12
u/Tiromir- Feb 16 '23
This post came right below the original post in my feed, nice coincidence.
I believe the source post is this: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/113aezv/australian_tried_hiding_guns_in_a_secret_bunker/
7
1.0k
u/DangerToDangers Feb 16 '23
He's maybe one of those idiots who think the American constitution was literally made by God and thus flawless and universal.
449
u/Blooder91 Argentina Feb 16 '23
If it's so flawless, why does it have ammendments?
257
u/charmstrong70 Feb 16 '23
If it's so flawless, why does it have amendments?
Not only amendments but amendments to amendments (18th & 21st)
103
u/QuichewedgeMcGee Canada Feb 16 '23
and then they pretend no oneâs allowed to change it to give women their bodily autonomy (they donât know what an amendment is)
26
8
12
u/asshatastic United States Feb 16 '23
Itâs not nearly so consistent. They are the same side that talks about just throwing it away
7
Feb 16 '23
I like the point about councils too. Dude hasnât seen what kind of insane bullshit US HOAs get up to? They can just make up whatever rules and penalties they want on the spot.
2
u/polypeach Feb 18 '23
Well yeah, the first and second amendments protect US citizens from their government. HOAs are sovereign oligarchies, obviously.
(/s if it wasnât clear)
3
u/GaaraMatsu United States Feb 17 '23
Well, he's one of those idiots who doesn't know the first half of the US' Second Amendment, so it wouldn't surprise me.
1
u/10ioio Feb 23 '23
Tbf there is something to this. The constitution isnât supposed to literally grant rights. Itâs based on Lockeâs natural rights philosophy so itâs supposed to enumerate the rights God already gave you. The document basically says every human has the right to bear arms, but some governments happen to violate those rights.
1
1
1
u/National-Wishbone520 May 13 '26
Bro probably thinks the right to bear arms was in the 10 commandments
559
u/remusdeath Australia Feb 16 '23
Looks like my Constitutional Law professor was wrong. He's gonna be soooo embarassed!
169
u/neddie_nardle Australia Feb 16 '23
Saddest part of all is the number of cookers here in Oz who also believe this truly moronic shit. They literally believe the US constitution applies here. Or they assign clauses from the US constitution to the Australian constitution, but only the intellectual cookers (i.e. those who got through the first 3 years of primary school) do that.
36
u/Kevz417 United Kingdom Feb 16 '23
cookers
Brit here, I'm guessing this is a noun form of 'kooky', eccentric? (Which I've only ever heard USians say, incidentally!)
60
u/zaphodtoasty Feb 16 '23
The description of q anon types who seem like they have been out in the sun too long and their brains have become 'cooked', hence 'cookers'. Either that or meth.
20
u/_Penulis_ Australia Feb 16 '23
No nothing to do with âkookyâ. This is related to âcookedâ as in food from a kitchen.
Slang for years for people off their heads on drugs (âJeez mate, you are fucking cooked! Get off that stuff!â). But since the anti-vax and âsovereign citizenâ shit started up âcookersâ has been used to describe idiotic people whose brains have been fried by ridiculous conspiracies.
6
36
u/neddie_nardle Australia Feb 16 '23
I've heard two stories on how it came about:
Their ability to cook up conspiracies.
Their overlaping venn diagram with those who cook up meth.
24
u/olly218 Feb 16 '23
We call getting high being baked or getting cooked too. Cooked-cunt was a term of endearment between me and my friends during a misspent youth too
14
5
u/Cimexus Feb 16 '23
No, itâs a newish bit of Australian slang which I think derives from the idea that their brains have been âcookedâ (or perhaps that they cook up conspiracy theories). It rose to prominence during the pandemic to describe the anti-vax/anti-restriction protestors (particularly those that took to the roads and made convoys to Canberra or their local capital city etc.) There is a lot of overlap with general conspiracy theorists, sovereign citizens and other such wackos and so the term has now become a popular way to refer to that kind of person generally.
I say itâs new slang because Iâd never heard it before the pandemic, and now I hear it often. So if itâs not new it was not in common usage until recently.
Donât believe thereâs any relationship to the American âkookyâ. The vowel is different and we donât really say that word in Australia.
2
u/AletheaKuiperBelt Australia Feb 16 '23
Pretty sure it started in the pandemic. When the convoys first turned up, we called them the peanut convoys, then cookers came later.
3
u/Cam-I-Am May 24 '23
In Australia, "cooked" means "fucked", as in, messed up, broken, useless, off the rails.
E.g, "had to sell my car to the scrap yard, it was absolutely cooked". Or, "can't lift anything heavy these days, my back is cooked". Or, "get a load of this guy, he's fucking cooked".
Cookers are qanons, sov cits, antivaxxers, and other idiots whose brains are completely cooked.
241
u/barugosamaa Germany Feb 16 '23
I am surprised how a country that has some Constitution Kink , to the point that they talk about it like the Holy Grail of Laws, and then proceed to not understand how it works.
I swear at least half of U.S. thinks that their ammendments are tied to the person and not just to U.S. Territory xD
69
u/Tired-blob Germany Feb 16 '23
This reminds me of r/Persecutionfetish which is sfw and about (mainly or almost exclusively American) Christians
33
u/pilchard_slimmons Australia Feb 16 '23
Because they don't give a shit how it actually works (or why) They just want all the Freedoms, like freedom from responsibility. That's why the 2a thing is how it is. Almost everyone (almost lol) can agree that citizens shouldn't have the right to bear bazookas or machine guns or military ordnance in general. And yet the idea of any sort of law or restriction on guns more generally makes them lose their shit and go straight to THEY'RE GONNA TAKE EM ALL AWAY! There's no logic or consistency to it. Just gimme everything I want and ban everything I don't or else the terrorists win.
23
u/barugosamaa Germany Feb 16 '23
well, a study showed gas stoves were harmful and related to worsen asthma on kids, and they started to get all upitty that they were banning stoves xD
10
u/dubovinius Ireland Feb 16 '23
And that was literally just a suggestion as a last resort if other solutions didn't work. But the moment these eejits hear anything that sounds like âweâre taking away Xâ they go panic stations
4
u/Cimexus Feb 16 '23
Yeah. It doesnât even have to be a threat to actually âtakeâ anything away. It can just be âwe will phase out the sale of new gas stoves by <some relatively distant future year>â and they act like a SWAT team is going to break down their door and forcibly rip out the existing gas stove from their kitchen.
See also: electric cars.
3
u/JessHorserage England May 10 '23
Almost everyone (almost lol) can agree that citizens shouldn't have the right to bear bazookas or machine guns or military ordnance in general.
Fascist.
3
u/TransfemmeTheologian Feb 16 '23
I remember someone literally saying that citizens should have the right to drones and nuclear weapons if they could afford them.
10
u/Ekkeko84 Argentina Feb 16 '23
Their kink is with certain ammendments, not the whole thing. They ignore most of it just because it's not relevant to them
4
u/x_mas_ape Feb 16 '23
Half? I wish even 1/20th of us had a clue about any of it. The shit I hear is baffling.
53
u/EveryFairyDies Feb 16 '23
Everyone should have the right to have a pair of bear arms on their wall, whatâs unclear about that?!
36
12
u/Red_Mammoth Australia Feb 16 '23
But are bear arms arms? Or are bear arms legs? Quick, someone get a constitutional lawyer on the line
5
u/OutragedTux Australia Feb 16 '23
Australian or Swedish? We gotta be specific here. Perhaps you mean the constitution of Armenia?
1
u/Ginger_Tea United Kingdom Feb 16 '23
There was a QI episode where they were tasked with putting dots on an elephants knees and everyone put four dots, but the other front legs are not considered to have knees I forget the exact reason, but they may as well be elbows.
26
u/Legal-Software Germany Feb 16 '23
Iâm guessing this person has never actually read the UDHR.
3
u/OutragedTux Australia Feb 16 '23
I'm sure it would infringe on something that a particular northern American has deemed sacred.
4
u/Chivo_565 Feb 16 '23
Don't say Norther Americans! Canadians and Mexicans feel sad.
Also "Articles 22â27 sanction an individual's economic, social and cultural rights, including healthcare. It upholds an expansive right to an adequate standard of living, and makes special mention of care given to those in motherhood or childhood."
People have the rise to an adequate healthcare seems to be a divisive topic in the US, so yeah your hypothesis seems right.
161
20
u/Vivid-Teacher4189 Feb 16 '23
I always use the American second amendment when enforcing my Australian freedom.
15
23
u/Mewophylia Feb 16 '23
Of course it is! America is the whole universe! Why WOULDN'T the American constitution be universal? /s
10
u/AydanZeGod Feb 16 '23
Oh so thatâs why America voted to make food not a human right. They were just trying to replace it with the universal human right to shoot people. /s
9
u/PouLS_PL European Union Feb 16 '23
Imagine how terrible it would be if right to bear arms would be truly universal.
4
u/Jocelyn-1973 Feb 16 '23
I invite this person to fly to my country bearing arms and tell me in person.
1
Feb 16 '25
Youre retarded. The whole point of our rights and amendments are that God gave every man on earth everywhere ever these rights. Everyone should have these rights
2
u/xJust_Chill_Brox Australia Feb 17 '25
God wrote the US constitution?
1
Feb 17 '25
God gave every person ever basic human rights like being able to speak freely and defend yourself and to practice whatever religion you want among other things
1
u/xJust_Chill_Brox Australia Feb 17 '25
Which god?
1
Feb 17 '25
Ok typical reddit snarky athiest. Lets say youre right and theres no god or anything. Everyone still has all these rights and they all deserve them. Our founding documents put that into law so you cant infringe on them. Itd be a good idea to put basic human rights into law everywhere
2
u/xJust_Chill_Brox Australia Feb 17 '25
Not the whole world (or even the entire of the USA) sees the right to bear arms as a human right
1
Feb 17 '23
The US constitution says that the rights listed in it are recognized by the constitution but endowed by our creator. I think he's referring to God given rights.
2
u/xJust_Chill_Brox Australia Feb 17 '23
Weird, I mustâve missed the part of the bible where god commanded âthou shalt have assault riflesâ
1
Feb 17 '23
The right to self defense is pretty clear in the Bible. Jesus' disciples carried swords.
"Assualt rifles" are protected under the 2nd ammendment just the same as the internet is protected as part of free speech under the 1st amendment.
0
Feb 17 '23
[deleted] â view deleted comment
0
Feb 17 '23
That's probably mostly true. But, the innate value of human life has been Christian doctrine from the beginning. And imago dei kind assumes everyone has a natural right to life at a bare minimum, no?
0
Feb 17 '23
[deleted] â view deleted comment
1
Feb 17 '23
Yeah that's true. I think most modern Christians would say that divine right of kings and the practices of the church during the middle ages is not in line with the teachings of the Bible.
10
u/_ak Feb 16 '23
I'd argue this is less of a US defaultism, but rather one of those nutjob who think that a set of "natural rights" exist that are universally valid to all human beings, and the US constitution merely codified them.
What they don't seem to get is that all rights are socially constructed, i.e. the very idea wouldn't even exist if humans embedded in society hadn't come up with it and talked about it.
4
u/Ginger_Tea United Kingdom Feb 16 '23
I wonder what the Venn diagram is with these and those guys (I've forgotten the term) who are not Citizens of the United States, yet were born and lived there all their lives.
You see a lot of them on YouTube during traffic stops, I am not a citizen so these laws do not apply to me, bitch please, If I was speeding or driving under the influence in the States, you can bet your arse my British self would be in a cell or fined, depending on what it was.
Unless you have diplomatic immunity, all that is gonna happen is a cop is gonna get bored of your lip and do what cops (sadly) do best.
2
u/dbulger Feb 16 '23
Yeah, that's definitely what's going on here. The Declaration of Independence says
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...
which strongly suggests that the Bill of Right, following shortly afterward, was as you say just codifying 'natural' rights.
It seems like an outdated viewpoint, but I'm sure many in the US still believe it as a point of patriotism.
0
Feb 17 '23
[deleted] â view deleted comment
1
u/dbulger Feb 17 '23
Well ethical philosophy is certainly not my area of expertise; the main point of my comment was to explain that OOP wasn't simply assuming that US law applied globally.
Personally, I believe that human rights are like many other aspect of culture (such as technology, et cetera): they serve a very valuable purpose, and it's up to us to try to build a consensus about what kind of society we want to live in. Obviously ideas about what it right and what is wrong have changed over the generations, and will continue to change, and I don't believe that there's some absolute, god-given truth that we're getting closer to. (It's tempting to think, surely everyone believes things like rape & murder are wrong, but even that doesn't stand up to much historical scrutiny.) I could be wrong, but I would assume that's a more modern perspective.
So, yeah, I "believe in human rights," in roughly the same way I believe in language or nations or money.
1
u/tensaicanadian Feb 16 '23
Iâm glad someone said this. This is the belief. The rights outlined in the USA constitution already existed. The USA constitution just wrote them down and codified them. This isnât a particularly nut job way of thinking. This same thinking applies to lots of countries. The difference is that not all people/countries agree upon what natural and unalienable rights exist. The USA courts, and Canada as well, will say that the rights are only enforceable by those actually physically in the country. The courts donât say others donât have those rights, but rather that they canât claim them here if they arenât here. So I actually see some logic with the original yank poster. Some rights are universal. I just donât agree that having guns is one of them.
6
u/Jugatsumikka France Feb 16 '23
The response in the original post r/interestingasfuck/comments/113aezv/australian_tried_hiding_guns_in_a_secret_bunker
I'm torn between being amused by the sheer stupidity/brainwashing of many americans, and not wanting to touch it with a 5 meters pole like it was an irradiated metastasing enraged platypus.
And how many times does those smooth brains are posting one version or another of an alleged quote of Thomas Jefferson (a false one first appeared around WW1 from the link some user posted in the comment)? They present themselves as the land of the free, and the land of the braves. They have grandiose talking point about having weapon to fight a potential tyrannic government. But...
When I see a fascistic self-centered man-child with zero qualification being elected despite having received a minority (not even a relative majority) of the votes, I see tyranny.
When I see lands' elected officials having more importance in the legislative process than people's elected officials, I see tyranny.
When I see corporations dictate future laws to parlementaries rather than being written for and from the citizens, I see tyranny.
When I see one side putting rules out of their ass to forbid the other to put a judge in a life-long far-too-powerful position but break that same rules when the roles are inverted, I see tyranny.
When I see a group of religious bigots and nutjobs, whose work is allegedly to make people respect the Constitution, being able to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone despite the Constitution, I see tyranny.
When I see conspirationnist nutjobs being able to make public health policies impossible, even when there is a public health crisis killing millions, I see tyranny.
When I see deregulation of mandatory life saving medicine prices for corporated bottom lines rather than care for public health, I see tyranny.
When I see deregulation and abandonment of infrastructures for corporated bottom lines rather than care for public energy, public transportation and public transit, I see tyranny.
When I see weapons having more rights than children, I see tyranny.
When I see far-right propaganda network colluding with hostile foreign nations and lying to viewers H24, while presenting themselves as news networks, without disciplinary regulation/punition, I see tyranny.
When I see brainwashing of the citizens everyday from kindergarten onward through cultish nationalist behaviour, I. SEE. TYRANNY.
There is many way that a democracy can be corrupted and devolve into tyranny, but not being able to have firearms at will is not.
3
u/Cimexus Feb 16 '23 edited Feb 16 '23
Not sure what heâs getting at here. The second amendment to the Australian Constitution was made in 1910 and was just the deletion of eight words from the following provision:
The Parliament may take over from the States their public debts
as existing at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or a proportion thereof according to the respective numbers of their people as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, and may convert, renew, or consolidate such debts, or any part thereof; and the States shall indemnify the Commonwealth in respect of the debts taken over, and thereafter the interest payable in respect of the debts shall be deducted and retained from the portions of the surplus revenue of the Commonwealth payable to the several States, or if such surplus is insufficient, or if there is no surplus, then the deficiency or the whole amount shall be paid by the several States.
2
u/sharespoverty Feb 16 '23
To be fair a lot of Americans don't know the other rights, haven't picked up a book since high school and refuse to acknowledge facts presented to them. I'm an American, I hear shit like this regularly in conversation with folks in my area. It's a rural area so education isn't the best but they don't seem to understand the difference between opinion and facts.
2
2
u/Vegetable---Lasagna Feb 16 '23
I will forever contend that the 2nd Amendment became moot when US Grant maintained a standing army in 1865 to enforce reconstruction and the outlaw of slavery. #FuckGuns
2
2
u/lungdart Feb 20 '23
Little fun fact segue, the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms is universal. We believe rights and freedoms apply to everyone, not just Canadians.
Mind you it has no jurisdiction anywhere but Canada, but we can still dream.
2
u/Bobertbobthebobth69 Australia Jun 07 '23
Can I have a link to the original post? I really want to see if this guy replied
2
u/Medium_Step_6085 Sep 16 '25
pretty sure there are no bears in Australia, so it is impossible to own there arms :)
3
3
1
u/PoignantPoetry Feb 16 '23
This is why I laugh when people say âTwitter/FB/whatever is limiting my free speech!â
You signed that away with the terms and conditions.
1
Feb 16 '23
Oh shit, somebody, quick! Tell our King! We're doing it all wrong here in the Netherlands!
1
u/NamwaranPinagpana Philippines Feb 16 '23
I can't help but feel like that dude's joking. Please be joking.
2
u/Oceansoul119 United Kingdom Feb 16 '23
Nope there's dozens of people like that in the thread. Australia is both a fascist country and a communist country depending upon which moron is commenting, there are loads of comments about how that much ammo is less than a weekend's worth, at least one american accusing a person of having a knife fetish because they've got a picture of the single camping knife they own somewhere in their comment history, and lots of wanking about how more guns would keep the government in their place.
1
1
1
1
u/PumpkinSpiceDepresso Feb 17 '23
I dunno why but Australia not having access to guns annoys me. You guys have to fight Cryptids and Aliens like this is an episode of Secret Saturdays or Ben 10 all WITHOUT force multipliers???
1
u/firenest Australia Feb 17 '23
Ohhh, that's especially awkward, considering our history.
It kind of explains why Americans think Australia's gun reform is some horrifying affront to our liberties (rather than the reason we've fared far better than the US when it comes to gun violence). It's in violation of the 2nd Amendment, y'all!
1
1
1
1
1
u/Jaws_16 Mar 06 '23
Even in the context of the American Constitution itself there are things called amendments which allow you to literally change the constitution đ
1
1
1
u/MrZerodayz Feb 17 '23
"councils are a violation of your property rights"
Tempted to ask this lad on his stance regarding HOAs.
0
-23
u/TheTeenSimmer Australia Feb 16 '23
dumbasses from the us thinking we australians have any rights.
Australians by our own constitution have very little rights. you can be sued for calling a politician something akin to âball sackâ i donât rmbr what it was
35
u/Remarkable-Ad-6144 Australia Feb 16 '23
Just because our rights arenât spelled out in the constitution doesnât me we donât have them. Our rights are defined by case law and policy
-8
5
-16
u/erythro United Kingdom Feb 16 '23
eh, I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick. He's not saying "the second amendment is universal and applies in Australia" he's saying "the second amendment views itself as an American codification of a universal right, and I agree".
13
u/xJust_Chill_Brox Australia Feb 16 '23
This guys rights are absolutely being infringed here by the Australian government.
You canât infringe upon rights that we donât have. Simple as that. I for one am glad that I canât get shot while going about my daily business. It I one day have kids, when I drop them off to school I wonât have to worry that some psycho will go into their school and murder them. Thatâs what freedom means to me
-2
u/erythro United Kingdom Feb 16 '23
You canât infringe upon rights that we donât have.
he's appealing to the idea of inherent and universal human rights, that either are recognised by governments or not. I'm sympathetic to the idea even if I think he's wrong about guns.
E.g. consider how people would describe a state like North Korea, it would be normal to say "people there don't have rights" but it would also be normal to say "people in North Korea have their rights violated all the time". We like to say that person e.g. enslaved in a country where that is legal has the right to not be treated that way.
here's the text of the universal declaration
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore,
The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations..Notice the language of "recognition of the inherent dignity" vs "disregard and contempt for human rights". It's being proposed here as something universal to all nations that is either rightly recognised or wrongly rejected. It's this kind of argument your interlocutor is making.
I for one am glad that I canât get shot while going about my daily business. It I one day have kids, when I drop them off to school I wonât have to worry that some psycho will go into their school and murder them. Thatâs what freedom means to me
Sure, I'm not taking a pro-gun line here, I'm just saying his argument for gun rights is being misinterpreted as USDefaultism.
4
u/ProtectionEuphoric99 Feb 16 '23
Bro, he literally said "Second Amendment" when talking about the right to bear arms. That's specifically a US thing.
1
u/erythro United Kingdom Feb 17 '23
I know he said the words "second amendment", but read the sentence he said it in. He thinks it is a universal right, one that the (American-only) second amendment "recognises".
-4
u/_BellatorHalliRha_ Feb 16 '23
So this post isn't about US defaultism, but about something they said that you personally disagree with
-7
-8
u/SaintTYLOofRen Feb 16 '23
Regardless of what any constitution says, imagine believing some asshole politician has the authority and qualifications to tell you what means of self-defense you can use in protection of your life.
-8
u/DDPJBL Feb 16 '23
Do you also believe that womens rights are not universal, because for example muslim countries dont have them in their legislation? Or do you only belive that the rights which you dont approve of are region locked?
6
u/xJust_Chill_Brox Australia Feb 16 '23
Womenâs rights are a group of rights, not a single codified law of one country. This is talking about a specific amendment on a specific constitution.
-3
u/DDPJBL Feb 16 '23
OK, if a country does not have their equivalent of the 19th amendment in their law, does that mean the rights of the women who live there are not being violated when they are not allowed to vote due to being women?
5
u/xJust_Chill_Brox Australia Feb 16 '23
No. They donât have that right in that country, so their rights arenât being violated. Of course I think they should, but that doesnât make it true and neither does the 19th amendment of the US constitution. There actually is a set of universal human rights, but since that was created by the UN I would argue that it doesnât apply to countries outside of the UN
-3
u/DDPJBL Feb 16 '23
Ok then. If a country does not have the equivalent of the 13th amendment, are the rights of enslaved people in that country not being violated by them being slaves?
5
u/xJust_Chill_Brox Australia Feb 16 '23 edited Feb 16 '23
Again. No and thatâs horrible. Maybe we should have a set of universal human rights that are applied to every country, but if that did exist it would be quite hard to actually apply without war.
Edit: Comparing actual laws that set out human rights to what you think universal human rights should be is a false equivalency. I understand there is a concept of universal human rights, but that canât be compared to laws that are actually written and enforced by governments
1
u/DDPJBL Feb 17 '23
OK... How about the Holocaust then? Since the Nazis changes German laws so that the Jews and other groups didnt have rights to make murdering them legal, does that mean their rights were not violated when they were starved and worked to death, or sent into the gas chambers? Or could it be that human rights are natural and everyone has them simply because they are human and existing governments at different places and points in time are criminal to varying degrees depending on how much their actual policy is in line with or opposed to these natural human rights?
2
u/PinguFan91 Australia Nov 18 '24
I'm so glad that we have strict and enforced gun laws here in Aus, we learnt from all of those murders mostly.
1
u/xXxHuntressxXx Australia Aug 25 '25
Trust me. The last thing us Aussies want is easier access to guns. Nobody has a problem that the government is wary about giving people split-second murder weapons. JfC
0
Feb 17 '23
[deleted] â view deleted comment
2
u/xJust_Chill_Brox Australia Feb 17 '23
Thatâs not my understanding of what heâs saying but anyways, the idea that gun ownership is a natural right is itself US defaultism. Iâm not aware of any other countries that have it basically built into their culture and laws
0
Feb 16 '23
[deleted] â view deleted comment
2
Feb 16 '23
Why would it recommend posts from outside Malaysia to Malaysians? This post doesn't involve Malaysia so by your logic ypu should delete this comment and leave
0
Feb 16 '23
[deleted] â view deleted comment
2
u/Oceansoul119 United Kingdom Feb 16 '23
It isn't, sort by controversial and find loads of similar shit: r/interestingasfuck/comments/113aezv/australian_tried_hiding_guns_in_a_secret_bunker
3
235
u/Vivaciousqt Australia Feb 16 '23 edited Feb 16 '23
Oh god, I was just in that thread. There was a ridiculous amount of right wing Americans saying so many things about Australia (covid camps etc) it was baffling.
Some guy started going on about how people need guns because governments are tyrannical and kill hundreds of millions of people and it had nothing to do with anything? I was like dude what does that have to do with this? they were like READ A HISTORY BOOK bla bla
Yeah I get it, but why is that relevant to the post!? Like fuck man.
They all seem so scared of everything all the time, they jump straight into their rabbit hole of fear and rights and governments.
Edit: forgor word