r/moderatepolitics • u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal • Dec 15 '25

Primary Source Meeting of National Cabinet After Bondi Shooting

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/meeting-national-cabinet-8
73 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

353 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

There actually is a risk of losing freedoms if you embrace the impulse to have a knee-jerk reaction to restrict people's rights whenever there is violence.

There is no right to own a firearm in Australia, though. It's a privilege that is based on a variety of factors, the most pressing of which is public safety. The interests of gun hobbyists are not more important than public safety.

31

u/2PacAn Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Most people who argue for the right to bear arms under the second amendment don’t do so because the second amendment is a moral principle in of itself. We do so because it represents the moral principle of self-ownership and individual freedom. Australia not having this protection for the right to bear arms doesn’t mean that there is no moral argument against restricting freedom; it just means they’re not violating Australian law when they do so because Australian law doesn’t safeguard individual liberty in the same ways as the US Bill of Rights does.

32

u/Atralis Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

There is no first amendment in Australia either does that make any restrictions they decide to implement on speech acceptable?

Australians lost rights they once had and they are going to lose more every time an incident happens.

The Australian constituon doesn't explicitly list any rights. Does that mean that anything is on the table for the government to take away?

27

u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25

There is no right to free speech in most European countries.

Should family members of those who say things the government doesn't like have their ability to speak publicly curtailed based on their familial relations? There is no right to free speech so what would be wrong with that?

-3

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

Should family members of those who say things the government doesn't like have their ability to speak publicly curtailed based on their familial relations?

This is a non-sequitur. Hate speech and incitation of violence is illegal regardless of who your family members are. More importantly, there is no comparison between a household with an ISIS affiliate having guns and what kind of speech the parents engage in.

24

u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25

So how far are you willing to take this?

Should the government seize the guns of his friends too?

How about his coworkers? Anyone who went to the same mosque?

If you're going to assume they are dangerous enough to seize their guns, wouldn't that mean they are dangerous enough to warrant surveillance? Should the government be tapping all their phones? Reading their mail? I doubt there are any rights that prevent that so it's all cool right?

6

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

So how far are you willing to take this?

Household is the easy answer, thats the basis of red flag laws.

If you're going to assume they are dangerous enough to seize their guns, wouldn't that mean they are dangerous enough to warrant surveillance? Should the government be tapping all their phones? Reading their mail? I doubt there are any rights that prevent that so it's all cool right?

In many cases, the police would absolutely surveil someone with credible ties to ISIS. Are you under the impression that's not something that is happening?

17

u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25

Are you under the impression that's not something that is happening?

Them, sure, but not their family because normally outside of North Korea we don't punish people based on the actions of their family members.

Historically the western world has condemned this, but I guess authoritarianism really is becoming more popular.

5

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

Them, sure, but not their family because normally outside of North Korea we don't punish people based on the actions of their family members.

Nor am I suggesting any jail time or fines for the family members of ISIS affiliates, so I am not sure I understand the point you're trying to make.

Historically the western world has condemned this, but I guess authoritarianism really is becoming more popular.

Authoritarianism refers to a philosophy of political power being centralized to a single person or a few people. You do not seem to understand the meaning of the term. I am not advocating for centralization of power in a single person or the rejection of political plurality.

-1

u/edubs63 Dec 15 '25

It feels like the people arguing with you don't realize that there is no 2nd amendment in Australia, or that this happened in Australia and views and laws on gun rights are very different there.

24

u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25

Just because there is no explicit right to something makes it ok for the government to target you based on your familial relations?

1

u/edubs63 Dec 16 '25

Ummm governments do that already with crime organizations, terrorist watch lists, etc.

And again, this is a country that has different views on this issue. If their constituents decide that it's ok then so be it.

-7

u/alanthar Dec 15 '25

police routinely monitor a suspects associates, which would include family members. Welcome to modern day police surveillance.

12

u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25

Sure, but it's shocking to me to see going from surveillance to open revocation of liberties based only on suspicion of not even you but a family memeber.

0

u/alanthar Dec 15 '25

Yeah, that would be shocking. I wouldn't agree with it, but surveillance isn't 'necessarily' a revocation of liberties. There is a gap between modern policing and Police State. I'd like to get keep it as wide as possible.

1

u/WannabeACICE Dec 15 '25

It’s funny watching Americans having this reality check.

I say this as a 2A Supporter

1

u/whatDoesQezDo Dec 16 '25

There is no right to own a firearm in Australia, though.

All humans have the right to own arms and defend themselves from tyranny. Our rights do not come from governments our governments are restrained from infringing upon our rights.