individual, you raised the issue of good and bad people, remember.

Here's a question for your ethical side to think deeply about.

What about a good person, complete with the black 4wd, private school for the kiddies, donation envelope ready with a $5 note inside for Sunday at church (oops, not quite 10% of the wage though is it?) who goes home and shoots his wife and private school kiddies? All eight of them.

He's passed the gun shop test, his amputation of the family cat's head was overlooked in youth as an 'accident', and he has thus far fooled everyone, including himself.

Is he now a 'bad person' even though that morning he was still seen by all as a 'good person'?

Unfortunately, our chap is getting on a bit, second marriage and new kids, and he served in Vietnam as a national service man.

His Harley and tats are a bit of a clue to the state of his failing mind, but because he has a MBA from a prestigious university, overseas no less, a 'recognised' one to boot, and he has been an Olympic skeet shooter, winning only a bronze (hence his sense of failure and shame) and he runs a successful engineering consultancy business, no one suspects that he is at this point, the crucial one, quite deranged and highly volatile, with a brittle personality, and a short fuse.

Should he have a gun in his house-oh, he lives out of town and helicopters to work and his kiddies are normally ensconced, as boarders, in the chaplains office there, pouring out their bitter hearts, at Kings, or is it Crufts?

Unfortunately for them, it's the hols, and they are fearing their time with Dadda, just waiting to escape back to that nice chaplain with his large 'listening ears'.

Well, wherever the upwardly aspirational neo-liberal drone sends their kiddies these days

What a load of garbage in this thread from some, and the last in particular.

I respect the words of this guy more than any arm chair lefty with a university education that thinks they know it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-3GTwalrGY&feature

If only someone like this was at Port Arthur all those years ago!

The inalienable right of self defense is not negotiable in my mind, I don't care how you want to spin your words. If my enemy has a big stick then I'll getter a bigger stick to protect myself, it's as simple as that! It's why nations have nukes after all.

RawMusturd

Your Neanderthal honesty is refreshingly clear.

But the nukes you endorse, and the keenly thought through processes for setting them off, is why some, not all for sure, people like to try to control just who has access to these big stick weapons.

I can see you are a supporter of all nations being armed to the teeth, along with every living human.

I agree, the world would be so much safer if Iran, Burma, Egypt, Germany, Japan, Serbia, Wales, Isle of Man, NZ, Fiji, Sri Lanka and other sundry lesser nations were equipped with 'nukular' capability.

Oh what a world to dream for, and work to bring about!.

I envy people who can think clearly on these matters.

Enemy with stick

Can't do much damage, unlike

Madman with Glock

If a belief in the M.A.D principle makes me a neanderthal then so be it.
Do you deny it works?

Well, considering the 'allies' felt that Saddam should be stopped from having them, and there is a lot of angst over N. Korea, and do people really believe Burma needs them?, I'd have to question the value of a bi-polar world 'resolution',MAD, being applied to a multi-polar world.

You see, there is resistance to 'everyone' having them, and if 'we' all believed in MAD, then the doors would be open, and many nations would make a motza from flogging them to their friends, and better still, to their enemies, who would then never think of attacking with them, would they?