This gentleman is speaking clear, concise and no nonsense truths. No one in the US House or Senate is capable to articulate themselves as this. It is a pity.
Most of the Australians I've met (a few) had that same concise, sensible way of speaking and outlook. They seem like confident and competent people to me.
He is also completely ignorant of the constitution. You have to have 3/4 of all state legislatures to approve it in 7 years from federal conception. If it gets 2/3 vote it has to be approved by the National Archives to review to verify the process was performed constitutionally. Study the failure of the ERA and you will understand this will never happen. Our Forefathers wanted a constitution that could be amended, but for stability purposes they insured it was a thorough and arduous process.
Instead, we're becoming a third-world country that deliberately arms its most insane and mentally unstable people. And now the gun lobby is saying the dead kids are an acceptable price to pay.
It’s still unsafe at just 1 gun per person. The statistical level of where it reaches the “safe” point is at 2 guns per person. Or more. That’s where it gets safe,.. 👌 This has been a message brought to you by Irony: the thing you turn to in despair,..
Thanks for pointing out that the legislation in Australia was introduced by a conservative PM and had full support across government, including from the Australian equivalent of the NRA. This issue should be beyond politics.
Thats almost funny from a nation that doesnt believe in healthcare or employment rights. Maybe once you get your head around the basic human rights the rest of the world enjoys you can shift your preference for murdered children to gun regulation.
The 2nd ammendment will be under attack until something changes. A new should be past to "protect the second ammendment" which makes it sustainable. Both sides of politics could support that.
interesting to note the Australian equivalent is a sporting group. They're about guns for gun-related sport- like clay pigeon shooting and hunting pests- and the guns that are appropriate for that. Not just everyone gets a gun like the NRA.
Are people in 500 years going to be arguing about things because it's in the constitution? I don't understand why people don't understand that rules need to change as the world changes.
Getting so hung up about amendments is stupid. Every law needs to be evaluated critically. The 2nd Amendment's language was changed by Madison to give slave owners the means to raise militias easily in case slaves dared to seek freedom.
@@Anon54387 Yes, rights can change. White people in the South had the right to own slaves before the Civil War. Now they don't. That's called progress. The second amendment itself can be amended or even repealed. In fact, it should be repealed because it is a public menace, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans every year. It doesn't have to be that way, of course. It could be interpreted in a sane way that allows the kind of gun control that reduces mass shootings to zero and reduces homicides by a factor of six as is the case in Australia. It's ironic that the second amendment, no matter what its origin, has become an object of worship to a dangerous cult that thinks it needs guns to defend itself against a tyrannical government. It's not the government that is slaughtering people in schools, supermarkets, churches, theaters, concerts, offices, factories, etc. It is regular unbalanced or racist (or both) citizens who can too easily get their hands on weapons of immense killing power. Firearm technology changes as time goes by. Why shouldn't the laws and rights that regulate it also change? If not, you end up with, well... you end up with dozens of mass shootings and piles of dead school children. Is that the "security of a free State" that you dream about?
The shooting mentioned in australia was not in a school it was at a tourist attraction in port arthur, the perpetrator was Martin Bryant whose serving 35 life sentences. Along with the legislation changes we also had a huge gun amnesty too.
The biggest problem here is that there a huge number of these firearms in the hands of people, not that everyone has them but those that do have many. As the man said, you had a National consensus whereas we have an disproportionately strong conservative problem at this time. My vote for Senate only counts a fraction of those cast in Ms. Cheney’s state of Wyoming. The more populated your state the less influential your opinion is in the Senate.
Ashley, king George of England banned guns & gun-powder in the 13 American colonies in 1774 & that is what ended America's colonial history(1607-1776). Attempted gun confiscation in 1775 started that 8 year war that England almost won.
@@1violalass, our forefathers were living with various injustices in colonial America. Lets look at the 4th-Amendment & sidestep the 2nd!! In colonial America, the authorities could come onto your property & into your house unexpected & look around & take anything they wanted & our forefathers corrected that with the 4th, saying the authorities needed to get a 'search warrant' from a judge & have good reason & the search is for a crime & not 'just because we in authority feel like coming into your house & snoop around & if we see something we like, well you know it is now ours!! "UNLAWFAL SEARCHES & SEIZURES"!!!! Was going on in colonial America!!!
I'm Australian but went to college in America and you've summed it up fairly well. Bit of History. The Sporting Shooters Association he mentioned was once called the NRA. You see many nations started their own NRA after WW1 because they found so many soldiers incapable of shooting properly. So they started these organisations to teach basic shooting and maintenance skills. Over time most of these organisations changed into competitive sports associations. For decades the NRA, like most others, held competitions and selected America's Olympic shooting team. Also like most others around the world the NRA were staunch PRO-PONENTS OF GUN REGULATION. It wasn't until 1977 when the gun suppliers funded a coup in the NRA and flipped it into the lobbyists they are now. That's the main reason why Australia could do what it did. Our main Shooting Sport Organisation was still a sports organisation. After Port Arthur it focused on being just that. Before 1996 Australia had one won 1 Olympic shooting medal. Since then we've won 10 including 5 gold and 2 of those by women. We did not lose our guns, we handed in the ones we didn't need and got better at using the ones we kept.
@@tonywilson4713 As far as the Sporting Shooter's Association is concerned it was never called the NRA. There was and still is to this day a National Rifle Association of Australia (NRAA) which is primarily a small bore target shooting organization. But you're right about why the then Australian Prime Minister could do what he did as even the Sporting Shooter's Association, the primary shooting organization in Australia, whilst still predominantly a sports organization it was also in the process of trying to be something of a quasi-political lobbying organization as well. But after the Port Arthur Massacre happened for all it's bluster and tough talk it was essentially shown up to just be a load of hot air and embarassingly just fell flat on it's face. As you say it's now gone back to being a shooting sports organization as now being such it receives government funding which it would not be able to were it involved in anything political. It's great that Australia is doing so well in shooting internationally and I hope it may continue. Whilst I happen to like guns here in Australia I don't see much utility in gun ownership and use outside of competitive shooting and certainly none for the purposes of what the various country's NRA's like you mentioned were originally established for which was to teach shooting and maintenance skills to possible future would-be soldiers. I'm now of the view that should be left to professional members of the military who have chosen that as a career.
@@YourLittleDeath Good point I'd forgotten the small bore people. But if you dig back far enough you'll find the NRAA and the Sporting Shooters share a common heritage. The SSA are an offshoot. Its a few decades ago but I used to compete in small bore (indoor 25m) and later full bore (.308 300 - 900 yrds). Yeah at that time they hadn't converted to metric because it would have meant rebuilding all the ranges. You could do what was at the time the international metric (100-300m) full bore but the costs were prohibitive - both guns & ammunition. For 308 we just bought from the army supplier because that shooting still had its heritage all the way back to post WW1. In fact the main range in Melbourne at the time was Williamstown and it was still a army base. I remember days we'd be out there competing and the Army reserve would be over on the next range with M60s and SLRs. And we got our bullets from the same store house.
@@wesleygordon1645 Don't be so stupid. *ALL of our politicians are ILLOGICAL* They all rely on the general public making emotional and illogical decisions on who should run each nation and the rest of the world in general.
@@Coolsomeone234 his biggest fault was trying to take on Murdoch, he lost in public opinion due to slanderous media coverage. Look at Liberals leadership over the last 9 years it was a disgrace. Rudd helped improve Education, Healthcare, Infrastructure we avoided the GFC and our economy boomed during Labor. 9 years of "surplus" has lead us to triple our national debt. Carbon tax is btw prominent in most high indexing countries, Rudd was too ahead of his time.
Are you sure even without acting it would've happened again? In Switzerland there was an horrible massacre in 2001, they didn't really changed the law and there was nothing comparable in the years after.
The banning of guns & then attempted gun confiscation in 1774-1775 colonial America, ended America's colonial history in an 8 year war, that England almost won!!
Like yes, the nuclear comparison is a little much, that's a piece of equipment that takes thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars to even create let alone maintain. Obviously it's a bit of a stretch, but the question persists: Where is the line? Exactly what weapons are needed to ensure the citizenry can overthrow their government? In my opinion that line was crossed a long time ago and these old dogs are hanging onto leashes with no masters attached. Meanwhile children are slaughtered in their classrooms, lovers are shot in the movie theaters, and workers are butchered in their grocery stores. Might as well carve em up and serve em for dinner at this rate.
@@riffhammeron - obviously, but amuricans refer to it as though it were some immutable law of nature divinely ordained at the time of creation. I bet half of them wouldnt be able to explain the difference between an amendment and a commandment.
27,times ,the US Constitution has been amended...As a Australian,I'm grateful to our government of the day who took this action to remove such weapons out of circulation for the better of the nation..
Because both these guys are gun grabbers. The purpose of 2nd amendment is for self Defence and not for hunting. Many times in history rulers have killed their own people. Russia, China, british, French, Germans, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Serbia, turkey, Poland, yes even USA and etc etc etc.
As an Australian, yes, there has been no mass shootings, but a 15 year old kid can walk into a house to rob it and murder a mother of 2 because she was home, and get a minimal detention term. People are starting to become more brazen with crime and home robberies due to the high cost of living, wages that can't match inflation, and the penalty seems to be minimal compared to that of the homeowner.. Maybe there are some things we czn learn from the US too
We totally have a right to bare arms here in Australia! It's winter right now, and people are still getting around in T-shirts and acting like they're not freezing their ***s off. ;)
@@YourLittleDeath If only you could read the amendments you would see the obvious differences. Common sense would help you too. How many times have children been murdered by someone welding free speech?
@@davidhitchen5369 Well the 'differences' are that in one it says 'Congress shall make no law' and the other 'Shall not be infringed'. It's not really all that hard to understand.
@@duckingcensorship1037 Sorry I should have specified that I was an Australian who watched the video because the guy who formerly ran our country was speaking. Here we DID so something, it was drastic and many people complained and continue to complain about it to this day. But it WORKED, we don't see the kind of gun violence America does and there have been cases where incidents have been prevented because for the most part talking about guns for anything other than hunting is suspicious behaviour.
@@duckingcensorship1037 Assuming you watched the video then you have an example of how mass shootings can be hugely reduced in number, hugely reduced in lethality or just flat out reduced to zero as has happened in Australia. Gun regulation and restrictions work to reduce mass shootings and gun deaths in general. It's the pattern in every country that has done it and only people in the US seem to want to deny the self-evident nature of this.
We have had multiple referendums to change our constitution in Ireland. All it takes is courage and a majority of citizens to vote in favour of change.
Trouble is they cant change their constitution by referendum. It takes politicians voting on behalf of their states (but usually their pockets are lined by gun lobby)
Aussies can still obtain semi and automatic rifles under strict license conditions. As a shooter in Australia, i wouldnt have our current laws any other way, they work perfectly.
"Can you see the Supreme Court bench standing there saying: 'we're defending semi-automatic weapons possession for you...because of your second amendment rights?' I don't think so." - Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Feb 27, 2018. Conservative Supreme Court Justices in 2022: "hold my beer."
No, make that 7.7 million loose cannons. Only fraction of population own guns and even smaller fraction are true gun nuts owning tens or hundreds of guns.
"You cannot change the second Amendment!!!" Excuse me? Of course you can. It's called an Amendment. It is there because somehow a certain point was forgotten in the original constitution. like the first Amendment that stated you have the right to express yourself. the 4th gives you protection against unreasonable search and seizures, the fifth calls for due process, the 8th protects you against cruel and unusual punishment (something the inmates of the federal prison of Guantanamo Bay do not have, or any other for that matter), the 13th abolishes that thing you had all those years, you know, that thing the south still wants back: SLAVERY, the 15th and 19th deals with your right to vote and grants it to everyone, even blacks and god forbid women. and lo and behold there is the 21st amendment. that little bugger has the audacity to actually repeal another amendment. the 18th to be exact. the one that enacted the prohibition. so you actually DO CAN amend an amendment and thus change it. it is NOT set in stone. it is not easy to do so, but it is doable. like the 13th or 21st. so stop with this nonsense. you CAN change the 2nd, you just DON'T WANT TO.
Cry about it. Even if some govt was foolish enough to scrap the 2A, there's far too many guns in circulation for a gun ban to ever work. Move to Australia if guns scare you so much.
@@wesleygordon1645 this is stupid. Why? He avoided the GFC, economy boomed, NDIS was formed, education opportunity was great, I should know I used it, NBN was on track to propell us into modern era, whoops that didn't work out I don't think it was Rudd that messed up there. Oh the economy now is a mess with triple the national debt from when Rudd was in power. Oh wait he did try to tax the miners, which is something every other high economy indexing country wih modern sustainability policies has copied. Terrible PM that's why countries like Denmark, Germany and the USA copied/hired him as a political advisor. *Thinking*
@@jamesmedina2062 With respect, I despise Murdoch, and I also chose to vote against Kev Rudd following his time in parliament. If you are going to dispute a decision someone has made please do it in a manor that incites critical discussion rather than hurling accusatory implications.
1. you can apply strict gun control without changing the 2nd amendment. Even the first part of the sentence is the perfect definition of gun control. 2. amendment can be changed, hence the word amendment US can choose either of these options but refuse to do so.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - seems kind of ambiguously worded. Is it saying ALL people - or just those that are part of a well regulated militia? And what does well regulated mean exactly? And does 'being necessary' mean IF it is necessary?
*cough* Tommy guns *cough* NRA supporting restricting access on buying guns did happen. Back in the day when the Black Panther movement was getting strapped. Not of course there was any racist component to the NRA being pro curtailing freedom of buying guns, no no no. Surely not.
Good to see one of Australia’s most beloved Prime Ministers here. The entire argument about gun *Rights* in the USA hinges on the *priority* question of which is more important: someone’s pleasure from owning an assault rifle, or someone else’s grief from losing a child.
Kevin Rudd is hardly 'beloved' by Australian voters. My recollection of him as PM is as a smart, nerdy, vain, weak, mean, feckless well meaning narcissist.
@@ewanmccartney8469 the objection against the constitution of this country is not American, if you don’t understand that, take your knives and move to the UK.
Some individual is not a militia either, surely. Make the guns have to be kept at a secure militia weapon storage facility.. that sounds more regulated than "got a gun in the car glovebox" or "in the side table in the hallway". It's not at all "well regulated".
The people and the militias are not the same. The people have a right to arms to protect against tyranny and militias that might exist in ones state. Militias exist to protect against foreign invasion since federal troops can not be deployed in the states.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right separate from militia service, so anyone who keeps up this "they need to be well regulated and join a militia, and store their weapons in an armory and BLAH BLAH BLAH" is nothing but a goddam ignorant troll.
@@TSimo113 The supreme court decided that the Roe vs Wade case meant that women were entitled to an abortion. Till they changed their mind. Not sure why you're suggesting that the supreme court are "goddam ignorant trolls" when you know full well the way the Constitution is interpreted can and does change.
I’m Australian and don’t remember Kevin Rudd to speak so much from his heart and not have to speak on behalf of his constituents. I don’t remember agreeing so much with his comments when he was prime minister.
James, the banning of guns & gun-powder by England in 1774 in the 13 American colonies ended America's colonial history(1607-1776). BTW England almost won that 8 year war for America's independence(1775-1783).
To change a article in the bill of rights. You would have to get 38 states to go along with it. As 37 states have firearm owners bill's of rights of there own this would be a fools areneid.
Unless the Americans choose to do something meaningful about this the rest of the world will have to put up with seeing stories of innocent children get murdered on mass on their media in ever increasing numbers.
i rarely agree with Rudd but he is spot on about the change, not that is should have been needed - see below. A professional kangaroo culler in Australia was asked why he and his team used single shot rifles to cull Kangaroos (who can move very quickly). He said if you were a decent shooter then you only needed one shot to cull a Kangaroo. If you miss, the Kangaroo is bounding off into the distance. Now the same should apply to American shooters and if they feel they need to have an automatic or semi-automatic weapon then they are just blasting away for the fun of it and not decent enough shooters to own a firearm! The populations of Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal and Spain (ALL who have substantial gun controls andbans on certain firearms legal in America) equal the population of the USA. The homicide rate per 100,000 people in the USA is 4.3 times higher than the rate for the countries with strict gun controls. The homicide rate from firearms in the USA is a whopping 44.6 times the countries with strict gun controls! Now either Americans are psychos with a much greater liking for homicides or the more logical reason, IT IS THE GUNS!! Now to the Second Amendment and why the modern day Judges have greatly erred in interpreting it. The Amendment was written in the Queen's English which was prevalent at the time it was written and by persons who were educated in the Queen's English. Modern day scholars of the Queen's Engish in Engfland or Australia will tell you that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." hinges solely on the "being necessary to the security of a free State". As the USA DID NOT have a formal military at the time, it needed a well regulated Militia and the people needed to keep and bear arms. In 2022, the USA has the most lethal military that the world has ever seen and hence the need for a well regulated Militia is obsolete. As such, it is no longer imperative for the people to keep and bear arms!
Agree, but the culture of the US is more suspicious of any "government". Rudd was quite prescient 4 years ago when he called it a cancer of US society, we see the results now (anti-maskers/vaxers during covid, the January 6 events, the roll back of US health reforms, de-fund the police calls, etc)
Countries with the Highest Total Gun Deaths (all causes) in 2019 Brazil - 49,436 United States - 37,038 Venezuela - 28,515 Mexico - 22,116 India - 14,710 Colombia - 13,169 Philippines - 9,267 Guatemala - 5,980
The USA will just have to try harder. They LOVE to crow about how they're the 'world leader' in everything. I suppose they don't want any 'gun control' because it would hamper their efforts to be 'world #1'. USA USA USA. 🤣🤣🤣😍
Kevin Rudd was maligned by conservatives here in Australia, but conservatives never accused him of wanting to destroy Australia, nor was he literally hated by conservatives. Likewise Malcolm Turnball isnt hated by the leftists. The vitriol Americans display to leaders of opposing parties is surreal. Kevin Rudd is bilingual and speaks Mandarin. If he was running in the United States on the democratic side, his proficiency in Mandarin would be used against him. Rush Limbaugh would call him a Chinese spy - and his listeners would believe it.
Now we have ScoMo, I think he's a dickhead and don't agree with much of what he does but can never relate to the crazy smear campaigns you see in the states. Tony Abbott was probably the closest we came but again, it was more like "when we will this wanker go away"
Adam, the banning of guns & gunpowder in 1774 in the 13 American colonies by England, ended America's colonial history(1607-1776). Attempted gun confiscation in 1775 started that 8 year long war for independence that England almost won.
Australia never had a gun culture like America I'm Australian trust me! It was a few farmers who had semi Auto rifles. we had virtually no auto weapons. The Port Arthur massacre occurred in 1996 at a tourist cafe not school and was committed with a semi auto not a machine gun. The guy was a crazy murderer, who slipped through the cracks of the mental health system.
You're confusing the Monash shooting with Pt Arthur. Port Arthur led to a crackdown on a bunch of long arms, focusing on semi-auto rifles. Monash led to a focus on handguns. Two different things. I'm not convinced that the Pt Arthur shooter was "crazy". I think he just had a low IQ and an anger problem. Australia had its own gun culture. My uncle (a farmer) had a rack of rifles above the fireplace. My dad disabled a couple of rifles for my grandfather when the new laws came in. We had a bunch of mass shootings in the years before the Pt Arthur reforms, there have been very very few since, and none of them have been public events (the two I can think of were murder-suicides in a family home). Nobody here seriously thinks that John Howards reforms weren't the right decision. It's pretty much the only thing the guy did which has total bipartisan support, and always will.
Just a note here in Australia our gun laws cater for all firearms on category basis. The out common are A and B LICENCE which covers rimfire , shotguns and centre fire manually operated guns, next is H license for semi-automatic pistols and revolvers. Next is C which is mainly semi automatic. 22 and pump action and semi-automatic shotguns. Then there is D class which are semi-automatic large capacity magazines in AR 15 SLR etc. The trick is every weapon you apply for you must have a valid reason for that weapon and "self defence" is not a valid reason as we simply do not have the violent crime rate that exists in other countries
That's funny. When you banned guns your violent crime and murder rates went up by at least 15% for about three years after the ban took effect. Read your own stats. And self defense is ALWAYS the reason to own guns.
The banning of guns/gunpowder & then attempted gun confiscation in 1774-1775 by England, started that 8 year war for independence & England almost won that war in 1783-FYI!!
@@reddog4515, just giving some history of guns in America. Guns were always common going back to the year 1607, the start of our colonial history. Guns were needed for protection against American Indians, protection against wild animals & what crime that excisted in the wilderness of colonial America. Colonial America experienced times of 'temporary gun confiscations & the guns were stored in the 'powder houses' usually built away from populated areas, because gunpowder back them was more unstable. 1607-April 1992 Columbine, 392 years of no mass school shootings. Since 1999-2022, 23 years of various mass school shootings & yet during those 392 years guns were common. Example 1900-1945, 76-122 years ago, 47 million guns were sold in America in them 45 years at a rate of over a million a year & yet no mass school shootings. 1900-2020 in 120 years, 1.5 million murdered. 1899-2020, 3-4 million killed in car accidents. Since 1927, over 95 years car accidents every year have killed more than murder. 2500-3000 a year killed by knives in America. Remember guns/gunpowder were once banned in all of colonial America in 1774. Attempted gun confiscation in 1775 started America's 8 year long war for independence & England almost won that war.415 years of guns being common in America & only in the last 2-3 decades with mass shootings.
@@reddog4515 I forgot hunting, along with fishing & gathering wild foods, supplimented, especially the early agriculture in colonial America. Remember clearing the land back then was both manual hand labor & hand tools along with draft animals. "HARD WORK"!!!! It took a century for the beef & dairy industry to become common in colonial America.
Thank you , Mr. Rudd, you are the first sensible, cohesive, intelligent interview I have seen on this subject. If your country can change, so can ours. Unfortunately, we are burdened by a huge population of uneducated deplorables, greedy politicians who are fed by the weapons manufacturers/NRA and obtuse, archaic ideas that our constitution cannot be modified. It is on my wish list to visit your country, I am really looking forward to it.
Maybe you yanks need to force Kamila Harris and your President Joe Biden to have a chat with Kevin Rudd he maybe able suggest people who could get some sort action to remove semi automatic and automatic firearms from the hands of the public in America meaning some one who could act as a consultant who could get something done on the issue of gun laws reform.Obviously the US needs to reform its gun laws big time other countries like New Zealand and Canada have recently tightened their gun ownership legislation after masicures in each country and as Rudd in a round about way pointed out that your countries second amendment doesn't specifically name automatic weapons meaning a politician could instead push for banning of just semi automatic and automatic firearms from being owned by members of the public such a removal of such weapons from the hands of the public would mean fewer gun related deaths each year also as Rudd also pointed out the second amendment was for a time when America got its independence through revolution and needed militias to make up for the lack of a professional army or the lack of size in the US army at the time of its independence and as he has said things have changed since that era of the US revolution starting in 1776.Some people in the US need to obviously look up their countries history over the last two hundred years or so they also need to get a atlas to see how the US has got bigger over its first hundred years. Personally I think some of these types wanting to maintain the same gun laws that are out of date are either arrogant and bloody minded or in the case of people who are members of militias in the twenty first century are possible involved a certain amount of organized crime after all I suspect a AR 15 assualt rifle or semi automatic pistols wouldn't come cheap plus if background checks were tightened some of these militia types find their past catching up with them.
D James king George banning guns & gun-powder in 1774 in the 13 American colonies ended the colonial history of America(1607-1776). Attempted gun confiscation in 1775 started that 8 year long war that England almost won & had England won they were going to make peasants & serfs of the colonists!!!!!
@@sebastienholmes548 To defend against a tyrannical government. The same one which now has drones, the biggest army in the world, tanks, nukes and other pin point missiles. And you're going to defend yourself....with your AR15? Get with the times dude, couple of hundred years have passed.
Well, it wasn’t actually a school shooting , it was at a tourist attraction, Port Arthur and it was in 1996 not 1999 but he is right that we haven’t had a single massacre since. The closest thing we’ve had was the Sydney Lindt Cafe Siege in 2014.
I remember after Lindt so many right wing nufftys pointing and shouting that it was proof that gun laws had failed. Notice there's not been anything since that either? Yeah, I think we're good.
The only reason you should be able to use a semi automatic weapon is if enough people can make a case for being attacked by a gang of 20 odd people at once. That's the only reason. Who do you know who is going to defend themselves with a semi automatic weapon? They would have no house left. This is an attacking weapon, not a defensive weapon.
The police have semi-autos to protect themselves against as few as one person at once. Their lives are not more valuable than mine and they will never be at the scene on time to save me. semi autos are used in self defense every day in this country.
I really wish that MSNBC writers who put out the headlines for these videos would be more intellectually honest. If you watch the video, you will clearly see that the former Australian PM is not arguing that we change the second amendment. He is not arguing for us to do ANyTHING with the second amendment. Instead he is suggesting we should interpret the second amendment to allow for some measure of gun control, not a total ban on guns, which is a position that is actually completely consistent with Heller. People need to remember that Heller does not say that you can own any weapon you wish, just that we cannot completely eliminate the ability to own some type of arms designed for self-protection. However, that could easily mean that we simply have a right to keep and bear our shotguns and other non-semi-automatic pistols and rifles. The extreme leftist anti-gun position is ludicrous because when the police are not obligated to protect you (and they are not), it is unreasonable and morally repugnant to stop individuals from being able to protect themselves. However, the extreme right-wing position is equally ludicrous because you should not need a semiautomatic weapon to be able to protect yourself. These two extremes are pulling moderates away from considering proper gun control measures such as those implemented in Australia that preserve the right of citizens to own guns while simultaneously limiting the specific types of guns they can own. Indeed, most common sense gun legislation would still grandfather the right of those who currently own these weapons to keep owning them. If you want to protect yourself and your family, a shotgun or a standard six shooter will do the trick just fine as this is about protecting yourself in a purely defensive manner as opposed to being able to go on the offense. Until the extreme left-wing in this country get away from the lunacy of wanting to ban every gun in sight and the extreme right-wing gets away from the lunacy of wanting to have weapons of war, a proper consensus is simply not going to occur because the moderates (who actually are the majority of people in this country) will never be able to placate either side that wants everything done their way and only their way. This is not only true on guns but also every other important issue from abortion to immigration to taxes. The media needs to stop inflaming rhetoric and giving extremists on both sides a platform to voice their opinions, After all, while people have a right to free speech, no one has a right to be heard on MSNBC or Fox. It is up to MSNBC and Fox to stop giving these folks a platform. Of course, just because they need to stop doing this does not mean we can require them to stop doing it because there is also a right to press freedom but these two bastions of extremist rhetoric really should understand that just because they have the right to speak and publish what they want does not mean that they ought to exercise that freedom in all cases and for all causes. In fact, it would do both sides well to remember that usually learning to just STFU is almost always the best option.
Actually he did argue that as an option. To people outside the US it seems the definition of insanity to not be able to change something called an amendment.
@@davehocking4091 No, he did not suggest changing the Constitution. He suggested changing our laws. Jumping to changing our Constitution is a huge stretch of what he actually said. Claiming the two are the same is like when someone says, “let’s change how we elect our leaders” to “let’s become a parliamentary democracy.” It is certainly something that could be done based on what is said but it is not what is actually suggested or said.
As a non American ( but living here ( legally) ) I never understood that, the constitution, why they don’t change it?. On my home country it happens already 2 times . They were made for other times🤷🏻♂️. Also, in the USA, do they know what a Referendum is?
I surrendered my collection of weapons, including several unique pieces. Now, I really don't care about my loss. Kevin Rudd is a clever and well spoken individual.
Lol Australia outranks the US in EVERY freedom index kiddo. It isn't Australia banning books that have inconvenient mentions of actual history in them...
@@ratofvengenceNo one is really banning books here. You're lied to endlessly...so are we, and the rest of the western world at this point. ..by the same people too. The "Freedom index" is absolute BS
I didnt like him as our prime minister, however after listening to him again i really like how easg it is for him to articulate his words. Very well said Rudd, well said
Totally agree. Of course he has his dark side (narcissistic and angry), but his eloquence and articulate logic contrasts against the lunacy of the GOP. Go Ruddy!
He's no Tony Abbott in his speaking abilities though. Apparently was a horrendous micro manager though, i was very conservative back then though, so that might not be true
@@petergrace7541 look, Pete, though you are entitled to your 'though' opinion, I don't appreciate you throughing it back in my face, though I have to admire your cheek. Though, maybe I'm being too touchy. I'm gonna go that I was very tired at the time though
@@Design_no That really was by design. His own party treated him like dog poop throughout his tenure. In fact, the one time he attempted to pass something good ended with him getting dumped out.
When the second amendment was written over 200 years ago, the right to bear arms meant something completely different than it does now. For one thing, they certainly didn't have assault (war) weapons in mind.
@@ronh.798 They did have weapons of war and civilians did own them. The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's a very general, all encompassing term. It does not say that the right exists except for arms invented after a certain date.
@@Anon54387 Again, they did not have AK 47's and the like back then. This subject brings to mind something that made an impression on me visiting the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C.. A quote from Thomas Jefferson on the wall behind the statue of him...Dated July 12th, 1816. "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as the new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"
@@ronh.798 They actually did have automatic weapons and cannons as well. It was well understood the purpose of the second amendment was to keep the federal government in check. So the people had a right to the weapons the military had. Today virtually no one has military weapons which are fully automatic. Civilians for the most part only have semiautomatic weapons. But with strength in numbers those semiautomatic and if ever needed improvised weapons and tactics would be very capable. If anyone doubts they should look at how successful the Vietcong or Afghanistan was fighting a superpowers.
When the Constitution was written, guns could only fire one shot before taking a minute to reload and fire again. I think things have changed since then.
That's why the nuclear weapon comment highlights the absurdity of free right to all weapon propaganda mentality, which doesn't happen. What these types are also saying- and the political, "We accept the death of a few children and an amount of social rot for the weapons we want to sell to you!" and: Our "rights" trump yours! The American political system has been corrupted by vested interest money financing them and THAT is the elephant in the room. Publicly funded election candidates is the only way for a healthy democracy. Private lies are everywhere.
@@-Fritz- puckle gun. Thats not the point though the point is people should own small arms (even artillery) that matches to capability of the military to defend against the government.
@@anthonycantu8879 It used to be foolish to say that Russia would stage a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It also used to be foolish to believe that the Soviets were enslaving the people of Ukraine and forcing them to work in poor conditions.
@@1violalass But it is easier to have gun control laws like that in a nation that does not border other nations with more lax restrictions. If we placed harsher restrictions like Australia did, then we may have mafiosos running speakeasy firearms dealerships and fighting each other over control over various cities. Plus, we have also seen from Germany just recently that a lack of guns won’t necessarily translate to lives saved. If anything, we should force people who drive vehicles such as the Ford F-250 and Chevrolet Silverado 2500 to obtain HGV licenses and bar people who have committed vehicular homicide or had DUI’s from driving such cars.
He was the prime minister when I was in school and the gun laws were barely 10 years old, we spent a lot of time learning about how the laws were put in place and why, and how the current government planned to upkeep a law that was put in place by their sworn rivals. Ridiculous to think that there are Australian parties who even now want to remove the gun ban even after over 20 years of success.
@@howabout8611 of course its about the State Collective People & "Greater Good" Regardless how it harms Individual freedoms and Right, let's just Stripped it all aways because sometimes it's better better said me me me and we
The second amendment was close to a replication of traditional British law that upheld the right of people to self defence. The idea that the government can’t be trusted isn’t an American thing. It’s a history thing.
To change the Amendments and Bill of Rights in the US Constitution it requires 34 states to call for a Constitutional Convention or Article V Convention. To ratify any changes to the Constitution itself requires 3/4 or 38 of state legislatures to vote for the amendment. So changing the 2nd Amendment is no easy task.
your Senators don't have the brains, the will or the gumption to rewrite an amendment that was clearly written in that manner because of the circumstances of the time it was written in, to get Independence. your Senators are too busy lining their own pockets from Lobbyists making bills to funnel Americans money into Corporations that's how America Inc. rolls
@@duckingcensorship1037 This fearmongering doesn't help the situation. The government isn't going to take away every single gun. What's far more likely is tougher restrictions on who can own a gun and for what reason, as well as possibly a restriction on certain types of weapons being owned. However this could change from state to state. It's still a complicated issue.
I'm Australian, but even I know that the point of amendments to the constitution is was made that they cannot be changed. They're to protect the rights of future generations. Otherwise, what's the point of having it in the first place? It's like the Bible, you cannot change it. It's a major sin.
It's called an "Amendment" because it was changed from the original constitution you dumbshit... that's what amendment means, a change/modification. And the bible has been changed numerous times...
@@orvarino The difference there is that the right to drink alcohol isn’t seen as an essential human right alongside the right to free speech or religion.
@Anthony Caruso I disagree. The schooling happened, the host wasn't the one being educated. If the host was being devils advocate he did a fantastic job and Ruddy did a perfect job of rebutting.
But can he shut down the possible fear of a Russian or Chinese occupation of the United States overwhelming the armed forces we have? Vietnam and Afghanistan have given people reasons to doubt the effectiveness of the US military, so there may need to be alternatives if it came to that.
Actually 90% of the world are fed up with the mass shootings of America and there not even our people.. the world seems too watch on in horror and feel sorrow while America further arms itself which leads to more violence. I love being Australian I know that gun violence here in Western Australia is so so so rare that I can breath easy about my daughter going to school or to the shops and I don’t need to fear. Australia is also has far more mateship with other races and cultures than America.
@@charliereynolds3404 Why do you think your opinion matters to us? Your laws are not my concern. We have a system that we prefer and it will stay that way, and you have fuckall to say about it.
I am so done right now about guns. I was willing to work for commen sense legislation. Not given given up one inch and made it even worse. I am 100% get rid of second admendment. Also it was not even 1982 that there was even considered a right for civilians. Militias were at the time part time defensive source for the states with antiquated weapons. No militias now. There is federal military and federal state and local agencies that take that place. If you don't work on corrcting the problem now when the heck are you? Get rid of the 2nd admendment.
Truth is the 2nd is the "Right to keep and bear slow-to reload-muskets shall not be infringed". It was impossible for one person to inflict carnage being done today with the weapons available in 1791.
I can absolutely see the Supreme Court saying 'shall not be infringed' means you cannot ban certain types of guns. That's the problem of the pseudo-religious attitude to the second amendment as unalterable holy scripture that exists in the USA.
So does that mean anyone has the right to a flamethrower? A bazooka? A box of hand grenades? Or as Kevin said, a small tactical nuclear device (and perhaps the right to open carry or conceal carry it?). Your constitution is not sacrosanct!
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” ~ Noah Webster
You realise Webster made that statement in the 18th century. Quoting 18th century revolutionaries is very romantic but I would suggest that the whole body of people being armed would not constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops considering the size and armaments of the United States military.
RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP … License to purchase any gun and ammunition. Licensing requiring training on use, safety and laws. Prohibit the sale of automatic rifles and pistols before age 21. National background checks. All sales private and dealer must be recorded. Seller violates any rule, they are liable for any misuse. This is all permitted by 2nd Amendment “ … a well regulated militia … “
The ignorance level in the US is just too high for this to be discussed. It's a sad truth. I fear the violent reaction of conservatives if the topic of changing the 2nd amendment was even broached.
Craig B. England banned guns/gunpowder in 1774 in the 13 colonies & then attempted gun confiscation on April 19 1775 in the colony of Mass. by 8-900 English soldiers started that 8 year long war for America's independence & England almost won that war in 1783!!
This gentleman is speaking clear, concise and no nonsense truths. No one in the US House or Senate is capable to articulate themselves as this. It is a pity.
his own people through him out of power... it is no better where he is from!
@@jessewhite2226
Actually it was his party, not the Australian people.
@@jessewhite2226 'threw him out of power' ....! tut tut
Most of the Australians I've met (a few) had that same concise, sensible way of speaking and outlook. They seem like confident and competent people to me.
He is also completely ignorant of the constitution. You have to have 3/4 of all state legislatures to approve it in 7 years from federal conception. If it gets 2/3 vote it has to be approved by the National
Archives to review to verify the process was performed constitutionally.
Study the failure of the ERA and you will understand this will never happen. Our Forefathers wanted a constitution that could be amended, but for stability purposes they insured it was a thorough and arduous process.
If more guns resulted in less violence, then the U.S. would already be the safest first-world country.
If good yanks had no guns, there would be far more violence! New laws will not lessen the violence!
Instead, we're becoming a third-world country that deliberately arms its most insane and mentally unstable people. And now the gun lobby is saying the dead kids are an acceptable price to pay.
It’s still unsafe at just 1 gun per person. The statistical level of where it reaches the “safe” point is at 2 guns per person. Or more. That’s where it gets safe,.. 👌
This has been a message brought to you by Irony: the thing you turn to in despair,..
@Yeon Ji Sung great comment.
Just way too logical though. Lol
EXACTLY! EXACTLY! EXACTLY!
Thanks for pointing out that the legislation in Australia was introduced by a conservative PM and had full support across government, including from the Australian equivalent of the NRA. This issue should be beyond politics.
Thats almost funny from a nation that doesnt believe in healthcare or employment rights. Maybe once you get your head around the basic human rights the rest of the world enjoys you can shift your preference for murdered children to gun regulation.
@@martinvalentine9228 Huh? What are you talking about?
The 2nd ammendment will be under attack until something changes. A new should be past to "protect the second ammendment" which makes it sustainable. Both sides of politics could support that.
@Rover . This is inscrutable.
interesting to note the Australian equivalent is a sporting group. They're about guns for gun-related sport- like clay pigeon shooting and hunting pests- and the guns that are appropriate for that. Not just everyone gets a gun like the NRA.
The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good government with balls.
👊💪✌💪👊
@@rohankurian5641 Thanks. I made it up, and was hoping someone would start making it into T-shirts and banners.....
Hahaha. Well said!
John Howard’s greatest (and perhaps only) achievement
@@roberthill3145 Greatest legacy a leader could have. Staring down a gun lobby.
Are people in 500 years going to be arguing about things because it's in the constitution? I don't understand why people don't understand that rules need to change as the world changes.
Getting so hung up about amendments is stupid. Every law needs to be evaluated critically. The 2nd Amendment's language was changed by Madison to give slave owners the means to raise militias easily in case slaves dared to seek freedom.
@@KnarfStein That isn't why the 2nd Amendment was there.
Jerry Chen: Rights don't change just because time goes by. I had the right yesterday but don't today?
@@Anon54387 Yes, rights can change. White people in the South had the right to own slaves before the Civil War. Now they don't. That's called progress. The second amendment itself can be amended or even repealed. In fact, it should be repealed because it is a public menace, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans every year. It doesn't have to be that way, of course. It could be interpreted in a sane way that allows the kind of gun control that reduces mass shootings to zero and reduces homicides by a factor of six as is the case in Australia. It's ironic that the second amendment, no matter what its origin, has become an object of worship to a dangerous cult that thinks it needs guns to defend itself against a tyrannical government. It's not the government that is slaughtering people in schools, supermarkets, churches, theaters, concerts, offices, factories, etc. It is regular unbalanced or racist (or both) citizens who can too easily get their hands on weapons of immense killing power. Firearm technology changes as time goes by. Why shouldn't the laws and rights that regulate it also change? If not, you end up with, well... you end up with dozens of mass shootings and piles of dead school children. Is that the "security of a free State" that you dream about?
@@Anon54387 Ever heard of prohibition? Yes. Rights can and are taken away.
The shooting mentioned in australia was not in a school it was at a tourist attraction in port arthur, the perpetrator was Martin Bryant whose serving 35 life sentences. Along with the legislation changes we also had a huge gun amnesty too.
The biggest problem here is that there a huge number of these firearms in the hands of people, not that everyone has them but those that do have many. As the man said, you had a National consensus whereas we have an disproportionately strong conservative problem at this time.
My vote for Senate only counts a fraction of those cast in Ms. Cheney’s state of Wyoming. The more populated your state the less influential your opinion is in the Senate.
Ashley, king George of England banned guns & gun-powder in the 13 American colonies in 1774 & that is what ended America's colonial history(1607-1776). Attempted gun confiscation in 1775 started that 8 year war that England almost won.
There was a mass shooting at a school in Scotland that year. What happened after that was similar to what happened in Australia.
@@RonSafreed A quick Google suggests your account of history is correct, but what's your point?
@@1violalass, our forefathers were living with various injustices in colonial America. Lets look at the 4th-Amendment & sidestep the 2nd!! In colonial America, the authorities could come onto your property & into your house unexpected & look around & take anything they wanted & our forefathers corrected that with the 4th, saying the authorities needed to get a 'search warrant' from a judge & have good reason & the search is for a crime & not 'just because we in authority feel like coming into your house & snoop around & if we see something we like, well you know it is now ours!! "UNLAWFAL SEARCHES & SEIZURES"!!!! Was going on in colonial America!!!
Kevin Rudd is looking at it from a logical perspective while the American is taking a more emotional viewpoint
I'm Australian but went to college in America and you've summed it up fairly well.
Bit of History.
The Sporting Shooters Association he mentioned was once called the NRA. You see many nations started their own NRA after WW1 because they found so many soldiers incapable of shooting properly. So they started these organisations to teach basic shooting and maintenance skills. Over time most of these organisations changed into competitive sports associations.
For decades the NRA, like most others, held competitions and selected America's Olympic shooting team. Also like most others around the world the NRA were staunch PRO-PONENTS OF GUN REGULATION.
It wasn't until 1977 when the gun suppliers funded a coup in the NRA and flipped it into the lobbyists they are now.
That's the main reason why Australia could do what it did. Our main Shooting Sport Organisation was still a sports organisation. After Port Arthur it focused on being just that. Before 1996 Australia had one won 1 Olympic shooting medal. Since then we've won 10 including 5 gold and 2 of those by women.
We did not lose our guns, we handed in the ones we didn't need and got better at using the ones we kept.
@@tonywilson4713 As far as the Sporting Shooter's Association is concerned it was never called the NRA. There was and still is to this day a National Rifle Association of Australia (NRAA) which is primarily a small bore target shooting organization.
But you're right about why the then Australian Prime Minister could do what he did as even the Sporting Shooter's Association, the primary shooting organization in Australia, whilst still predominantly a sports organization it was also in the process of trying to be something of a quasi-political lobbying organization as well. But after the Port Arthur Massacre happened for all it's bluster and tough talk it was essentially shown up to just be a load of hot air and embarassingly just fell flat on it's face. As you say it's now gone back to being a shooting sports organization as now being such it receives government funding which it would not be able to were it involved in anything political.
It's great that Australia is doing so well in shooting internationally and I hope it may continue. Whilst I happen to like guns here in Australia I don't see much utility in gun ownership and use outside of competitive shooting and certainly none for the purposes of what the various country's NRA's like you mentioned were originally established for which was to teach shooting and maintenance skills to possible future would-be soldiers. I'm now of the view that should be left to professional members of the military who have chosen that as a career.
@@YourLittleDeath Good point I'd forgotten the small bore people. But if you dig back far enough you'll find the NRAA and the Sporting Shooters share a common heritage. The SSA are an offshoot.
Its a few decades ago but I used to compete in small bore (indoor 25m) and later full bore (.308 300 - 900 yrds). Yeah at that time they hadn't converted to metric because it would have meant rebuilding all the ranges.
You could do what was at the time the international metric (100-300m) full bore but the costs were prohibitive - both guns & ammunition.
For 308 we just bought from the army supplier because that shooting still had its heritage all the way back to post WW1. In fact the main range in Melbourne at the time was Williamstown and it was still a army base. I remember days we'd be out there competing and the Army reserve would be over on the next range with M60s and SLRs. And we got our bullets from the same store house.
Rudd has always been illogical!
@@wesleygordon1645 Don't be so stupid.
*ALL of our politicians are ILLOGICAL*
They all rely on the general public making emotional and illogical decisions on who should run each nation and the rest of the world in general.
For all his faults as a politician, Kevin Rudd is incredibly accomplished, brilliant mind and an asset to both Australia and the free world.
A lot of his faults as a politican were due to him overworking his staff and trying to micromanage too much.
His biggest fault was trying to tax the miners
@@Coolsomeone234 his biggest fault was trying to take on Murdoch, he lost in public opinion due to slanderous media coverage. Look at Liberals leadership over the last 9 years it was a disgrace. Rudd helped improve Education, Healthcare, Infrastructure we avoided the GFC and our economy boomed during Labor. 9 years of "surplus" has lead us to triple our national debt. Carbon tax is btw prominent in most high indexing countries, Rudd was too ahead of his time.
@@Coolsomeone234 sorry you are correct in regards to Murdoch using mining tax as an angle to tear him down.
Literally never heard of him.
It wasn't at a school. It was a tourist destination. But it shocked us into action and pretty much solved the problem permanently.
Are you sure even without acting it would've happened again? In Switzerland there was an horrible massacre in 2001, they didn't really changed the law and there was nothing comparable in the years after.
@@sciking8756 I can't say. But that approach is certainly not working in the USA, so i don't think it is a risk worth taking.
They may have gotten confused because one of the most famous and shocking parts of that incident that folk talk about was him hunting down those kids.
@@hippofeathers5479 I don't understand your comment
@@hippofeathers5479 did that happen at port Arthur? I wasn't aware of that bit. How awful
"Congrats for America defeating the British so that they had to setup in Australia". Good one Kev.
I love Kevin Rudd. He's been my favourite PM in my life so far 😉
The banning of guns & then attempted gun confiscation in 1774-1775 colonial America, ended America's colonial history in an 8 year war, that England almost won!!
"This is just nuts."
The four words that perfectly sum up the United States' approach to guns.
@@willl4219
Which makes me say "You're nuts"
@@willl4219 You're nuts to even want to own an AR-15.
@@willl4219
Yes, as an American who is afraid the British are going to return. Even the British don't want that colony back.
@@willl4219 What!? I couldn't hear you over your incomprehensible comment. Lol.
@@willl4219 Sure, because what better way to show off your manhood.
LMAO KEVVY HAD ME ROLLING @ 3:34 "why not just a tactical nuke? Just nonsense" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Meanwhile Wal- mart starts clearing a stock area for tactical nukes😂
@Jus Cals Oh only if they were able to fit in the pick up
Like yes, the nuclear comparison is a little much, that's a piece of equipment that takes thousands of people and hundreds of millions of dollars to even create let alone maintain. Obviously it's a bit of a stretch, but the question persists: Where is the line? Exactly what weapons are needed to ensure the citizenry can overthrow their government?
In my opinion that line was crossed a long time ago and these old dogs are hanging onto leashes with no masters attached. Meanwhile children are slaughtered in their classrooms, lovers are shot in the movie theaters, and workers are butchered in their grocery stores. Might as well carve em up and serve em for dinner at this rate.
@@bradnorman7535 It would fit. Have you seen those F350's?
Such a good example of how nuts the US gun nuts are, who choose what weapons are allowed? can I get a flame thrower? why not?
Amendment literally means revised change. They did it once, you can do it again
Good luck getting 38 states to get on board
Can, but it is an intentionally difficult process. As it should be.
@@riffhammeron - obviously, but amuricans refer to it as though it were some immutable law of nature divinely ordained at the time of creation. I bet half of them wouldnt be able to explain the difference between an amendment and a commandment.
27,times ,the US Constitution has been amended...As a Australian,I'm grateful to our government of the day who took this action to remove such weapons out of circulation for the better of the nation..
@@riffhammeron It shouldn't be as hard as killing kids again and again, right?
good to see an interview about this topic with no yelling or behaving like children just an honest discussion
Because both these guys are gun grabbers. The purpose of 2nd amendment is for self Defence and not for hunting. Many times in history rulers have killed their own people. Russia, China, british, French, Germans, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Serbia, turkey, Poland, yes even USA and etc etc etc.
@@eduardomaldonado1647 I heard from American sources that the 2nd amendment was meant as a means to over throw the government if they became tyrants.
kevin 07 til the grave. I’d argue the most intelligent, empathetic & good-intentioned of our prime ministers. Honestly just a decent guy
The Handball King!
Yeah but unfortunately didn't really have the backing of his party.
As an Australian, yes, there has been no mass shootings, but a 15 year old kid can walk into a house to rob it and murder a mother of 2 because she was home, and get a minimal detention term. People are starting to become more brazen with crime and home robberies due to the high cost of living, wages that can't match inflation, and the penalty seems to be minimal compared to that of the homeowner.. Maybe there are some things we czn learn from the US too
"That is a deep cancer in this society" - Kevin07
It's true. Society runs on trust. A society whereas nobody trust the government with anything leads to all sorts of issues.
@@dragonite87 Why should you trust the government?
The word “amendment” means “change”.
Why can’t a new change be made to a previous change?
should there be ?? It will only make things worse!
It can be. Get 38 states to agree to it.
Let me know how that works out for you
The US constitution has been amended a number of times and the amendments have been amended within that.
It happens.
I would not be suprised if it happens at some point.
@@poeethics9331 38 states would have to agree to it. That's not happening in the foreseeable future.
Well spoken, Kevin. He is a good man.
He's an ignorant uneducated person who doesn't understand the concept of inalienable rights of man.
We totally have a right to bare arms here in Australia! It's winter right now, and people are still getting around in T-shirts and acting like they're not freezing their ***s off. ;)
Thats because its still like 20C° and raining half the time haha
😂
The Second Amendment isn't the problem, it's how it's interpreted and how you regulate the guns.
Yes just like how the First Amendment isn't a problem either, it's just how it's interpreted and how you regulate Free Speech.
@@YourLittleDeath If only you could read the amendments you would see the obvious differences. Common sense would help you too. How many times have children been murdered by someone welding free speech?
@@davidhitchen5369 Well the 'differences' are that in one it says 'Congress shall make no law' and the other 'Shall not be infringed'. It's not really all that hard to understand.
@@YourLittleDeath no problems with interpretation. The Second only specifies the rights of well-regulated militias.
@@shylanambiar4316 The militia being made up of whom exactly?
4 years later and still nothing has been done.
Even I they "did something" it'll happen again.
What will you propose then?
Then when it happens again.. what will you propose?
on and on..
@@duckingcensorship1037 There's that "learned helplessness" at work again. "You'll never manage to do anything..." whine whine whine pathetic.
Hello from Canada. Glad my child attends. Public high school here. Best of luck.
@@duckingcensorship1037 Sorry I should have specified that I was an Australian who watched the video because the guy who formerly ran our country was speaking. Here we DID so something, it was drastic and many people complained and continue to complain about it to this day. But it WORKED, we don't see the kind of gun violence America does and there have been cases where incidents have been prevented because for the most part talking about guns for anything other than hunting is suspicious behaviour.
@@duckingcensorship1037 Assuming you watched the video then you have an example of how mass shootings can be hugely reduced in number, hugely reduced in lethality or just flat out reduced to zero as has happened in Australia. Gun regulation and restrictions work to reduce mass shootings and gun deaths in general. It's the pattern in every country that has done it and only people in the US seem to want to deny the self-evident nature of this.
We have had multiple referendums to change our constitution in Ireland.
All it takes is courage and a majority of citizens to vote in favour of change.
It takes reasonable people with rational thoughts to do so. Alas, our lack of rationality is currently on full display.
They don't change the Constitution via referendum in the states like we do in Ireland.
@@collydub1987 but it is an option.
Trouble is they cant change their constitution by referendum. It takes politicians voting on behalf of their states (but usually their pockets are lined by gun lobby)
It also helps that Ireland isn't a corrupt sinkhole where money rules all.
Aussies can still obtain semi and automatic rifles under strict license conditions. As a shooter in Australia, i wouldnt have our current laws any other way, they work perfectly.
They dont work. Civilians are still armed.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make it very difficult for bad guys to get guns.
That l tend to agree with, if it can be done properly!
And then they’d just get knives, needles with arsenic in them, or cars rigged with explosives.
@@aycc-nbh7289You should have stayed in school. R.I.P
@@Rakuziio I have and I have obtained my master’s degree.
@@aycc-nbh7289 That's even more sad. 💀
"Can you see the Supreme Court bench standing there saying: 'we're defending semi-automatic weapons possession for you...because of your second amendment rights?' I don't think so."
- Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Feb 27, 2018.
Conservative Supreme Court Justices in 2022: "hold my beer."
“A well regulated militia”
Is not 300 million loose cannons !
No, make that 7.7 million loose cannons. Only fraction of population own guns and even smaller fraction are true gun nuts owning tens or hundreds of guns.
hahhaha well said mate
I'm not a losose cannon. How rude and assumptious.
@@timothyavendt677 Well your ridiculously easy to offend.
@@redreuben5260 but you cant control those Loose Cannons in any way.
of course australia has no right to bear arms, we are the only continent without bears.
We have the drop bears though. However vegemite does the trick, no need for guns
Americans are so polite to Australians...we appreciate that very much
Rudd is a former head of the state, that demands some respect
the queen is technically the head of state in Australia , but yeah
*head of government, the queen of the united kingdom is our head of state sadly.
Actually, Her Majesty Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia. We share her with the UK, Canada, New Zealand and some other places.
Technically yes, but she isn't Australian
"You cannot change the second Amendment!!!"
Excuse me? Of course you can. It's called an Amendment. It is there because somehow a certain point was forgotten in the original constitution. like the first Amendment that stated you have the right to express yourself. the 4th gives you protection against unreasonable search and seizures, the fifth calls for due process, the 8th protects you against cruel and unusual punishment (something the inmates of the federal prison of Guantanamo Bay do not have, or any other for that matter), the 13th abolishes that thing you had all those years, you know, that thing the south still wants back: SLAVERY, the 15th and 19th deals with your right to vote and grants it to everyone, even blacks and god forbid women. and lo and behold there is the 21st amendment. that little bugger has the audacity to actually repeal another amendment. the 18th to be exact. the one that enacted the prohibition. so you actually DO CAN amend an amendment and thus change it. it is NOT set in stone. it is not easy to do so, but it is doable. like the 13th or 21st. so stop with this nonsense. you CAN change the 2nd, you just DON'T WANT TO.
Cry about it. Even if some govt was foolish enough to scrap the 2A, there's far too many guns in circulation for a gun ban to ever work. Move to Australia if guns scare you so much.
Love Rudd. What a legend.
A legendary narcissist who's colleagues hated with spiteful passion.
The Australians are not cowardly like the gun people in the USA.
Kevin Rudd is great. I would vote for him again.
He was a v poor PM.
@@wesleygordon1645 this is stupid. Why? He avoided the GFC, economy boomed, NDIS was formed, education opportunity was great, I should know I used it, NBN was on track to propell us into modern era, whoops that didn't work out I don't think it was Rudd that messed up there. Oh the economy now is a mess with triple the national debt from when Rudd was in power. Oh wait he did try to tax the miners, which is something every other high economy indexing country wih modern sustainability policies has copied. Terrible PM that's why countries like Denmark, Germany and the USA copied/hired him as a political advisor. *Thinking*
@@wesleygordon1645 According to Rupert?
Keven 747 ? Yeah remember the pink bats and carbon tax ...
@@jamesmedina2062 With respect, I despise Murdoch, and I also chose to vote against Kev Rudd following his time in parliament. If you are going to dispute a decision someone has made please do it in a manor that incites critical discussion rather than hurling accusatory implications.
1. you can apply strict gun control without changing the 2nd amendment. Even the first part of the sentence is the perfect definition of gun control.
2. amendment can be changed, hence the word amendment
US can choose either of these options but refuse to do so.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - seems kind of ambiguously worded. Is it saying ALL people - or just those that are part of a well regulated militia? And what does well regulated mean exactly? And does 'being necessary' mean IF it is necessary?
Considering every adult male was considered to be part of the militia, I think they are reconcilable.
*cough* Tommy guns *cough*
NRA supporting restricting access on buying guns did happen. Back in the day when the Black Panther movement was getting strapped. Not of course there was any racist component to the NRA being pro curtailing freedom of buying guns, no no no. Surely not.
@@jackstuhley1745 Fair enough. It's still a mess grammatically though. It sounds like it was written by Google A.I.
@@jackstuhley1745. It was put in place because America didn’t have a standing army.
It does now.
Good to see one of Australia’s most beloved Prime Ministers here. The entire argument about gun *Rights* in the USA hinges on the *priority* question of which is more important: someone’s pleasure from owning an assault rifle, or someone else’s grief from losing a child.
It’s about our citizens rights bear the weapons necessary to uphold the constitution itself
Kevin Rudd is hardly 'beloved' by Australian voters. My recollection of him as PM is as a smart, nerdy, vain, weak, mean, feckless well meaning narcissist.
I voted for him but he was pretty disappointing, he’s definitely better suited as a media watchdog.
@@jessecuevas6456 The second amendment is out o date. If you don't understand that get back on your horse and ride home.
@@ewanmccartney8469 the objection against the constitution of this country is not American, if you don’t understand that, take your knives and move to the UK.
Rudd is wrong: 2A should not be amended; it should be deleted.
The second amendment was the right to bear muskets which took 30 seconds to load.
It was to be armed the same as the military who also muskets
@Eric Cartmann yeah, you wanna roll the puckle gun somewhere and set it up to excute 19 kids ?
It was written for militias. Not individuals.
30 seconds? For a first-time user. You can get it down to 15 within a year easily.
@@sammydavis991 individuals make up the militia to fight enemies foriegn or domestic.
As someone else said, a kid with a semi automatic is not a well regulated militia.
Some individual is not a militia either, surely. Make the guns have to be kept at a secure militia weapon storage facility.. that sounds more regulated than "got a gun in the car glovebox" or "in the side table in the hallway". It's not at all "well regulated".
@@--Nath-- Thankfully we still have a Supreme Court to protect us from simpletons like you.
The people and the militias are not the same. The people have a right to arms to protect against tyranny and militias that might exist in ones state. Militias exist to protect against foreign invasion since federal troops can not be deployed in the states.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right separate from militia service, so anyone who keeps up this "they need to be well regulated and join a militia, and store their weapons in an armory and BLAH BLAH BLAH" is nothing but a goddam ignorant troll.
@@TSimo113 The supreme court decided that the Roe vs Wade case meant that women were entitled to an abortion. Till they changed their mind. Not sure why you're suggesting that the supreme court are "goddam ignorant trolls" when you know full well the way the Constitution is interpreted can and does change.
I’m Australian and don’t remember Kevin Rudd to speak so much from his heart and not have to speak on behalf of his constituents. I don’t remember agreeing so much with his comments when he was prime minister.
Hea a great leader, I've always been a huge supporter of him.
Murdoch Majority Media incessantly manipulating the truth. Constant and omnipresent. That's why.
James, the banning of guns & gun-powder by England in 1774 in the 13 American colonies ended America's colonial history(1607-1776). BTW England almost won that 8 year war for America's independence(1775-1783).
And then there's English.
Posted by a grateful Australian
To change a article in the bill of rights. You would have to get 38 states to go along with it. As 37 states have firearm owners bill's of rights of there own this would be a fools areneid.
Unless the Americans choose to do something meaningful about this the rest of the world will have to put up with seeing stories of innocent children get murdered on mass on their media in ever increasing numbers.
The problem is a spiritual one.
@@warrencurtis7442 how so
Countries who still worship "Royal Families" in the 21st Century need to just STFU and fix their own stupidity before worrying about the US.
150 Children died in a school shooting in a different country by the Taliban. Thier are bigger problems than us right now.
I've become numb to it anyway!
i rarely agree with Rudd but he is spot on about the change, not that is should have been needed - see below.
A professional kangaroo culler in Australia was asked why he and his team used single shot rifles to cull Kangaroos (who can move very quickly). He said if you were a decent shooter then you only needed one shot to cull a Kangaroo. If you miss, the Kangaroo is bounding off into the distance. Now the same should apply to American shooters and if they feel they need to have an automatic or semi-automatic weapon then they are just blasting away for the fun of it and not decent enough shooters to own a firearm!
The populations of Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal and Spain (ALL who have substantial gun controls andbans on certain firearms legal in America) equal the population of the USA. The homicide rate per 100,000 people in the USA is 4.3 times higher than the rate for the countries with strict gun controls. The homicide rate from firearms in the USA is a whopping 44.6 times the countries with strict gun controls!
Now either Americans are psychos with a much greater liking for homicides or the more logical reason, IT IS THE GUNS!!
Now to the Second Amendment and why the modern day Judges have greatly erred in interpreting it. The Amendment was written in the Queen's English which was prevalent at the time it was written and by persons who were educated in the Queen's English. Modern day scholars of the Queen's Engish in Engfland or Australia will tell you that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." hinges solely on the "being necessary to the security of a free State". As the USA DID NOT have a formal military at the time, it needed a well regulated Militia and the people needed to keep and bear arms. In 2022, the USA has the most lethal military that the world has ever seen and hence the need for a well regulated Militia is obsolete. As such, it is no longer imperative for the people to keep and bear arms!
Agree, but the culture of the US is more suspicious of any "government". Rudd was quite prescient 4 years ago when he called it a cancer of US society, we see the results now (anti-maskers/vaxers during covid, the January 6 events, the roll back of US health reforms, de-fund the police calls, etc)
Well said.
It doesnt Master. Americans want guns, they wont give up them. Rather blootbath of civil war.
Kevin 07. Has matured into an excellent commentator on politics and world issues. Speaks fluent Mandarin too. An all rounder.
As my favourite American comedian says, 'if you're arming yourself because you're afraid of the Government, you don't know how tanks work !'
Countries with the Highest Total Gun Deaths (all causes) in 2019
Brazil - 49,436
United States - 37,038
Venezuela - 28,515
Mexico - 22,116
India - 14,710
Colombia - 13,169
Philippines - 9,267
Guatemala - 5,980
The USA will just have to try harder.
They LOVE to crow about how they're the 'world leader' in everything.
I suppose they don't want any 'gun control' because it would hamper their efforts to be 'world #1'.
USA USA USA. 🤣🤣🤣😍
Kevin Rudd was maligned by conservatives here in Australia, but conservatives never accused him of wanting to destroy Australia, nor was he literally hated by conservatives. Likewise Malcolm Turnball isnt hated by the leftists.
The vitriol Americans display to leaders of opposing parties is surreal.
Kevin Rudd is bilingual and speaks Mandarin. If he was running in the United States on the democratic side, his proficiency in Mandarin would be used against him. Rush Limbaugh would call him a Chinese spy - and his listeners would believe it.
smart man. i like it.
Now we have ScoMo, I think he's a dickhead and don't agree with much of what he does but can never relate to the crazy smear campaigns you see in the states. Tony Abbott was probably the closest we came but again, it was more like "when we will this wanker go away"
Define conservative.
Adam, the banning of guns & gunpowder in 1774 in the 13 American colonies by England, ended America's colonial history(1607-1776). Attempted gun confiscation in 1775 started that 8 year long war for independence that England almost won.
Optional voting leads to more extreme politics.
Australia never had a gun culture like America I'm Australian trust me! It was a few farmers who had semi Auto rifles. we had virtually no auto weapons. The Port Arthur massacre occurred in 1996 at a tourist cafe not school and was committed with a semi auto not a machine gun. The guy was a crazy murderer, who slipped through the cracks of the mental health system.
You're confusing the Monash shooting with Pt Arthur. Port Arthur led to a crackdown on a bunch of long arms, focusing on semi-auto rifles. Monash led to a focus on handguns. Two different things. I'm not convinced that the Pt Arthur shooter was "crazy". I think he just had a low IQ and an anger problem. Australia had its own gun culture. My uncle (a farmer) had a rack of rifles above the fireplace. My dad disabled a couple of rifles for my grandfather when the new laws came in. We had a bunch of mass shootings in the years before the Pt Arthur reforms, there have been very very few since, and none of them have been public events (the two I can think of were murder-suicides in a family home). Nobody here seriously thinks that John Howards reforms weren't the right decision. It's pretty much the only thing the guy did which has total bipartisan support, and always will.
it wasnt a school shooting in australia
it was a tourist attraction
facts.....get them right
When did Rudd ever let facts stand in the way?
Just a note here in Australia our gun laws cater for all firearms on category basis. The out common are A and B LICENCE which covers rimfire , shotguns and centre fire manually operated guns, next is H license for semi-automatic pistols and revolvers. Next is C which is mainly semi automatic. 22 and pump action and semi-automatic shotguns. Then there is D class which are semi-automatic large capacity magazines in AR 15 SLR etc. The trick is every weapon you apply for you must have a valid reason for that weapon and "self defence" is not a valid reason as we simply do not have the violent crime rate that exists in other countries
That's funny. When you banned guns your violent crime and murder rates went up by at least 15% for about three years after the ban took effect. Read your own stats. And self defense is ALWAYS the reason to own guns.
The banning of guns/gunpowder & then attempted gun confiscation in 1774-1775 by England, started that 8 year war for independence & England almost won that war in 1783-FYI!!
@@RonSafreed what point are you trying to make?
@@reddog4515, just giving some history of guns in America. Guns were always common going back to the year 1607, the start of our colonial history. Guns were needed for protection against American Indians, protection against wild animals & what crime that excisted in the wilderness of colonial America. Colonial America experienced times of 'temporary gun confiscations & the guns were stored in the 'powder houses' usually built away from populated areas, because gunpowder back them was more unstable. 1607-April 1992 Columbine, 392 years of no mass school shootings. Since 1999-2022, 23 years of various mass school shootings & yet during those 392 years guns were common. Example 1900-1945, 76-122 years ago, 47 million guns were sold in America in them 45 years at a rate of over a million a year & yet no mass school shootings. 1900-2020 in 120 years, 1.5 million murdered. 1899-2020, 3-4 million killed in car accidents. Since 1927, over 95 years car accidents every year have killed more than murder. 2500-3000 a year killed by knives in America. Remember guns/gunpowder were once banned in all of colonial America in 1774. Attempted gun confiscation in 1775 started America's 8 year long war for independence & England almost won that war.415 years of guns being common in America & only in the last 2-3 decades with mass shootings.
@@reddog4515 I forgot hunting, along with fishing & gathering wild foods, supplimented, especially the early agriculture in colonial America. Remember clearing the land back then was both manual hand labor & hand tools along with draft animals. "HARD WORK"!!!! It took a century for the beef & dairy industry to become common in colonial America.
Thank you , Mr. Rudd, you are the first sensible, cohesive, intelligent interview I have seen on this subject. If your country can change, so can ours. Unfortunately, we are burdened by a huge population of uneducated deplorables, greedy politicians who are fed by the weapons manufacturers/NRA and obtuse, archaic ideas that our constitution cannot be modified. It is on my wish list to visit your country, I am really looking forward to it.
Maybe you yanks need to force Kamila Harris and your President Joe Biden to have a chat with Kevin Rudd he maybe able suggest people who could get some sort action to remove semi automatic and automatic firearms from the hands of the public in America meaning some one who could act as a consultant who could get something done on the issue of gun laws reform.Obviously the US needs to reform its gun laws big time other countries like New Zealand and Canada have recently tightened their gun ownership legislation after masicures in each country and as Rudd in a round about way pointed out that your countries second amendment doesn't specifically name automatic weapons meaning a politician could instead push for banning of just semi automatic and automatic firearms from being owned by members of the public such a removal of such weapons from the hands of the public would mean fewer gun related deaths each year also as Rudd also pointed out the second amendment was for a time when America got its independence through revolution and needed militias to make up for the lack of a professional army or the lack of size in the US army at the time of its independence and as he has said things have changed since that era of the US revolution starting in 1776.Some people in the US need to obviously look up their countries history over the last two hundred years or so they also need to get a atlas to see how the US has got bigger over its first hundred years. Personally I think some of these types wanting to maintain the same gun laws that are out of date are either arrogant and bloody minded or in the case of people who are members of militias in the twenty first century are possible involved a certain amount of organized crime after all I suspect a AR 15 assualt rifle or semi automatic pistols wouldn't come cheap plus if background checks were tightened some of these militia types find their past catching up with them.
Do you even know what the purpose of the 2nd amendment is?
@@sebastienholmes548 they have no idea. Too busy watching government funded fake news.
D James king George banning guns & gun-powder in 1774 in the 13 American colonies ended the colonial history of America(1607-1776). Attempted gun confiscation in 1775 started that 8 year long war that England almost won & had England won they were going to make peasants & serfs of the colonists!!!!!
@@sebastienholmes548 To defend against a tyrannical government. The same one which now has drones, the biggest army in the world, tanks, nukes and other pin point missiles.
And you're going to defend yourself....with your AR15? Get with the times dude, couple of hundred years have passed.
Well, it wasn’t actually a school shooting , it was at a tourist attraction, Port Arthur and it was in 1996 not 1999 but he is right that we haven’t had a single massacre since. The closest thing we’ve had was the Sydney Lindt Cafe Siege in 2014.
I remember after Lindt so many right wing nufftys pointing and shouting that it was proof that gun laws had failed.
Notice there's not been anything since that either? Yeah, I think we're good.
I thought this was a recent upload but it’s from four years ago. Now I realise nothing will change.
Kevin Rudd is most realistic dude we had as pm
DUD not dude dud rudd
“Shall not be infringed”
That sentence begins with.... "A Well regulated militia".
@@Steve-mm3pj well regulated means well organised (like a military) not government regulations
@@rajashashankgutta4334 I didn't mention government regulations. Where in the Constitution is the concise definition exactly?
@@rajashashankgutta4334
And better yet militia have been banned in all states for years now
"The right of 18 year olds acting outside of any militia to bear arms..."
The only reason you should be able to use a semi automatic weapon is if enough people can make a case for being attacked by a gang of 20 odd people at once. That's the only reason. Who do you know who is going to defend themselves with a semi automatic weapon? They would have no house left. This is an attacking weapon, not a defensive weapon.
The police have semi-autos to protect themselves against as few as one person at once. Their lives are not more valuable than mine and they will never be at the scene on time to save me. semi autos are used in self defense every day in this country.
@@TSimo113
Boom💥
I really wish that MSNBC writers who put out the headlines for these videos would be more intellectually honest. If you watch the video, you will clearly see that the former Australian PM is not arguing that we change the second amendment. He is not arguing for us to do ANyTHING with the second amendment. Instead he is suggesting we should interpret the second amendment to allow for some measure of gun control, not a total ban on guns, which is a position that is actually completely consistent with Heller. People need to remember that Heller does not say that you can own any weapon you wish, just that we cannot completely eliminate the ability to own some type of arms designed for self-protection. However, that could easily mean that we simply have a right to keep and bear our shotguns and other non-semi-automatic pistols and rifles. The extreme leftist anti-gun position is ludicrous because when the police are not obligated to protect you (and they are not), it is unreasonable and morally repugnant to stop individuals from being able to protect themselves. However, the extreme right-wing position is equally ludicrous because you should not need a semiautomatic weapon to be able to protect yourself. These two extremes are pulling moderates away from considering proper gun control measures such as those implemented in Australia that preserve the right of citizens to own guns while simultaneously limiting the specific types of guns they can own. Indeed, most common sense gun legislation would still grandfather the right of those who currently own these weapons to keep owning them.
If you want to protect yourself and your family, a shotgun or a standard six shooter will do the trick just fine as this is about protecting yourself in a purely defensive manner as opposed to being able to go on the offense. Until the extreme left-wing in this country get away from the lunacy of wanting to ban every gun in sight and the extreme right-wing gets away from the lunacy of wanting to have weapons of war, a proper consensus is simply not going to occur because the moderates (who actually are the majority of people in this country) will never be able to placate either side that wants everything done their way and only their way. This is not only true on guns but also every other important issue from abortion to immigration to taxes. The media needs to stop inflaming rhetoric and giving extremists on both sides a platform to voice their opinions, After all, while people have a right to free speech, no one has a right to be heard on MSNBC or Fox. It is up to MSNBC and Fox to stop giving these folks a platform. Of course, just because they need to stop doing this does not mean we can require them to stop doing it because there is also a right to press freedom but these two bastions of extremist rhetoric really should understand that just because they have the right to speak and publish what they want does not mean that they ought to exercise that freedom in all cases and for all causes. In fact, it would do both sides well to remember that usually learning to just STFU is almost always the best option.
Actually he did argue that as an option. To people outside the US it seems the definition of insanity to not be able to change something called an amendment.
@@davehocking4091 No, he did not suggest changing the Constitution. He suggested changing our laws. Jumping to changing our Constitution is a huge stretch of what he actually said.
Claiming the two are the same is like when someone says, “let’s change how we elect our leaders” to “let’s become a parliamentary democracy.” It is certainly something that could be done based on what is said but it is not what is actually suggested or said.
@@drmadjdsadjadi he said you CAN change it. Which you can.
@@davehocking4091 He did not suggest we SHOULD change the CONSTITUTION. He did suggest we should change our LAWS. Big difference.
@@drmadjdsadjadi no he suggested you could not should..correct.
As a non American ( but living here ( legally) ) I never understood that, the constitution, why they don’t change it?. On my home country it happens already 2 times . They were made for other times🤷🏻♂️. Also, in the USA, do they know what a Referendum is?
For some reason the USA doesn't do referendums. Bit weird to be honest
@@Shredding101 It is the maximum expression of a Democracy, the same one They sell on movies.
@@Shredding101 There is no mechanism in the federal constitution for that. Some state constitutions, in California for instance, have referendums.
I surrendered my collection of weapons, including several unique pieces. Now, I really don't care about my loss. Kevin Rudd is a clever and well spoken individual.
Americans would shoot police officers for those pieces.
There were a lot of things we couldn't imagine the Supreme Court doing in 2018...
Yup, things seem to have changed.
Why not? Because this is America not Authoritarian Australia
Lol Australia outranks the US in EVERY freedom index kiddo. It isn't Australia banning books that have inconvenient mentions of actual history in them...
@@ratofvengenceNo one is really banning books here. You're lied to endlessly...so are we, and the rest of the western world at this point.
..by the same people too.
The "Freedom index" is absolute BS
Shall not be infringed, we should have access to the same weapons as the military. The #2A isn't for a deer uprising! It's to protect against tyranny.
Nuclear weapons are prohibitively expensive for 99.9% of the population to own. Try using a valid argument.
@@jeanpaullabarge
The government also is not going to use nuclear weapons on its people. Next time use a logical argument.
Best performance Kevin Rudd has ever given! Never did that in office!
Wake up America. The answer is right in front of you!
I didnt like him as our prime minister, however after listening to him again i really like how easg it is for him to articulate his words. Very well said Rudd, well said
Murdoch Majority Media incessantly manipulating the truth. Constant and omnipresent. That's why people didn't like him as PM.
Totally agree. Of course he has his dark side (narcissistic and angry), but his eloquence and articulate logic contrasts against the lunacy of the GOP. Go Ruddy!
He's no Tony Abbott in his speaking abilities though.
Apparently was a horrendous micro manager though, i was very conservative back then though, so that might not be true
@@falloversideways
Throw in another "though"
Too many "thoughs" are never enough
@@petergrace7541 look, Pete, though you are entitled to your 'though' opinion, I don't appreciate you throughing it back in my face, though I have to admire your cheek. Though, maybe I'm being too touchy.
I'm gonna go that I was very tired at the time though
First and only time Rudd acknowledged Howard doing something good; admittedly probably the only good thing Howard did do.
As opposed to Rudd who did nothing good.
@@Design_no That really was by design. His own party treated him like dog poop throughout his tenure. In fact, the one time he attempted to pass something good ended with him getting dumped out.
Best PM we ever had in Australia
Garbage!
No he's not that would be Bob Hawke
@@ariellaryner7740 true, or Keating. Essentially any that aren’t LNP are in my list
A very thoughtful response.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Your drunken neighbour that peeved on your wife has a gun. Feel better.
Of course you can CHANGE the 2nd Amendment,
It's an AMENDMENT!
It's also part of the Bil of Rights, look that up you Jim Jefferies parroting knucklehead.
I guess the “shall not be infringed” went over your head
There was not a shooting at a school in Australia in 1999. 35 people died in a gun massacre at Port Arthur in 1996 at a historic site.
"We get most things right."
You really, really don't, my dude.
When the second amendment was written over 200 years ago, the right to bear arms meant something completely different than it does now. For one thing, they certainly didn't have assault (war) weapons in mind.
Um. Yes, they did have war weapons in mind. That's precisely why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.
@@Anon54387 Amusing. They didn't have AK 47's and the like then.
@@ronh.798 They did have weapons of war and civilians did own them. The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's a very general, all encompassing term. It does not say that the right exists except for arms invented after a certain date.
@@Anon54387 Again, they did not have AK 47's and the like back then.
This subject brings to mind something that made an impression on me visiting the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C.. A quote from Thomas Jefferson on the wall behind the statue of him...Dated July 12th, 1816. "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as the new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors"
@@ronh.798 They actually did have automatic weapons and cannons as well. It was well understood the purpose of the second amendment was to keep the federal government in check. So the people had a right to the weapons the military had.
Today virtually no one has military weapons which are fully automatic. Civilians for the most part only have semiautomatic weapons. But with strength in numbers those semiautomatic and if ever needed improvised weapons and tactics would be very capable. If anyone doubts they should look at how successful the Vietcong or Afghanistan was fighting a superpowers.
K Rudd was one of our best PMs and has a great mind..
And the shooting in Oz was at a tourist location, we havent had a mass school shooting ever.
I had no idea Kevin Rudd lived in America. Did I hear this right?
What this former prime minister said is exactly what the 2nd ammendment was saying, for a well regulated militia NOT the general public.
A well regulated militia is the general public, as to protect the people from a tyrannical government
@@sebthecuber5238 You seen the public lately? What part of it is well regulated?
What militia was the Uvalde shooter a part of?
Right of the people.
@@sebastienholmes548 Well regulated militia. apparently you dont understand it ;-)
@@davehocking4091 the people are the militia.
When the Constitution was written, guns could only fire one shot before taking a minute to reload and fire again. I think things have changed since then.
That's why the nuclear weapon comment highlights the absurdity of free right to all weapon propaganda mentality, which doesn't happen.
What these types are also saying- and the political, "We accept the death of a few children and an amount of social rot for the weapons we want to sell to you!" and:
Our "rights" trump yours!
The American political system has been corrupted by vested interest money financing them and THAT is the elephant in the room. Publicly funded election candidates is the only way for a healthy democracy. Private lies are everywhere.
Wrong, go back to history class.
@@sebastienholmes548 So you can point us to a semi-automatic rifle from the 1700's then?
@@-Fritz- puckle gun. Thats not the point though the point is people should own small arms (even artillery) that matches to capability of the military to defend against the government.
@@-Fritz- puckle gun. Either way it doesnt matter because the 2nd amendment is to allow people to own arms equal to capability of government
Let it be known, Kevin was a terrible PM, his legacy is trash.
Abbott is the worst PM. His legacy is toxic.
Both were crap
Kevin Rudd is god's gift to Australia
😂😂😂
Thats why he LOST.
The 2nd Amendment is an antiquated throwback to another time.
Change it?
ABOLISH IT!
And then Russia may come to invade the US and force Americans to work for kopecks per day at what would be the new Kalashnikov plants.
@@aycc-nbh7289
Is it your habit to say foolish things?
Unbelievable!
@@anthonycantu8879 It used to be foolish to say that Russia would stage a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It also used to be foolish to believe that the Soviets were enslaving the people of Ukraine and forcing them to work in poor conditions.
@@aycc-nbh7289
Go back to sleep 💤
No one was talking to you in the first place.
How refreshing to hear a voice of reason from Australia... Much love to the young American airing that same voice of reason to begin with.
Don’t forget that it is harder to smuggle illegal weapons into an island nation.
@@aycc-nbh7289 Plenty of non-island nations don't allow guns and don't have frequent mass shootings.
@@1violalass But it is easier to have gun control laws like that in a nation that does not border other nations with more lax restrictions. If we placed harsher restrictions like Australia did, then we may have mafiosos running speakeasy firearms dealerships and fighting each other over control over various cities.
Plus, we have also seen from Germany just recently that a lack of guns won’t necessarily translate to lives saved. If anything, we should force people who drive vehicles such as the Ford F-250 and Chevrolet Silverado 2500 to obtain HGV licenses and bar people who have committed vehicular homicide or had DUI’s from driving such cars.
@@aycc-nbh7289 What's to stop mafiosi doing that under your current laws?
@@1violalass The permissibility of guns means they are not necessarily needed.
He was the prime minister when I was in school and the gun laws were barely 10 years old, we spent a lot of time learning about how the laws were put in place and why, and how the current government planned to upkeep a law that was put in place by their sworn rivals. Ridiculous to think that there are Australian parties who even now want to remove the gun ban even after over 20 years of success.
We are citizens. You’re residents are subjects.
Sometimes it's not all about ME ME ME, My rights, My second amendment etc. Seen the USA's Civid19 death rate?
@@howabout8611 of course its about the State Collective People & "Greater Good" Regardless how it harms Individual freedoms and Right, let's just Stripped it all aways because sometimes it's better better said me me me and we
"You’re residents are subjects."
No, we're citizens, and I'll not take ignorant criticism from the illiterate.
The second amendment was close to a replication of traditional British law that upheld the right of people to self defence.
The idea that the government can’t be trusted isn’t an American thing. It’s a history thing.
Because Britain was once ruled by a monarchy. Magna Carta came out of King John's corrupt and brutal rule.
The great thing about history is it gives us a tremendous amount of source material of what not to do
Eloquent always. Go Kevin!
This man is the best handball player to grace this planet
Too right
You tell em kev, let’s face it the U.S.A. needs to change the
Yeah they do. But I don't see them actually doing anything that would do any thing worth while.
To change the Amendments and Bill of Rights in the US Constitution it requires 34 states to call for a Constitutional Convention or Article V Convention. To ratify any changes to the Constitution itself requires 3/4 or 38 of state legislatures to vote for the amendment. So changing the 2nd Amendment is no easy task.
If a task is not easy, that does not make it not worth working towards.
@@stuartcoyle1626 Change it and they'll take every gun, or close to it.
Do you trust centralized power that much?
your Senators don't have the brains, the will or the gumption to rewrite an amendment that was clearly written in that manner because of the circumstances of the time it was written in, to get Independence. your Senators are too busy lining their own pockets from Lobbyists making bills to funnel Americans money into Corporations that's how America Inc. rolls
@@duckingcensorship1037 This fearmongering doesn't help the situation. The government isn't going to take away every single gun. What's far more likely is tougher restrictions on who can own a gun and for what reason, as well as possibly a restriction on certain types of weapons being owned. However this could change from state to state. It's still a complicated issue.
@@brodygray1880 so glad i don’t live in a country as stupid as america, youse will never learn
I'm Australian, but even I know that the point of amendments to the constitution is was made that they cannot be changed. They're to protect the rights of future generations. Otherwise, what's the point of having it in the first place?
It's like the Bible, you cannot change it. It's a major sin.
It's called an "Amendment" because it was changed from the original constitution you dumbshit... that's what amendment means, a change/modification. And the bible has been changed numerous times...
China since 1949 called Australia New China & someday INVADE AUSTRALIA !!!!!
Ehhhh are you joking? The 18:th amendment was repealed in 1933. Cos people just love booze.
@@orvarino The difference there is that the right to drink alcohol isn’t seen as an essential human right alongside the right to free speech or religion.
"hey google define amendment". Also see: prohibition.
Schooled by KRudd. I love how he shuts down every arguement for semi automatic guns. This is gold
@Anthony Caruso I disagree.
The schooling happened, the host wasn't the one being educated. If the host was being devils advocate he did a fantastic job and Ruddy did a perfect job of rebutting.
@Anthony Caruso Tony, I think you overestimate the amount of brain people have.
Ruddy was clear, concise and encouraging rather than condescending.
Nonsense! He never talked much sense as a PM,
But can he shut down the possible fear of a Russian or Chinese occupation of the United States overwhelming the armed forces we have? Vietnam and Afghanistan have given people reasons to doubt the effectiveness of the US military, so there may need to be alternatives if it came to that.
@Anthony Caruso OK, but things could always change and we could always see foreign boots on American shores someday.
Telling Americans they can't have guns is like telling Australians they can't have BBQs.
He is just saying what the rest of the world is thinking..........
Actually 90% of the world are fed up with the mass shootings of America and there not even our people.. the world seems too watch on in horror and feel sorrow while America further arms itself which leads to more violence. I love being Australian I know that gun violence here in Western Australia is so so so rare that I can breath easy about my daughter going to school or to the shops and I don’t need to fear. Australia is also has far more mateship with other races and cultures than America.
@@charliereynolds3404 Why do you think your opinion matters to us? Your laws are not my concern. We have a system that we prefer and it will stay that way, and you have fuckall to say about it.
Repeal the second amendment! I'm a life member of the NRA!
lol in Australia everyone wants to forget about Kevin Rudd
Well it wasn't in a school it was at a cafe at Port Arthur
I am so done right now about guns. I was willing to work for commen sense legislation. Not given given up one inch and made it even worse. I am 100% get rid of second admendment. Also it was not even 1982 that there was even considered a right for civilians. Militias were at the time part time defensive source for the states with antiquated weapons. No militias now. There is federal military and federal state and local agencies that take that place. If you don't work on corrcting the problem now when the heck are you? Get rid of the 2nd admendment.
Truth is the 2nd is the "Right to keep and bear slow-to reload-muskets shall not be infringed". It was impossible for one person to inflict carnage being done today with the weapons available in 1791.
Being unarmed didn't work out too well for the jews...
@@stuarthancock571 private citizens owned their own cannons back than
@@MattyB7 Yes and some lunatics today believe private citizens should own modern Howitzers.
@@stuarthancock571 yes that is besides the point. A cannon can cause more harm than a semi automatic rifle so your first comment was refuted
I can absolutely see the Supreme Court saying 'shall not be infringed' means you cannot ban certain types of guns. That's the problem of the pseudo-religious attitude to the second amendment as unalterable holy scripture that exists in the USA.
So if we can't make buying and selling these guns illegal, then make using them in crimes a capital offence.
So does that mean anyone has the right to a flamethrower? A bazooka? A box of hand grenades? Or as Kevin said, a small tactical nuclear device (and perhaps the right to open carry or conceal carry it?). Your constitution is not sacrosanct!
@@charcolew Except in a handful of states, flame thrower are completely unregulated. I could order one by mail and have it delivered tomorrow.
@@charcolew yes
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
~ Noah Webster
You realise Webster made that statement in the 18th century. Quoting 18th century revolutionaries is very romantic but I would suggest that the whole body of people being armed would not constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops considering the size and armaments of the United States military.
@@MrRecrute yeah the guy doesn't realize the quote refutes the very concept of the 21st century relevant 2nd amendment. it's a bad joke.
If you honestly think the people of the USA have the ability to organise and overthrow the government, and get away with it, You're dreaming.
People nature does not change. Look at Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Sadam Hussein, they all killed many citizens in the last 80 years
That is built on the presumption that every person with a gun thinks the same way.
RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP … License to purchase any gun and ammunition. Licensing requiring training on use, safety and laws. Prohibit the sale of automatic rifles and pistols before age 21. National background checks. All sales private and dealer must be recorded. Seller violates any rule, they are liable for any misuse. This is all permitted by 2nd Amendment “ … a well regulated militia … “
Stop being so reasonable and using common sense; you'll upset the gun nuts.
If I wanted laws like Australia, I would move to Australia.
Maybe you should.
Maybe we don't want you.
The ignorance level in the US is just too high for this to be discussed. It's a sad truth. I fear the violent reaction of conservatives if the topic of changing the 2nd amendment was even broached.
If they got violent they become literal terrorists and suddenly become easier to target by the cops and Feds
Craig B. England banned guns/gunpowder in 1774 in the 13 colonies & then attempted gun confiscation on April 19 1775 in the colony of Mass. by 8-900 English soldiers started that 8 year long war for America's independence & England almost won that war in 1783!!
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Well regulated
@@meandthepotatoes4916 functioning properly.
Not correct about school shooting in Australia….1996 port Arthur massacre at a historical site