On a final note:

I believe people who seek public office need to be bound by their word, and then let the chips fall where they may. And for mine that's just not David, who slipped into office on the back of a blatant untruth; namely the he was a liberal democrat?

When in fact he's a dyed in the wool right leaning conservative, and a completely different animal. He may well believe in gun rights, but that's where it ends?

Genuine equality is just too hard and a bit like the now you see it, now you don't, pea under the cup?

He seems very selective and self centred on just what rights and when and where a human life can be arbitrarily snuffed out, we the people should have as a parliament conferred privilege.

Me, I'd allow mature adults (over 25) to own an automatic shotgun with a 20 round magazine capacity and only allowed to be used with bean bag non lethal ammo.

And easy enough to fix as putting a G on your driver's licence to indicate you are only permitted to use your vehicle under the specific licence provisions. And given we need a licence to own a gun or buy ammo, that's is how we could control who and how is able to buy and use ammo.

And given law abiding drivers wear glasses when required by law to do so, we can expect the same in relation to gun control.

As always criminals will just please themselves! Albeit a little more circumspect about whose home or business premises they break into

However while I might agree with some liberalization with regard to gun laws. David is just a little too right leaning for a (genuine, what you see is what you get) small L (swinging) liberal (with a strong social conscience) like me.
Alan B.

And just one more example of how Australia, like the UK, USA and Europe, have been dragged to the Left, which is inhabited by those whose motto has always been, "We know better". Pity they don't because life would be soooo simple.

Pity they don't because life would be soooo simple. This very silly idea that 'none of these bad things would be happening if 'my' side were in power, is luricous because those who see things things this way fail to see the real issue.

The real issue is that 'nanny stateism' as in things like 'tolerance, diversity and cultural sensitivity, has got nothing to do with left or right but it has everything to do with suppressing free speech so we get trained up to accept censorship and nothing less.

Guns and bombs are not the only weapons of war, cultural weapons like nanny statism are weapons of war on free speech.

Can you people not see that tyranny is tyranny no matter which hole it comes out of or which 'ism' is in power? Can you not see what is happening in the US, Canada, Britain, Europe? It's has been going on for years? What make you people think Australia is or will be exampt?

David, one the examples you've chosen to highlight our nanny state - compulsory use of bicycle helmets - is a poor one. If we really wanted to give people the freedom to ride without helmets, fine, but we should also say that if you don't have private medical insurance and you come off your bike and injure your head, then tough: no insurance, you refund all your head-injury-related medical costs to the state. People need to be responsible for their own actions so they need to be responsible for whatever consequences arise from riding bikes without wearing a helmet.

It's a little like the cigarette smoking debate: everyone knows that nicotine is addictive and tobacco smoke contains high levels of carcinogens, hence world-wide anti-smoking campaigns. Same with bike helmets: we know they save lives and serious head injuries, so mandating their use makes public health sense.

Dear Bernie,

As for your first paragraph, I couldn't agree with you more and I believe that so would Senator Leyonhjelm.

I have attempted to opt out of Medicare, but discovered that if I did hand back my card, then no Australian private health insurer would be legally able to keep insuring me.

The "Health Policies" page from the LDP webside, http://ldp.org.au/policy/health begins with:

"
The Liberal Democrats will:

* Abolish Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and funding for public hospitals, which will be transferred to non-government ownership.

* Introduce a medical expenses subsidy for citizens that rises as medical expenses increase and falls as income and assets increase. This will be paid via the savings account scheme described in our Welfare policy. (If just half of government health-related spending were redirected to fund the medical expenses subsidy, the average subsidy would exceed $2000 per Australian. The subsidy for the poor and chronically ill would be significantly higher.)

* Abolish intervention in private health insurance, including the private health insurance rebate and the ‘community rating’ laws that prevent health insurers from setting premiums on the basis of an individual’s expected health costs.
...
"

Personally, I may not go as far as abolishing Medicare altogether for those who still want it, because I understand that many Australians hold it dear, but I would certainly allow those who don't to opt out.

Now looking at your second paragraph, your comparison with smoking isn't completely accurate because smoking is not completely a victimless crime as riding a bicycle, so here my views may differ from the Senator. Also, while bike helmets perhaps prevent serious head injuries, they increase the rates of other, less dramatic, maladies, such as dehydration, heat stroke and skin cancer, and obviously obesity, diabetes and heart conditions caused by the avoidance of cycling altogether.

Finally, you write: "so mandating their use makes public health sense."

Perhaps, but public health itself makes no sense: health is a private matter!