My comment about people knowing policies was about the ASIO reference. That you associate my statements as a lack of dissent independent of gun availability are your own projection and opinion and as such have only that weight. In what sense you do not accept the system of government to whom you depend? In what sense are you "maintaining freedom"? What freedom(s) are you maintaining?
It is my point exactly that it is the popular opinion. I am surprised you don't understand the power of that. I guess that is why Americans have an atheist president ... oh yeah they don't...
A lot of this conversation make me wonder why have police. What is their function? You are happy for people to take the position of judge, jury and executioner? In this case with Susan Falls, you are saying she had no other choice what so ever? It was a gun or nothing? That the fact the she was found not guilty in protecting herself should always grant an exception as to the method in which she chose to do that? And I would gather from that, if I was the big guy and I am going to make sure the little woman never gets access to the equalization. Maybe that is just me. I'm sure that never happens...
I am saying that simply owning a gun doesn't empower some one by default. You seem to suggest that criminals will some how be in awe of a gun owner. Dumb criminals perhaps. It becomes another selection pressure to create more gun savvy criminals. I am saying that it just means you create a environment where by gun crimes will prosper.
So the second amendment was to provide for a citizen to protect themselves with guns from any potential threat. Why would there ever be a limitation as to what kind of weapons are made available to the populous then? What limitation should be placed on an individual, if they fundamental right is to over come any threat?
Are you trying to tell me that the situation in Australia in the 1990-200x is the same as America? That we have seen change in the distribution of crime in that interval is independent of gun laws, however, the gun laws were introduced in an attempt to prevent the mass shootings. To that end they have been successful so far. Making particular comments about what you were afraid of when you were young is no an indication that guns made that a difference. You mean if you had a gun on your property today you wouldn't be afraid of bikies? You think that there would be less "glassing" in pubs? I was not suggesting that. I was saying that I don't have to worry my neighbour will go berzerk and shoot people.
I know you have a intense feeling for this woman but you are effectively suggesting all rape will be ended if every one could own a gun. That is simply not true and it is fundamentally untrue. For every woman who gets to protect herself using a gun there would be another who would be raped facilitated by a gun. You are suggesting a woman has to carry a weapon with her always for her own protection. I assume you want men who are at risk of rape to be protected likewise. And altar boys should carry them into church in case the Father gets ideas. In fact all children should own and be taught to use guns so they can ward off paedophiles. At what point to you end that progression? When all rape ends? I am glad that this woman and any other woman out successfully protects themselves from rape by the use of the gun. However more open gun availability is not the solution to rape. I don't know why I would need to say that.
I have a close personal friend, she was in a pub, had a spiked drink and was raped (as far as she can determine). She doesn't remember who and is in counselling now. Having a gun would have make no difference to that experience, with the possible exception that some one else would own it now.

'We all know about it, unlike your scenario of secret detentions. '
People here would know if they are interested and inquiring. These policies are not hidden or secret. "People" seem to want to know what the Kardashians are thinking more than what affects their freedoms.
'Bradley Manning and everyone else already knew that if you have access to military secrets as part of your job you get in a lot of trouble if you leak them....' and yet they harass a man who has yet to be convicted of anything - why is that? Aren't people supposed to be innocent until proven guilty (even if they work in the military)? Can justice be done if the accused is treated badly by those in authority for months on end, particularly those with psych problems? Isn't the government accountable to the people for the policies they enact and condone?
'Most people don't think...' ..which is exactly my point. If you can lead the majority of people so they are convinced that they need take no action or that they are justified in a position consistent with the desires of the government - then they have won. Dissident talk is like an inoculation - it allows the illusion of freedom while glossing over the fact that actual changes to the government are difficult. You would only get significant change if a critical mass of people act. If you can prevent that then they have won. Look at way global warming is handled in the USA and you see it in action.
'It is clearly impossible to be a traitor to a country of which you are not a citizen....' so you don't like me using - cast as a traitor - how do they see him then - a terrorist? An enemy of the USA? Not kindly in any event or are you arguing to the opposite? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange Calls for Assange's assassination. .
A car is not designed to inflict harm. That is the difference in this metaphor. Just owning a vehicle that isn't road worthy isn't a crime because it poses no threat. The moment it's driven it is a threat, which is why that is not legal (apart from revenue razing of course)).
This description is a false dichotomy. You don't prevent all crime if you arm the citizens, you simply change the nature of it. It is not that her ability to defend herself was removed if she didn't have a gun (well except of course in the USA where there are guns everywhere and you would need it to be on a level playing field). It is that, if a person is lead to believe that societies systems will protect them when they might not. If you arm the victims you, simply arm the attackers. It is the nature of escalation. You noted before no system is perfect. People should be aware that systems fail. That they will be put in situations upon which they themselves will have to have skill to prevail. That is a big commitment of time and resources and in most civilized locations it seems unwarranted. Having a gun doesn't remove that requirement. You might be lucky and meet a stupid unsophisticated attacker and win with your gun. You might be unlucky and have them take you gun from you and use it against you. And once they have that gun - how easy is it for them to prevail against the next victim? Crime is always ugly and messy in this regard. There is no "magic bullet" that will prevent that. To be lulled into the complacent sense of safety I think is the true negligence but it is one that I am myself guilty of.
And, by the way, if this is the reasoning - why refer to the second amendment at all
As I said in my original post - the process of removing guns from the social environment is one that calms the situation over time. However, it must be pursued without creating the black market version of gun purchase where citizens condone access to inappropriate weapons, otherwise you simply repeat the mistakes of the prohibition of alcohol. It is not simple and I see no quick solution to it.

Hmmmm... guess that is why Julian Assange is held up in an embassy in London scared shitless he will be deported to the USA and tried as a spy. Similarly your suggesting that what is happening to Bradley Manning doesn't have a cooling effect to anyone else in the military who thinks it might be a good idea to leak classified documents?
My impression of what the average joe american wants to do to Assange is not pretty at all. He is not seen as the information freedom advocate but rather cast as a traitor.
They successfully blocked their ability to get funds, and compromised the core of the operation by CIA inflitration. There also seems to be a coldness with regards to the Australian governments support of Assange.
I don't think it would ever get to bombing cities, I think the leaders of dissent would be quietly removed before they ever became a serious concern.
If I use your example with Susan Falls, and she had been driving an unregistered car to effect her self defence - are you claiming the unregistered vehicle should somehow be okay simply because she had to use to it protect herself?
I am personally happy that there are few firearms in the community to contend with, and that those who have them should be registered. People with guns are far more efficient at killing people than without.
Having said all of that - I do hope that where needed a system of government could be changed by the dissent of the people. I just don't think that having a gun would make that more likely or effective. Education, information and the quality of querying of the official view of the world are the most important qualities of dissent.

So... having access to a few unlicensed semi-automatic weapons on the off chance that you might want to over throw your own government is a good thing then?
If you think guns are what a modern government would use to keep control over you, you might have missed the importance of the control of information.
Not sure if you are aware of this if you want to talk about Australia - but there are laws here empowering ASIO
to bug my computer without my knowledge, take me away without my telling any one, including my family, and if a reporter reports on it the reporter can be thrown into jail.
The use of a modern army is all about the ability of a government to control the context in which their actions are evaluated. The USA went to war with Iraq, for instance, on the basis there was an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction use. That that was not the case doesn't really seem to worry anybody. No one has been held to account about that. What do you think they would bring to bare if it was a local national issue and not some distant country?
If your government really thought you were likely to lead a rebellion, you would be put at such an informational disadvantage, the use of your weapons could only be seen as acts of terrorism. I would gather the FBI and alike would be watching you way before you considered actually using a gun. If you some how got to the point of using it, the army and all other resources would then be "permitted" to use any and all means at their disposal to put you down.
In the mean time, you are inclined to add an extra level of insurance by having a gun handy because everyone else out there has one - including the people who will break in. I was not suggesting that crime would disappear if the guns were wound back - far from it. However, as long as they are as available as they are - you are in a cycle of having to own them, where you would like to or not. Of the things I like about America - their gun laws are not to be emulated IMHO.

I live in Australia, and seeing all those dots, seeing the density of them, is astonishing to me.
I noticed the comments from people being upset that these represent a possible "shopping list" for people who wish to acquire a gun, however as is commonly pointed out in other contexts, security via obscurity is very minimal security indeed. If a newspaper can acquire this information, you can safely assume any other interested party can do so.
If my interpretation of the second amendment is along the right lines, it was to intended to make sure that a government could be overthrown by the people, I think you guys need to reevaluate how effective any gun you can own is in a modern age. You would be up against the largest military in history.
If you wish to have no tracking or boundary for gun types, you are effectively creating the environment where there is a constant battle between those who would do harm with guns and those who need to protect themselves. An environment of escalation. If on the other hand you take steps to reduce the overall availability of guns over time, you would at least be slowly calming the situation. Looking at these numbers I can't help feeling it would take decades however. It would have to be carefully done not to create the equivalent of your prohibition of alcohol, where guns become a black marketed item for the general populous.
I feel for you guys - it seems an unenviable situation, particularly when I look to the future of weapons and see them becoming even deadlier with each passing year.

What is going to be considered porn? If I write something sexy in an email - does it get blocked? Does this happen in every language? If someone sends a sexy photo to someone who hasn't opted-in are they breaking the law?

Who is responsible for that, the ISP/government/sender?

If you "opt-in" who gets to see the list of people who have done so? How will this be audited and by whom?

Can this be the basis of a search warrant? If you bypass the filter are you breaking a law? If you help someone bypass a filter are you breaking the law? If you are a child and you bypass the filter are you breaking the law?

Will MP's have to own up to if they have opted-in? How will we know they are being truthful? What will happen if they are not? What happens if they visit friends houses where the friends have opted-in? Will this be true for all public figures and government employees?

If you "opt-in" and your children "see porn" does this mean you are accountable to the government in some way?

If your kids go visit their friends in a "opt-in" household does this mean their parents are responsible in defying the law some how?

If the ISP accidentally allows someone access to porn without their "opting-in" what does that mean? Can parents sue the government/ISP/auditors?

If your in a custody dispute with a spouse, will it be legitimate for them to discover if you have opted-in to internet.

What happens if the ISP blocks things that aren't porn? Who will know? What recourse will there be if they block a legitimate business site?

Who will make the list of porn sites?

If the government does it, and they start blocking "non-porn" sites - how will people know? How will it be fixed? How long will that take?

Will companies and institutions be able to opt-in en mass or will they need approval from every member of their staff?

Will libraries automatically "opt-in"? If the filter is not accurate and blocks items that are medical or sexual education - and you are a school/library/university etc will you have to opt-in just to be sure you get the information you need?

I am sure they are not thinking this through...

I live in the country and have no realistic choice but Bigpond. Not sure what the hell to do about it quite frankly.

*facepalm*

Is this just self promotion?

I would have thought the next best thing would be to simply lase the target so the big stuff can be delivered accurately on target - without having some poor grunt in the field having to put his head up. Not sure how big a laser you need to do the job - but can't imagine it's very much weight or power. Looks stable enough to keep a beam tracking on a target. A lased target could be the focal point for various armaments, and would effectively allow the drone to be used to take out targets like tanks, armored personnel carriers, rocket launchers, - basically you name it. I guess it might even be able to tag hardened targets for big strikes. I assume someone has put an gps in it so the general location is known. Another, alternative might be to arm it with a florescent paint ball, to you can tag a target at night - so they can be tracked easier.