John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, the old English penal colony, decided to
throw his 2 pence into the gun debate in the US. You'd think a head of state would have the sense to not comment about the internal affairs of another state but hey, everybody and their momma is talking about what they think should happen so why shouldn't he?
I have a problem with John Howard tooting his horn for what should be some obvious reasons. Let's begin with this:
IT is for Americans and their elected representatives to determine the right response to President Obama’s proposals on gun control. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Americans on the subject.
Oh, he shouldn't lecture Americans on what they should do but he's going to go and do so anyway. Well why even bother with that opener?
Then there was the following which should have caused the editors of the NY times to say "no thanks, post this in one of your country's newpapers and
maybe we'll link to it:
Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)
Excuse me? Did I read that right. Your country has no Bill of Rights (AKA supposed guaranteed freedoms that the government
cannot take away? And you think that it's
better?
Then what the fuck are you doing posting in an American paper?
Seriously, After saying how he shouldn't presume to lecture Americans, this idiot goes on to trash the fundamental document of the nation? The fuck is wrong with him?
This guy actually believes that citizens should not have a "guaranteed" right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press and self-defense with arms? He thinks it's better to not have a guarantee of a trial jury by peers? With a government that must prove guilt rather than a citizen having to prove to the state that he or she is innocent? That the state cannot up and grab your property on it's own whim? That the state cannot deprive you of your freedom or property without due process and probable cause?
This dick thinks that not having these things enshrined in the sovereign law of the land is
Better?
One does not have to support the NRA to call this bullocks for what it is.
One does not have to oppose "gun control" to see thus steaming pile for what it is.
John states the obvious: If there are no guns there can be no gun crimes. In the US unless the second amendment is repealed, there will be guns in America. Along with that will be the rights of citizens to own guns (some more lethal than others). And there will be gun crime.
One either accepts that the price of a free country with a right to own guns is gun violence (along with all the other types) or you decrease the freedom. Those are the only options here.
The same logic applies to freedom of speech. Some people will use that freedom to say really vile things. We cannot and should not preempt such speech unless we wish to be less free to speak. This is why I object most strenuously to "hate speech" legislation and the like. The state should simply NOT be in the business of regulating speech other than that which poses an immediate danger to life or that is libel or slander (under civil laws).
So Johnny boy should go back under the rock he crawled out from under with his nonsense about it's better to not have a Bill of Rights.
'
