Posted on 05/12/2013 3:32:14 AM PDT by Daffynition
AUSTRALIA and the US will merge to form one super nation called Ameristralia. Sound like a gag? Maybe not.
A petition has been created on the official White House website calling for the Obama Administration to join "America and Australia to form Ameristralia".
The "We the People" section on the whitehouse.gov website was launched in 2011 to allow the public, in accordance with the First Amendment of the US Constitution, to petition the US government on issues deemed important.
(Excerpt) Read more at danj-loromaes.newsvine.com ...
Isn’t Ameristralia called Oceania in 1984?
Yes sir
I want to merge with on young good looking women.
My apology is offered; I don’t know how I got that disinformation. How about concealed/open carry laws? When you talk about stupid rules, our state of New Jersey requires that you “prove a need” to carry a weapon to the satisfaction of a sheriff’s department bureaucrat. Unless you are politically or socially connected, the “proof” is seldom sufficient. A clear infringement upon our second amendment.
Why would a proud, democratic state with a long history of military valor and capitalist inventiveness want anything to do with joining the United States? :)
It’s a good reason not to play cloning.
Bloody well right mate.
“How about adding in Canada as well? And, we could set up a system where each area keeps its own regional autonomy but everyone contributes to the greater good. We could call such regionally autonomous areas “countries”.”
That’d never work. Way too complicated.
I mean, if everyone was doing their own thing, how could a common standard of welfare dependency ever be established?
I mean, if everyone was doing their own thing, how could a common standard of welfare dependency ever be established?
***That isn’t the real goal. The real goal is to gather power. If they have to do it by generating welfare dependency, then they will. But such power-hungry droolers aren’t really interested in welfare anyways.
I do - and no apology is necessary on your part. Unfortunately this idea has been spread around enough that it's hardly surprising somebody reads it and believes it. And some guns are 'prohibited' or 'banned' - that's the reason I have a .38 handgun, because it's the heaviest non-prohibited calibre.
How about concealed/open carry laws?
Not clear, to say the least. It is lawful for a licenced shooter (and you have to have a licence) to carry a firearm they are licenced to carry, while in use and active control, for lawful purposes. But if you carry a firearm openly, police could charge you with breach of the peace if anybody complained, and if you carry concealed, they could charge you with carrying a concealed weapon without lawful excuse. It's up to the discretion of the police - and if they do charge you, it's up to the courts. Most of the time the police exercise commonsense - but there's absolutely no guarantee that they will. So carrying is something to be done with caution and discretion.
When you talk about stupid rules, our state of New Jersey requires that you “prove a need” to carry a weapon to the satisfaction of a sheriff’s department bureaucrat.
Yes, we have a similar law here - to get more than the most basic firearms licence, you have to prove to a senior police officer you have a 'reason to own' that weapon. In my state, they are fairly flexible on this, and provided you don't have a criminal record, or something else to set off alarm bells, they tend to accept a wide range of reasons - but in some other states, I've heard they take a lot of convincing.
We don't any real equivalent to your second amendment in our laws (there is a limited right to bear arms in the 17th century Bill of Rights we inherited from England, but it explicitly says Parliament can set laws limiting that right, so it doesn't mean much), so we have less protection if a government really did choose to ban firearms. And John Howard's government did come close to that in 1996, but fortunately, his city based conservative party (the Liberal Party) was in coalition with a rural based conservative party (the Nationals - their leader, Tim Fischer, was Deputy Prime Minister under John Howard) and they prevented the laws going as far as they could have gone. That period is where a lot of the idea of guns being banned in Australia comes from - because it was Howard's intent to begin with, and his rhetoric reflected that, and we also got the gun buyback which lead to the iconic photos of piles of surrendered weapons - most of those weapons though, were still actually legal, but the government offered a fair price for them, no questions asked, and not everybody wanted to keep all their weapons.
Just change the Blue to Islamabad.
“***That isn’t the real goal. The real goal is to gather power. If they have to do it by generating welfare dependency, then they will. But such power-hungry droolers aren’t really interested in welfare anyways.”
Well, of course. Welfare was never really meant as anything other than a mechanism by which to trap people into the Go Nowhere and Be Nothing pit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.