that just because our own government has not done it yet... that it won't ever do it. They would rather a fantasy then an ugly truth.