There are protections in the Aussie courts that men and women can use to protect themselves from government agents who misuse the laws, and against laws that are against freedom of the people.
In matters of immediate self-protection, Everybody has the right to protect himself.
In matters of vengeance, learn how to use the courts.
Start with gun control. Guns can be private property. If they are, they aren't guns any longer.
Ready Mr BADecker? Is a B61-12 private property too?
B61-12 can be private property. If they are, they aren't B61-12 any longer.
make sense only when you say it, isn't it?
I guess you have a little difficulty with "regulatory capture" concepts.
And I don't understand how you don't see courts as government agents?
So you really believe in the concept of separation of power, in practice?
me I ask a few questions :
who pays it?
who defends it?
okay, at least, me, I see the same.
For example, again, myself I would be more inclined to divide between civilian powers and military powers (the cia being in their little world).
and for illustration : aussie soldiers executed unarmed innocent children in afghanistan just to train aussie soldiers in killing.
I don't think it's yet a common practice of aussie cops.
Would you be more an engineer or a mechanic? Do you understand the difference I am trying to illustrate here?
the fundamental question I am trying to get you to pounder, is what do you do when the court system, reflection of the legislative branch will, has been corrupted and captured by the same forces who did the executives and earlier said legislative?
For example in dynastical china it was really hard to achieve, as one morning, the "boy" could say : kill them all, looking at the court, and so it was.
another one to maybe explain better if the 1st Cesar, rather than enter in the senate still hoping to find men to talk and convince rather than to kill, we could be written latin now
.
in short it's like a child rape, if you survive, meaning that as long as you don't kill the childrapists, you can't be certain he won't redo it again, even on an another kid.
and that's what I like about wars... if a guy has already put an IED at the waypoint toward the village, why would the invading foreign troops not pass there again ? I hope you saw the little perspective swap here?
or resaid, bats have two wings, reliance on one only could be problematic even just for take off, but certainly enough for landing
a court system can only be as just as it's society.
for example, I sincerly believe that american troops didn't do blooding in afghanistan, aka taking afghani innocent children, lining them : putting soldeirs who hadn't killed, and executing the children. no,...
some really believed in this nation building, war on terror etc...
I don't say that it couldn't have happened in some wicked group, but even... at a moment, just be logic, if you want to really make the enemy angry, take their children and execute them before their villages... "for blooding"...
you are sure to be welcomed next time...
I try to make you understand the difference between the "belief", the "theory", "reality" and even more important improvement way to make it all work together.
and I say that if the pedo can reach control of the courts, the situation is getting bad... I mean really bad...
but as we said in old china, it's not important if the "boy" is right or not, he said, we did.
ahah
