From a post on Debate and Relate forum:

I'm not English so I don't knwo their laws but if I have a license to own a fully automatic weapon and allow you to shoot it under my supervision it's no offense in the U.S.

This would be a matter of Australian law, not English law.

Wales is a serving member of the British forces, and it's not unusual for visiting forces in Australia to use firearms in training, military exercises, etc. The fact that he wasn't in uniform on this occasion is neither here nor there - comparatively unusual in practice, but it doesn't raise a legal problem, and in the circumstances we can see why he was in civilian dress.

Presumably he didn't just grab the gun and start shooting; he was invited to shoot it by the officer in charge, and there's no doubt that in terms of training, certification, military discipline, etc, he is qualified to use firearms. There's no legal problem.

He was there for so called public relations in my view. I'm not sure who's, but maybe it was to improve the public perception that he is a nice guy or something. Laws are obstacles to behaviour usually unwanted by the state but with enough time, money and effort the impact of laws can be minimsed on individuals or legal entities.

Now retrospective laws are a different matter ... that is an interesting ethical topic.

This is the western world, what's going on? When did we become such sticklers for the absolute rule of law, a socialist mentality?

If anything William (& Harry) are merely ensuring the anti-war movement gets a little reality check. Everything we have is as a result of wars we've won, if not we'd be ruled not the rulers.

Phil, I think the subtext here is not the gun, but the man. Who is William of Wales, why should we care about him and why should the Australian taxpayer be giving him guns to play with? If laws are being bent or relaxed, why for him?

If a distinguished visitor from some other country has been involved in this fairly trivial incident, I don’t think this question would have been raised.

I don’t think this post was intended to raise issues of pacifism, but issues of republicanism.

If that's true, the original post was certainly not clear to me. I assumed William of Wales was the Prince William but I can't say for sure but if the subtext was not about either the rule of law or guns it should have been clear.

Perhaps I’m reading too much into it. But visiting members of the forces of friendly countries using firearms at the invitation of the Australian defence forces is nothing unusual. The salient factor here is that, although Wales is a serving RAF officer, that’s not why he’s here. He’s here because he’s a British prince, and there’s a sporting chance that one day he’ll be the British king. And the question, I suppose, is whether his princeliness is the reason for the frolicking about with firearms, and whether that’s a good reason. There’s no operational reason for the use of firearms here; is he just being spoiled and indulged because he’s a prince?

[PS: My own view: No. He's a visiting dignitary. Princely or not, visiting dignitaries get spoiled and indulged and, if it will amuse them to shoot guns and there is no other objection, they get to shoot guns.]

The poster of the quoted text from the D&R forum is speaking about guns and the law, there is no covert republicanism as he is a staunch monarchist. The amount of training and the military experience of Prince William have nothing to do with it, there are any amount of Australian citizens who have much more experience as soldiers than he has had but they are not allowed to fire the weapons that he did. William is not an Australian citizen so the question arises as to why he was given priveliges that is denied to Australians who do not possess the necessary licences.

As for being sticklers for the law, both the original poster (who happens to be a cousin and we are both distant relatives of William, on his paternal mother's side [not that that has anything to do with it]). We are both returned servicemen and both members of the Royal Australian Regiment Association and as such we used to get to fire all the latest firearms (as well as the old ones) on Reunion Days with our various Battalions. A bit of fun and we could see just how much we were slipping each year. But no more; the Army, on Federal Government orders, had to stop letting the Association members have a shot because we well qualifyed old soldiers don't have the NECESSARY LICENCES. The cousin admits that he's a bit peeved but doesn't see why William, or any other visiting dignitary for that matter, should get to have a casual shot or two when the same is denied to Australian citizens.

I am reminded of an incident that happened over 25 years ago when the then Governor of NSW was about to start the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race, he was handed a 12 gauge shot gun, loaded with a blank, then a Police Constable stepped forward and asked the Governor if he possessed one of the newly required Shooter's Licences. On being told "No" he informed the Governor that he could not then use a firearm for any purpose, including starting a race and the Governor had to hand over the starting duty to someone who produced a licence. Since then, or a few years later, the race has been started by the firing of a gun on a Naval vessel; just how the Constable's career progressed I don't know; probably spent the next few years some hundreds of miles away from yacht races.

Ok so next time William should wear a uniform. I'll write to the Queen and let her know that Australia finds her grandsons' conduct unacceptable.

How much of the republican debate is about power?

What message does the existence of the last surviving monarchy present to the rest of the world?

What history does the monarchy have?

How many wars has the Queen's war cabinet won?

How would our trading partners see Australia without the monarchy present?

Is Australia one of the only free countries in the world?

How many more laws will exist that restrict freedom before the penny drops?

This is just sheer insolence.

Forgot to ask if anyone has a solution yet to the growing homeless problem Australia has, including approximately 14,000 children. Any thoughts??

Not the only ruling monarchy either:

Fair enough they rule in terms of their own country/culture but they do not have the establishment of system as the British do, proof of successful rule. Of course this means established trade roots, shared prosperity, and a general standard of living much higher than other nations/cultures.

In our country we are comfortable, we have less struggle, and a comprehensive system which constantly seeks to broaden assistance to the most vulnerable, a system developed of British standards. We have established trade routes as a result of British exploration and have diplomacy that limits our need to graft.

However in recent times, there have been a raft of movements and changes which have loosened the systemic framework and have created greater loopholes than already exist, causing us to move backwards rather than forwards (growing homelessness is one indicator, and the problems in the bush another). Typically it's harder work to find and fix the loopholes than to replace a piece of the system which is failing which gives the impression that things are moving forward.

However the recent change from consumer affairs to the dept of fair trading is a perfect example of where it is not 'moving forward'. People are incredibly unhappy with the service they receive often being passed from one office to another without solution or assistance, taking months to get help/advice. And the same applies with the Centrelink system, people are sent from one office to another without a skills review, and without advice on local jobs except what's advertised in the newspaper (which could be to pressure employers to pay for advertising). People in the Centrelink system often find the way in which they are treated insulting and diminishing which affects attitude, motivation and perseverance.

Many of these changes may have been made with good intention however they have not brought good results, rather the opposite, leaving one wondering the motivation for the change. Personally I believe the motivation was sheer arrogance out of this anti-monarchy, anti-heirachy movement rather than need.

As an example, take the pilots strike of 20 years ago and the collateral damage done to the industry that which we still see today. The loss to our country's gross earnings and future potential we see now with all the overseas airlines and loss of potential carrier routes, one's we could've secured if the strike hadn't occurred. The people who start these campaigns carry a gross lack of understanding for the duty of executive positions and when informed run a mile back to their labour position.

Whilst the constant barging of the unions may have subsided the relics and the affect still remains. When Howard tried to bring in Work Choices, putting the power of employment in the hands of the individual to give them insight and power over their rights and employment, to help them better stand on their feet, did they, no. Rather than put a few hours into learning about the contract law which underpinned their employment they winged and the effort was thwared. Next in came Mr Rudd whose wife wife owned a company called Work Directions which was half government funded and who's task was to assist the long term unemployed, yet she sold it for $175 million, and he went into office. We are fast becoming a nation of fat fire breathing slugs who cannot be bothered lifting an arm to look up a word in the dictionary and join a few brain cells together.

END OF RANT. Love live the Queen.

Phil73 wrote:

... We are fast becoming a nation of fat fire breathing slugs who cannot be bothered lifting an arm to look up a word in the dictionary and join a few brain cells together.

Quite a bit of truth in those words. We must show the way ... by setting examples of superethicalness and physicalness that, that, that ... that, that do something wonderful for the world. All sloths; repent and be reborn.

Seriously though, yes.

Eh don't take the piss out me.

And talking of superethicalness given the subject of this discussion, it proves that the high ranking cannot afford to diminish their responsibilities for leadership and formality.

Take heed when natural born power exercises it's right to rule.

Australia has now got the greatest debt it's ever had, and we've got no vegemite. So I personally am very upset!

Phil73 wrote:

Eh don't take the piss out me.

I was serious, your point is valid in my eyes about we are generally becoming very lazy. happy to criticise and tell others to act, but often lothe to act ourselves. And I believe the best (most ethical?) way to implement change is by example and demonstrate the rewards.

Humour always takes the mickey out of something or someone, and in some of my earlier posts it will be seen I also take the mickey out of myself. I would prefer people to laugh more at each other, not with each other.

Have a look at my next new topic.

I laughed my head off when I read your post, I was trying to be funny.. depression makes supposed jokes come off all wrong, I wasn't hurt..

But on your comment on laughing at each other, it's interesting cos I was thinking it's better to laugh with but then who are the withs laughing at and to the 'victim' of the laughing they may feel ganged up on or bullied by a groupd sharing a common laugh. Whereas if everyone was laughing at everyone singularly then no-one would form into a gang and one would be laughing from one's own personal/private joke perspective.

So from now on I'm going to laugh at everybody, fools!