Belly,

How does it matter what guns or number of guns are held by LAFOs, ie respectable, law-abiding citizens who have proved, some for ownership periods exceeding forty years that they abhor violence and would never break the law?

On the other hand, offenders do not need a weapon, they will use anything available including their care hands to intimidate and murder. One piece of pipe, one can of fuel, one knife, or one gun in the hands of a criminal is one too many. Also, they don't need much ammunition do they?

If your emotion and politics are set aside and you use your God-given noggin instead, how can you possibly confuse these offenders with LAFOs? Which do do manage to do over and over again. See here,

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/zoltan-slemnik-appeals-for-help-to-find-killer-of-hells-angels-brother-tyrone-20140110-30lds.html

It should be obvious to you that the inanimate objects you believe cause crime are already illegally obtained, illegally possessed and of course, illegally used. Most people though would come to the realisation that there are already laws against violence, theft, drug trafficking and other crimes being committed by criminals, and it is the offender himself who chooses to commit the crime.

The Left though and especially the 'Progressives' that calls the shots in Labor, and the feckless Greens, are soft on offenders while warping the rights of ordinary law-abiding citizens. That is why the Left is so concerned about the rights of OMG gang members, but they see no problem in their ill-conceived 'gun control' concentrating on respectable citizens who are not breaking laws and never would either.

In your world Belly you see no problem in police constantly monitoring LAFOs, having LAFOs on police computers as 'persons of interest' and conducting random compulsory inspections in their homes. Migrants would recall a parallel with the totalitarian governments they fled from.

There is no surprise that you and other 'Progressives' would do that. After all, you are signed up for State control aren't you? Taking rights away from the individual, but not criminals who must have rights(!) is par for the course for Internalional Socialists aka Marxists.

Again you refuse to answer my question and resort to abuse and nonsense. Usually a sign of ignorance and intimidation.

You wont answer my questions because you recognise the moral implications of doing so. This topic is not a political issue, it's not a legal issue, and it surely is not a consensus issue either. It's a human rights issue. But because you still have a little morality left in you, a sense of decency, you're torn. Your indoctrination and follower nature prevents you from voicing your true thoughts for fear of letting down your side!

No human being has the right to prevent another human being from protecting their gift of life or that of their family, under any circumstances whatsoever, period!

From birth humans are given the instinct to survive at any cost, we fight wars to protect our borders, we jail people (well we used to) we consider a threat to our safety. A mother, a father will kill ten people if they threaten their offspring. This has been happening since time immemorial. The most ardent anti gun types have admitted they would do the same on this very forum. To criminalise humans exercising their natural instincts, their human rights is morally and ethically wrong, it's stupid and leads to wars. Our diggers died to protect us from people that would take away our human rights, our instincts to live free and protect those which we cherish.

You can suppress these traits for a while under the wrong belief it makes people safer which it doesn't, history proves that without a doubt! But as time progresses those that would take advantage of others less capable of protecting themselves will grow, this is where we are now.

Many of us recognise this and are pleading with others to open their eyes but these others instead think that criminalising the vulnerable and empowering the criminals is the right way to go. What is their agenda? Because it's certainly not the empowerment of honest, good people that wish to live in a free and peaceful society!

cont'd

If you think I'm full of sh!t, you only need to look at what's happening around the globe at this very instant in time. People are rising up against tyranny and corruption all over the planet, and when it get's out of hand what do we do? We send them arms to fight off their aggressors. How about we let them keep their arms and prevent their aggressors from ever getting a foot hold in the first place? Would this save more lives? The American founding fathers thought so.

And it might surprise you, belly? But I don't own any guns! I did grow up around them though and I owned many from a very early age. I'm very capable with all types of them, including bows and arrows. I'm not arguing this because "I personally" want more of them. I see what disarming a population does to innocent, good people over time and it's not pretty! I will not give up my liberty and instincts for a little security!

Again in the news, this time with China is the foreign billionaire currency dealer who is rumoured to have links with that highly secretive and contentious Oz gun control site. The site that refuses to give details of it membership, sources of funds, sponsorship, political and other links and on top of that, does not accept applications for membership.

It is a small world.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/01/09/did-george-soros-just-predict-a-china-crash/

Oddly, the ABC in particular has given a podium to that gun control site, said to be the work of one or two activists. However the ABC apparently makes no attempt to inform its audience just who is behind the site or 'organisation', its membership, or any other details. A podium without anyone being offered a right of reply for balance too.

It would be interesting for the public to know what links if any that 'gun control' site has with NSW and federal Greens too.

I don't trust that man, OTB. The guy's a living enigma, so much written about his past, for and against. People would do well to stay away from anything he's involved in. When I see the types that endorse him, I know I'm right!

In some of today's papers they are kicking around the idea that higher taxes on alcoholic drinks should be used as a control method, an easy cop out that sees the innocent punished along with the potentially guilty.
Higher taxes on a legal product can and do inhibit the purchase of such a product but is such a path ethical?