What aspects of the Australian Law are you talking about?
I disagree with their outright banning of every single firearm. I agree with banning handguns, but that's not what I'm advocating in America. Now, I think Australian gun laws have gotten stricter and stricter since the 90's, so I'll clarify in that I support some of their initial reforms, which included limiting access to certain types of weaponry, creating a national gun ownership database, requiring a licence for ownership that could be revoked for a set list of specific reasons, creating a gun buyback program so people who wanted to get rid of guns could (but unlike them, I wouldn't make it compulsory except for the outlawed weaponry (EG, explosive weapons)), requiring universal background checks, requiring anybody selling a gun to be licensed, limiting magazine size and requiring anybody buying a gun type that the haven't owned before to take a gun safety course specifically designed for that weapon and taught by the experts to make sure that everybody has at least basic safety training before owning the deadly weapon.
You have taken away my right to bear arms and replaced it with a 'government can I please have a gun'?
I personally disagree that owning a deadly weapon should be a right. I think it should be considered a privilege that gets granted once you prove you can be trusted with it, since a "right" is something that everybody is entitled to, and I don't everybody should be entitled to firearms. However,
I know that we are never going to agree on that topic, so I would really rather leave it there.
I will not give the government that power to decide who in the populace gets to be armed at their discretion. The government should have to provide me a reason why I cannot own a firearm.
Again, I disagree. If you turn around and say "I want a gun," I think it's a fair question for the government to say "Why?" I would be worried if the government said "Sure, here you go!" with no questions asked.
I will not prove to the government that I can exercise my own rights
Again, I disagree that it should be considered a right, but I don't want to go down that rabbit hole.
I am going to provide the government a 'genuine reason' why I should get to exercise my right to free speech or against unlawful search and seizure.
Freedom of speech is slightly different to owning a gun, since last I checked, words aren't capable of directly killing people.
Put restrictions in place to make sure people are mentally competent to purchase a gun? All for it. Put a (reasonable) waiting period on gun purchases to prevent someone from buying a gun 'in the heat of the moment'? All for it. Requiring basic, universal licensing to carry a firearm in public? All for that too.
Then at least we're in agreement there.
But I will not accept any form of government agency telling me I cannot own a gun because they decided I didn't need it.
You need to accept their authority in some way, or what's the point in having a government in the first place? It's the government that sets up the laws, the state organisations like the police, they build infrastructure and industry...the government, like it or not, is responsible for a lot of what you rely on. I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to say "you're not allowed this because we say so," however. They should be required to give a valid reason, and give you opportunities to appeal if you dislike their decision. Because by allowing background checks, for example, you're still giving them the power to refuse certain people access to firearms. So you at least accept that the government should have a say in who gets guns and who doesn't.
I have no interest in giving them any more control.
Thing is, no matter how bad the West gets, I doubt it will ever be an out and out tyranny until I take over. Democracy is...flawed, to say the least, but there are recourses and there are ways of making your voice heard. The government will always have control and there's no real solution to that since society needs a government to function, so all we can do is make sure there are adequate checks and balances in place. Personally, I like the idea of the Spartan system. Not in practice, but in theory; one group comes up with the ideas, one group proposes them, one group votes on them, one group leads the military but has to leave after a set amount of time and face trial for their year in office and the group that proposes the ideas also has veto rights on the military group. Not perfect, but there's the basis there for a pretty balanced system, with some work. Athenian democracy, on the other hand, was a mess. Of course, I am kinda biased....the Spartans - relative to the day - went through phases of being cool and phases of being dicks. The Athenians were pretty much dicks all the way through.
You're right, the cops aren't going to lock you up for using a bike chain... unless they need something to charge you with.
And now you're getting into tinfoil hat territory. Calm down. The government isn't out to get you. They likely don't even know that you exist except as a number on a piece of paper. The cases of that happening - in the UK, at least - are practically 0, since the media would have a field day with it. Ridiculous arrests happen, of course, but nowhere near the level that you need to start considering it a problem.
Its called Selective Enforcement. And in a country where we have a constant problem with racial tensions between cops and citizens as it is? I'd rather not put more vague, paranoid laws on the books to placate people.
I agree...so make them extremely specific. Where exactly did I advocate banning bike chains with vague laws that allows racist cops to arrest anybody with a moped?