Should We Boycott Amazon and FedEx?

Toothfairy0412 on 27/02/2018 - 23:06
Last edited 04/03/2018 - 00:34 by 1 other user

I know the US gun debate isn't entirely relevant to us in Australia but as a recent high school graduate, I feel strongly and morally obliged to stop buying from businesses that support the NRA, no matter how good a deal maybe. This includes purchasing from Amazon and using shipping services from FEDEX. Where does everyone stand on this topic?

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/delta-united-latest-companies-to…

http://time.com/money/5176783/nra-boycott-fedex-amazon-apple…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/fedex-stands-by-nra-d…

https://www.change.org/p/jeff-bezos-remove-nratv-from-amazon…

some articles for interest

Update: fedex stocks have tumble 2.27% at time of writing

update: there is now a wikipedia page based on the boycott of NRA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_NRA_boycott

Poll Options

  • 69
    I will boycott these companies until they change their stance on the NRA
  • 350
    I will continue to purchase/utilise services provided by these companies.
General Discussion

Comments

  • neil on 27/02/2018 - 23:15
    +11

    I find it interesting in the amount of discounts a NRA membership gets. Curious to see how many people signed for a membership at least in part of the discounts as It is a highlighted benefit. For $40USD/year might actually be a bargain.

    Discounts of note: Hertz, Best Western, United, Delta. Article

    • Toothfairy0412 on 27/02/2018 - 23:24
      +1

      United and delta have recently announced that they will be parting ways witth the NRA but from an ozbargain point of view the 40$ membership might be worth it previously when your paying for hundreds in flight tickets

      • plague69 on 02/03/2018 - 00:25
        +5

        Sorry, but I think you should add a 3rd option to the vote:
        - Boycott everything related to cigarette companies
        They legally kill more people each quarter in the USA alone VS the whole modern Iraq war.

        • Gauntlet on 02/03/2018 - 13:29
          +11

          Except no one is shoving them in your gob. Sure, smokes are addictive but people who die from a gunshot generally don't get a choice.

        • mccarthyp64 on 03/03/2018 - 02:25
          +1

          @Gauntlet: In the US, 18000 of the 30000 gun deaths that happen per year are suicide so yes, it is similar to smoking except that a much larger proportion of people don't do it to themselves. I wouldn't go so far as to say generally when the rate of suicide is so high (which smoking essentially is in long form).

        • Other on 03/03/2018 - 13:24
          +3

          @Gauntlet: secondhand smoke? (especially in work environment).

        • SargeantPi on 04/03/2018 - 21:49

          @TheMostHated: work environment with smokers? is this 1990?

        • Other on 04/03/2018 - 23:00
          +1

          @Brytan: There are cases where people whom have inhaled cigarette smoke have gone onto develop cancer. You could still smoke in clubs and pubs in NT up to 2010 and NSW up to 2007. Thats hardly 1990's… (just add 20 years and you get there).

        • Toothfairy0412 on 05/03/2018 - 11:54
          -1

          except smoking is regulated significantly with huge restrictions. irrelevant comment

        • plague69 on 05/03/2018 - 21:34

          @2asian4this: Last time I checked, you can smoke in more places then you could shoot. Plus you can legally harm someone else with a smoke

      • ambominathan on 03/03/2018 - 17:17

        Pretty sure it was only for flights to and from the NRA conference so it probably wouldn't have been that much

    • djkelly69 on 27/02/2018 - 23:43
      +6

      Curious to see how many people signed for a membership at least in part of the discounts

      Which has fairly large implications, given that they claim to represent nearly 5 million members.

    • peterw1 on 01/03/2018 - 11:14
      +2

      do they offer discounts on funeral plans, coffins etc?

    • Toons on 02/03/2018 - 23:54
      +1

      Just become relevant Libs tried slipping it into the Tasmanian election to relax gun control.

      Hope all the lot from Tasmania show them we don't need that crap reintroduced here.

      The actual policy was slipped a few hours ago now when a reporter caught one of the libs looking up online what the changes would allow.

  • kahn on 27/02/2018 - 23:17
    +126

    I feel strongly and morally obliged

    This is what happens when you spend too much time on social media.

      • altomic on 27/02/2018 - 23:27
        +50

        Our thoughts and Prayers are with them.

      • kahn on 28/02/2018 - 00:14
        +36

        Fine. It also happens when you spend too much time reading and watching news. If you consume these news uncritically, then you allow yourself to be manipulated by the news presenters. There's so much death and suffering in the world and this Parkland school shooting has received a disproportionately high amount of coverage. Maybe there will be a civil war in America about banning guns just like there was about slavery :-P

        • Toothfairy0412 on 28/02/2018 - 00:24
          +1

          I agree with you completely and maybe my emotions to play a factor in my views but Trump and the NRA are encouraging schools to be armed with guards "like banks" -https://twitter.com/DailySignal/status/968199254442463232

          I'm pretty sure most of us agree that school should be a place where kids learn in a safe and engaging environment, where there should be no constant anxiety or fear about the prospect of getting brutally murdered. Its something no child should ever go through- a school with guards patrolling the borders of the school with guns or teachers carrying guns, it's just a place full of fear. That's what the NRA stands for they believe schools need to be better protected and that the guns aren't the problem

        • payton on 28/02/2018 - 00:25
          +4

          future civil war flick with anti-gun freedom fighters brandishing blowpipes and sharpened bamboo spears
          take my money already

        • kahn on 28/02/2018 - 00:30
          +2

          @2asian4this:

          The NRA and the gun manufacturers probably don't care how the schools are run, as long as there's an increase in gun sales. It's all about the money. On one hand, the NRA can argue that gun controls are an abuse of power, while others can argue that teachers carrying guns are an abuse of power. Everyone's afraid but there are different reactions. Do you increase your own power or do you decrease others' power?

        • Toothfairy0412 on 28/02/2018 - 00:49
          -8

          @kahn:

          Exactly so why should we support businesses that supports an association that wants to make money but not caring about the society or safety of others? I agree different people will take restrictions differently but its like drink driving there should be at least some restrictions in place and the nra are pretty much against any restriction. There needs to be a balance in regards t how much power is distributed among government, people and the nra.

        • kahn on 28/02/2018 - 00:58
          +10

          @2asian4this:

          an association that wants to make money but not caring about the society or safety of others

          You've pretty much described every mutli-billion dollar company :-P

        • Emerald Owl on 28/02/2018 - 16:15
          +2

          @2asian4this: we protect everything considered valuable with guns, politicians, banks, sports games, aeroplanes, museums, etc. yet you don’t want to protect schools of say 5000 children with them? Armed guards can do a lot more than try to stop mass murderers.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/02/2018 - 16:27
          +1

          @payton:

          If the US government goes to war with a section of its own people, those people are going to be popped by drones before they even realise they are under attack. It's really not going to make much of a difference whether they are carrying a bamboo spear or an assault rifle.

        • freemoneyhunter on 28/02/2018 - 17:21
          +8

          @2asian4this: Fast food kills 100+ times more people than guns do in America, should ban fast food.

        • payless69 on 28/02/2018 - 17:28

          @freemoneyhunter: well said! Sadly it also affects just about every other western country with a creep to emerging economies as well. France is one notable exception still some attractive women left!

        • Binchicken22 on 28/02/2018 - 17:46
          +2

          @Cubist:

          Would be highly unlikely for a government to take that approach against their own people, That's just like saying why would any nation maintain an army once they have nukes.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/02/2018 - 18:08
          +1

          @brad1601: In the case of an armed revolt where large numbers of people were using assault weapons against the military? I wouldn't be surprised. I don't think you can compare the nuclear option for a number of reasons, mostly the civilian collateral damage and long lasting fallout.

          There has to be a point where people come to the realisation that its their good nature towards each other and willingness to work together that keep them safe. Not their ability to defend themselves when their society inevitably collapses. Most other first world nations seem to be getting by with progressive weapon reform while maintaining their quality of life and living every bit as free. Either the people in the US are the worst people in the first world and it's their guns that keep them safe and civil towards each other, or their guns aren't actually keeping them any safer than they would be without them.

          @freemoneyhunter:
          Over indulgence on fast food is killing people who opt into it. People aren't walking into public places and throwing whoppers at strangers until they die.

        • Maxxjet on 28/02/2018 - 22:28
          +2

          @freemoneyhunter: people who eats fast food is under their free will, people gets killed by guns in that manner were not.

        • iDroid on 28/02/2018 - 23:57
          +8

          @2asian4this: Disclaimer - I am not a proponent of "home gun ownership".

          But for the sake of topic interest, as I understand it, the Americans' right to bear arms was not only borne from the idea of individuals protecting themselves from each other, but more that the people could protect themselves from rogue plays of power (a military coup, cough….rogue president….cough, anarchy, etc)

          Which may sound crazy, until ….

        • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2018 - 12:12
          +1

          A civil war?
          Who would have the guns?

        • frewer on 01/03/2018 - 15:11

          @kahn: I couldn't agree any more with what @kahn said. It should a sensitive and complex issue for USA. May I add that these shooter either was on drug or has had a history of drug usage/abuse.

        • freemoneyhunter on 01/03/2018 - 22:24
          +2

          @iDroid: In Russia people were allowed to have guns until the soviets took all their guns and made them into slaves (and killing 60 million of them). There are powerful forces trying to disarm the American people I believe for the same purpose.

        • FatBlanket on 02/03/2018 - 06:18
          +1

          @freemoneyhunter: they could do that right now… Some civilians with guns aren't going to compete with the US military.

        • hayne on 02/03/2018 - 23:19
          +1

          @iDroid: But that misses the point - the founding fathers couldn't have imagined the second amendment in the context of today's society. It was intended to protect against abuses of sovereign power, not to allow for AR15s to be used to kill dozens of innocent civilians in a matter of minutes.

          The right to bear arms probably sounds ridiculous for most other Western nations but let's let's ignore the debate on whether there's a place for a right to bear arms in a civilised society. The real issue is that the American gun lobby has taken it to ridiculous extremes, where even common sense suggestions like banning bump stocks, expanding background checks, even restrictions on gun purchases (from memory, I think Obama had tried to limit gun purchases to two a month - which was soundly rejected by Republicans in the thrall of the NRA) can't get any traction. It's ludicrous.

        • trongy on 03/03/2018 - 10:57
          +2

          @iDroid:

          That is a mythology that is often repeated by the gun people in America, but I don't see much historical evidence*.

          After the fighting war of independence with the British, America was a developing nation that could not afford to maintain a large standing army of professional soldiers that was up to European standards of the time. A militia of armed citizens was seen as a reserve force, necessary for the nation's defence. Note that in the war of 1812, the militia was unable to stop a British army force from invading Washington DC and burning the White House.

          At the time of independence, the population of African slaves in the southern states was higher than the white population so guns were used to shoot slaves who tried to rebel. As settlers spread west across the great plains, guns were used to displace the native Americans of that area. The American buffalo were a large source of food and material for the plains indians so they were shot in great numbers, making the indians impoverished and dependent on government handouts. In 1800 there were an estimated 60 million buffalo on the American prairie. By 1900, there were about 500 buffalo left.

          * The US bill of rights is based on the English bill of rights of 1689. The English bill of rights grants the right to bear arms to Protestants. This bill was passed at the time when Catholic James II was in exile, but still claiming the right to the English throne and threatening to invade. English parliament had earlier invited William of Orange to become William II of England. In the English context, the right to bear arms was seen as protection against power of undesirable monarchs.

        • iDroid on 03/03/2018 - 11:31
          +2

          @hayne: I totally agree. I never meant to imply that I'd have any support for personal gun ownership.

          It was presented as a means to understand the idea behind the original concept.

          I don't accept any of the nonsense arguments. Access to guns increases the likelihood of being deaths by guns.

          It's certainly a whoop-dee-doo moment: https://vimeo.com/97417009

        • Magpye on 04/03/2018 - 14:03

          @Cubist: People aren't walking into public places and throwing whoppers at strangers until they die
          I think you've just discovered a niche TV game show..

        • [Deactivated] on 04/03/2018 - 14:57

          @AllWins: while I mostly agree with you at a certain level I don't. Everyone makes different choices under different circumstances. If the cost of McDonalds was subsidised by 75% consumption would skyrocket. Environment and context affects choices but we make them. It's up to government to try and create an environment that fosters good choices, not make them for us eg. pricing out the poor from smoking.

          The health star rating system is a joke made by producers.

      • smartazz104 on 28/02/2018 - 21:03
        +5

        And? The "media" tells you want they want you to hear.

    • infinite on 28/02/2018 - 17:39
      +2

      OP is so clueless, they don't even realise that the majority of the Armerican voters and an even higher proportion who are parents, not only support arming teachers, but blame the lack of police action and local government policies that led to the shooting, NOT guns.

      According to Rasmussen, 54% of Americans believe government failure is to “blame for the mass shooting.” Only 33% of Americans blame guns.

      When the sample group was adjusted so as to focus only on Americans “who have children of elementary or secondary school age,” the percentage of Americans who cite government failure as causal jumped to 61 and the percentage who blamed guns dropped to 23.

      This is from a left-leaning political source, too, no less: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/curr…

      • ipiok on 28/02/2018 - 18:25
        +9

        Sounds rational, let's keeping blaming everything except the problem.. " we need to keep arming ourselves to protect ourselves from the guns we armed ourselves with… "

        • infinite on 28/02/2018 - 19:01
          +8

          They clearly blame those responsible. The school security, school leaders, school administration, local law enforcement, state law enforcement and FBI were all warned repeatedly (Over 50 times via official complaints and warnings no less) about the ISIS supporting kid, but not only did nothing about him, they colluded to go out of their way to do nothing about him or his actions. In fact rather ironically, the students who harassed the shooter, who said and did nothing at the school in the lead-up are now the one's virtue signalling and speaking out publicly about banning gun's. While the one's who actually did the right thing but were left powerless by idiotic "gun free" zones suffered the most at the hands of the killer.

          Criminals don't follow the law. They'll get gun's despite it. An extra law only infringes on everyone's rights.

          Stabbings and acid attacks are a leading form of crime in the UK, they don't ban knives or chemicals. Gay's and women are stoned to death in the middle east, they aren't pulling down their houses as a result. African American's account for the majority of gun crime perpetrated against everyone in the US, no one's going to ban their existence, or their access to gun's.

        • freemoneyhunter on 28/02/2018 - 20:43
          +3

          40 years ago this wasn't a problem, school shootings never happened. What changed was the culture which I think has been degrading, grabbing guns won't change the underlying problem. Anyway FBI should have done something about that kid a long time ago, plays into what many suspect many of the shootings were allowed to let happen so they can grab guns, shootings have always been used as a pretext to grab guns.

        • Pacify on 02/03/2018 - 02:23

          Sure. Same thing at the Texas shooting right? Same thing at Sandy Hook? Same thing at Columbine? Same thing at all the other dozens and dozens of mass shootings?

          Absolute garbage, stop believing pathetic lies.

          It comes down to the lack of proper mental health care and the western world's most idiotic gun laws.

          Stabbings and acid attacks are a leading form of crime in the UK,

          You really enjoy reading those right wing talking points don't you? Do you spend a lot of time on T_D? Cause thats what you look like.

        • hayne on 02/03/2018 - 23:28
          +2

          @infinite: An AR-15 can fire north of 400 rounds per minute.
          Stabbings and acid attacks - while horrific - can't do anywhere near the devastation that an assault rifle can. So how are they in the same ball park?

          In London, you're just as likely to be robbed as you are in New York. You're just 54 times more likely to die as a result because of the likelihood that a gun is used in the robbery.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shoot…

        • trongy on 03/03/2018 - 11:35
          +1

          @freemoneyhunter:

          40 years ago this wasn't a problem, school shootings never happened.

          The Cleveland Elementary School shooting happened 39 years ago.

          The worst school shooting in the US happened 90 years ago.

          Looking at this wikipedia list it is clear that school shootings have become more frequent in the US in recent years.

        • Other on 03/03/2018 - 13:36
          -2

          @hayne: I would rather get shot (and risk dying) than doused with acid.

          An AR-15 can fire north of 400 rounds per minute.

          The majority of killings in the US are caused by a handgun and you can easily do just as much damage with automatic handgun as an AR-15 (except obviously at distance).

      • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 19:08
        +3

        and 50% of americans think prayer and god is the answer, even though he keeps failing and the bad news keeps repeating.

        • infinite on 28/02/2018 - 23:06

          Well athiest's only make up 3% of the US population, so the number there is likely much higher. The big difference of course being that those who pray don't think prayer is the answer, simply that it helps themselves feel hope. They don't pray away attackers or killers, they acknowledge reality and use their second amendment to protect themselves and their families with guns instead. It's only the majority of far left leaning athiests who are of the opinion they can "well-wish" and "virtue signal" away killers and bad people. Unfortunately though that just leads to fantasy land level garbage decisions and policies that leave people vulnerable.

        • ninetyNineCents on 01/03/2018 - 12:09
          -4

          @infinite:

          I: The big difference of course being that those who pray don't think prayer is the answer, simply that it helps themselves feel hope.

          99: Thats untrue, they actually believe prayer works.

          I: They don't pray away attackers or killers, they acknowledge reality and use their second amendment to protect themselves and their families with guns instead

          99: Nobpdy in America needs to pray to go buy a gun. This just a measure of how stupid they are asking someome who doesnt listen.

          Its a bit lie the islamic failure in the middle east, all that praying when the simple answer is islam is a failure and its culture and values need to change.

          I: It's only the majority of far left leaning athiests who are of the opinion they can "well-wish" and "virtue signal" away killers and bad people

          99: WHo said they are FLL ?

          I: Unfortunately though that just leads to fantasy land level garbage decisions and policies that leave people vulnerable.

          99: Says the person who labels athiests FLL…

        • Pacify on 02/03/2018 - 02:21

          @infinite:

          Well athiest's only make up 3% of the US population,

          LOL

      • This Guy on 01/03/2018 - 19:29

        These polls are loaded. The questions are, what do you think would be better…, not what is the one and only way to combat…

      • Pacify on 02/03/2018 - 02:20
        -1

        OP is so clueless, they don't even realise that the majority of the Armerican voters and an even higher proportion who are parents, not only support arming teachers, but blame the lack of police action and local government policies that led to the shooting, NOT guns.

        Oh come on, that is utter garbage.

        • Other on 03/03/2018 - 13:38
          +1

          What OP is saying is true.

      • The Almighty Dollar on 02/03/2018 - 10:02
        +4

        OP is far from clueless. If people would stop throwing baseless insults around in these debates people might be more inclined to have a proper debate, but generally that’s done when you have no idea yourself, Trump is the king of the practice.

        Good on OP for turning his mind to this and making people aware, hopefully he keeps it up and furthers his knowledge through university, if that’s what he’s doing.

        Generally what it comes down to with choosing to boycott a company is whether you can afford to boycott it. I doubt many on here refuse a good deal because there’s a good chance the product’s been made by slave labor though.

        • owli on 04/03/2018 - 00:43

          Good on OP for turning his mind to this and making people aware, hopefully, he keeps it up and furthers his knowledge through university, if that’s what he’s doing.

          Yes, I am sure his viewpoint regarding the NRA and guns will be challenged at university.

        • The Almighty Dollar on 04/03/2018 - 08:52
          +1

          @owli: Why wouldn’t it be? I love how these threads bring out the Russian trolls.

      • hayne on 02/03/2018 - 23:39
        +2

        How is the Rasmussen Report left-leaning? It's neutral at best and the evidence suggests it supports conservative causes more often than not due to the leading way it words its poll questions
        https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-rasmussen-reports-bi…

        So quoting a conservative source doesn't do that much to bolster your argument.

        The thing you've left out is that the vast, vast majority of Americans support stricter gun control laws. That much is not in question.

        http://time.com/5167216/americans-gun-control-support-poll-2…
        https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/gun-control-vegas-…
        https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-support-…
        https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/25/politics/cnn-poll-gun-con…
        http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/two-new-polls-s…
        https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

        • Other on 03/03/2018 - 13:50

          Polls can be made to say anything (especially with gun control!). Polls predicted Hillary would win - Can you remind us what the % chance all those news sources were saying in terms of Hilary wining the election - it started with 99%.

          A large % of Americans might be in favour of gun control just like a larger % of Americans voted for Hillary (meaning if you want to sway your results - do your interviews in cities - thats where the most people are).

          The NRA has power because of its support with 'Red' voters/citizenry, not with donations.

          (and yes I support gun control / banning guns, etc).

    • aoeueoa on 28/02/2018 - 18:59
      +4

      I think when you attribute having moral standing to being on social media too much is when you actually have spent too much time on social media.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/02/2018 - 23:26
    +2

    whats wrong with Fedex?

    • plague69 on 02/03/2018 - 00:19
      -1

      Cos they won't do what we think they should to do make something we think is correct come true.

      NRA is a controlled version of the organization. I'd rather see a controlled accountable central organization than a uncontrollable, decentralised mess.

      Think we should boycott anything to do with smokes companies first. They legally kill millions a year but hey, guns are a hotter topic I guess.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 00:34
        +1

        dont care mate, NRA is in america, i am in australia

      • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 15:03

        Lmao is "what about smokes" the new red herring to replace "what about car crashes"?

        Here's an idea, go make a thread about smokes instead of trying to derail the current topic.

        • plague69 on 02/03/2018 - 21:18

          Nah, don't feel like it, just feel like posting here. Thanks for the suggestion though

  • GS9891 on 27/02/2018 - 23:27
    -2

    Yeah nah, second amendment for us as well would be better, or even an actual bill of rights to start with.

    • blitz on 27/02/2018 - 23:34
      +7

      AHHHH HA HA HA HA

      <reads again>

      AAAAAHHH HAA HAAA HAA

      • GS9891 on 28/02/2018 - 00:16
        +15

        Lol freedom how silly I don't want any of that

        K. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        • JustHereForDeals on 28/02/2018 - 00:57
          +9

          A Bill of Rights, heck, any sort of document detailing our rights in this country would be nice. Then maybe the draconian, nanny state approach that the federal government is doing wouldn't extend to what it is in the first place.

        • abb on 28/02/2018 - 13:49
          +8

          @JustHereForDeals:

          any sort of document detailing our rights in this country would be nice.

          Indeed.

          Human rights are protected under the Australian Constitution in several ways:
          Self-determination is protected by the creation of a system of responsible government chosen by the people in the form of the Australian Parliament;
          Section 41 provides a right to vote;
          Section 51(xxiii) prohibits civil conscription in relation to medical and dental services;
          section 51(xxxi) empowers the Commonwealth to acquire property only "on just terms";
          Section 80 provides a right to a jury trial for indictable offences;
          Section 92 protects freedom of interstate trade, commerce and intercourse;
          Section 116 prohibits the Commonwealth from passing laws establishing religion, imposing religious observance, or requiring a religious test for qualification for public office;
          Section 117 prohibits discrimination on the basis of State residence.

          In addition, as a result of certain structural implications and principles, the Constitution protects human rights indirectly through several means, including:
          An implied freedom of political communication on government and political matters;[7]
          A requirement that punishment (and, with some exceptions, imprisonment) only occur pursuant a court order, arising from the separation of powers;[8]
          A requirement that courts be independent and impartial from the executive and legislature;[9]
          The right to challenge the legality of government action for jurisdictional error, even where legislation purports to preclude judicial review.[10][11]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Australia#Aust…

        • Emerald Owl on 28/02/2018 - 16:34
          +7

          @abb: yea but no freedom of speech, racial or gender equality, etc.

        • btst7000 on 28/02/2018 - 16:42
          +6

          @abb: Yet we have no right to bear arms in the name of self defense

        • abb on 28/02/2018 - 16:49
          +7

          @Gizdonk: Those rights are covered pretty well by legislation (and common law) IMO. (I'm not a big fan of the terrorist panic sedition laws, though I haven't looked into it too much)

          @btst7000: I can't be bothered looking up the law (federal Crimes act?) but the right to proportional force used in self defense is well established in Australian law. You can even kill someone if they are endangering the life of a third person.

          Firearms ownership is restricted, yes. Many people accept that reducing the number of guns available is a net positive for society.

        • Emerald Owl on 28/02/2018 - 17:50
          +4

          @abb: yea, I am more of a free speech purist than most people, you either have it or you don’t, and offensive speech being illegal is not free.

          Self-protection is not a legally valid reason to own a gun, valid reasons include pest control and shooting clubs. There are more guns in Australia now than there were before the buyback. Some would say the ability to own firearms to prevent government tyranny would be a net positive for society.

        • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 19:09
          +4

          @JustHereForDeals:

          Feel free to move to the USA and its freedoms. The freedom to have no free healthcare, the freedom to have gun massacres, …

        • JustHereForDeals on 01/03/2018 - 00:48
          +3

          @ninetyNineCents:

          I do have plans to actually. Speaking as someone who plays Civ V a lot, I think the US had one of the best starts to any country and carried it well making it one of the best, most powerful countries the western world has ever produced.

          I can comprehend the tenor behind your words, and frankly, I can live with that.

          The freedom to not be forced as a medical practitioner to treat someone against the former's will (even if paid); the freedom to practice the inalienable right to LAWFULLY bear arms and possibly to defend fellow countrymen should there be a threat to lives instead of waiting for the law when seconds matter.

          With your negativity you may see a dysfunctional country, but I see an idea; a grand experiment if you will, with the whole world watching as you yourself know.

          It's far from perfect but I'd be honoured to have it as a place called "home".

        • HumbleCat on 01/03/2018 - 04:10
          +3

          @JustHereForDeals: Don't match username

        • ninetyNineCents on 01/03/2018 - 12:05

          @JustHereForDeals:

          I do have plans to actually. Speaking as someone who plays Civ V a lot, I think the US had one of the best starts to any country and carried it well making it one of the best, most powerful countries the western world has ever produced.

          Why would an ordinary person care if a country can or cannot bomb the shit out of somewhere else ?

          I guess it shows with your little XXX, i need a gun attitude.

          the freedom to practice the inalienable right to LAWFULLY bear arms and possibly to defend fellow countrymen should there be a threat to lives instead of waiting for the law when seconds matter.

          Thats a lot of hogwash, sometimes we need to be sensible for the better of the community. Having a plague of guns doesnt help reduce violence, it causes a lot of grief and innocent victims.

          With your negativity you may see a dysfunctional country, but I see an idea; a grand experiment if you will, with the whole world watching as you yourself know.

          No i see a country hostage to a bunch of aresholes, who dont see the consequences of their own selfish wants.

          It shows with the downright lies they continue to spew such the nonsense, the teachers if they had a gun would have shot the idiot. Pretty sad , that everyone needs to watch everyone with a gun ready just because of selfish people who want guns.

          After all whats better, no guns or everyone having guns watching just in case a nutter decides to shoot you ?

        • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2018 - 14:19
          +1

          @JustHereForDeals:
          The state is only draconian to those who accept the draconian ruling (ie. Law abiding citizens).

          The state is a toothless dog when it comes to pursuing actual criminals. They behave like a small dog does when they know the bigger dog is leashed but pretend they don't exist when they know otherwise. Look at Victoria's crime spree. Apparently it is not happening.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 01/03/2018 - 14:49
          +3

          @ninetyNineCents:

          The freedom to not have to fund free healthcare for irresponsible people,

          FTFY

        • ninetyNineCents on 01/03/2018 - 17:35
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          The freedom to not have to fund free healthcare for irresponsible people,

          Well if you want to make it a monetary thing, people in America pay significantly more than your medicare levy, and get far less.

          So your attempt at being "smart" actually gives you and others a worse deal.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join