this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
41 points (97.7% liked)
Australia
4737 readers
222 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can survive without lots of things people want.
You can survive with one outfit, without ever going camping (harms the environment after all), without soft drink or fast food, without recreational drugs, without a video games or books.
That's poor framing. The question is does the activity someone wants to engage in (and the tools involved) represent an unfair burden or risk to others in society. Now we can have that conversation about firearms in general but this limit is arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. It's entirely vibes based.
I mean it is the gun lobby who called it "the fight of our lives"...
Also, farms can own ten guns according to the limit.
Is English a second language for you?
They did not say "this is a fight for our lives" they said "this is the fight of our lives", for vs of do you see?
It reads as "This political fight is likely to be the most significant fight — in the context of gun regulation — that we will participate in during our time alive".
It's meladramatic, but that's part of politics and rhetoric. You have to rile people up.