Nowhere in Greens policy are we calling for a Prohibition on firearms. The policy states;

15.4 Establish good and genuine reasons for possessing a licence (e.g. persons with an occupational requirement, e.g. primary producers, other rural purposes, security employees and professional shooters for nominated purposes or a member of an approved sports shooting association);

That in itself shows a willingness to accept the possessing of firearms by some, other than the police and military. We expect all the above will have a legitimate use for a gun(s). The culling of animals, even sheep, although through good management culling can be kept to a necessary minimum level.

I have made every attempt to answer your questions, even to the point of saying I am accepting of some parts of the Shooters Party policy on firearms. Your failure to answers my questions about "genuine reason" and what constitutes a "firearm" indicates you either don't know, or realise it is a load of dumb down meaningless drivel. Correct me if I am wrong

Paul,

The definition of 'genuine reason' and 'firearm' are covered, as you well know, by legislation, legislation by which we are all bound.

You have never answered the question about humane culling, I know that the Greens somewhat favour 1080 but that is not humane.

As an example of strange Green policy in NSW:

"6. Rural owners of licensed firearms should limit their use of firearms to legitimate farm purposes and minimise disturbance of people on neighbouring properties."
What other purposes would a farmer have?
How far away are the neighbours 3 or more kilometers?

"25. Enforcement of regulations requiring guns in homes in rural communities to be kept in a metal box with a combination lock securely bolted to wall or floor, with firing mechanisms and ammunition locked in a similar box in a separate room;"

This is an example of either pure nastiness or an utter lack of knowledge of rural life.
Farmer Jones is woken in the middle of the night by wild dogs attacking his sheep.
If he turns the lights on then the dogs will scatter and by the time he manages to get a firearm and its firing mech and ammo the damage will be done.
How is he supposed to store guns from which the firing mechanism cannot easily be removed i.e. ones that requires a screw driver and numerous screws to be removed?

Continued

How would you remove the firing mechanism from an 1892 Winchester (it and its derivatives are common firearms in rural areas).
To help you Paul, I append:

"1,007,608 Model 1892 rifles were made by Winchester, and although the company phased them out by 1945, they are still being made under the Puma label by the Brazilian arms maker, Rossi, by Chiappa Firearms, an Italian factory, and by Browning in Japan. In its modern form, using updated materials and production techniques, the Model 1892's action is strong enough to chamber high pressure handgun rounds, such as .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, and .454 Casull. Despite being designed for smaller cartridges, the 1892's dual forward locking-block action is actually stronger than Browning's rear-locked Model 1894."
from Wikipedia.
and numerous drawings from which you make get an understanding of the problems involved in following the Greens suggestions.
https://www.google.com.au/?gws_rd=ssl#q=winchester+1892+drawing

G'day there IS MISE...

You've got to stop sending me these 'Links' to some of these brilliant old F/A's !! I've always loved the old 'Wobbly' Scotts and their many derivatives and counterfeit copies Particularly the venerable .455 ctg. with a muzzle velocity of walking pace, and with a big 'mother' of a projectile. I do like their engineering too, though I've never attempted to pull one down ? Still the poms understood their stuff, and over time, they opted for the 9mm Browning (High Power) GP35 as did we. You would've serviced many hundreds of Browning's over time IS MISE ?

You mentioned the proposition of arming many experienced ex-servicemen for the purpose of an ex officio 'posse comitatus' styled groups. It wouldn't work my friend. To exercise controls on such a large body of people, would be impossible. There are many experienced, ex-servicemen, returned servicemen, and retired police, who'd I'd not want to see permitted to carry a concealed weapon, let alone use one.

Exposure to military life, or law enforcement in itself, doesn't mean we're a 'fit and proper person' to be allowed to carry a concealed weapon ? Does any one of us remain 'psychologically stable' all our lives either ? Most do I'd agree, however some don't. Does our physical abilities necessarily remain the same our entire lives ? And our faculties - eyesight, hearing, and judgement, do these vital faculties increase or decrease as we get older ? All of these issues can, and do impact upon us, particularly if ever we were called upon to 'safely' carry a concealed gun, and moreover fire that gun at another human being (under extreme pressure) ? The difference between 'Rules of Engagement' a military term, and the 'lawful use of lethal force', are as far apart as can be imagined. Therein lies the problem ?

I do understand where you're coming from IS MISE, but arming any of those who've been suggested, would only create chaos for police and the public alike !

Is Mise, by blindly supporting the more crazier aspects of Shooters and Hooters policy, and adding some way out wacko ideas of your own, like a Dads Army style para military first response mob, shoot first ask questions later mentality, you make yourself an easy target for a sharp shooter such as myself. You have attempted to promote all the red herrings you can, short of a Polar Bear invasion of Bondi Beach on hot Sunday afternoon in January, not too many concealed weapons there. As for the furphies about farmers with antique guns and packs of wild dogs in the middle of the night, its up there with the Polar Bears.
Since you have no idea what the Shooters and Hooters mean by "genuine reason" and "firearm" you tried to do a snow job, with its in the "legislation", no its not, its on the Shooters web site, I asked what does that crazy mob mean by "genuine reason" and what is their definition of a "firearm". They make no reference to any so called legislation which you claim we are all bound by.
Is Mise, I enjoy our one sided debates, you put up some nonsense and I shoot it down in flames, and i don't even own a 'Howitzer', but I might need one if The Shooters and Hooters ever come to power.

o sung wu, "I do understand where you're coming from IS MISE, but arming any of those who've been suggested, would only create chaos for police and the public alike!"

Just one of the fatal flaws in your reasoning is that if those people are as you suppose there is nothing to prevent them from possessing firearms anyhow. Australia's porous borders see to that. The outlaw motorcycle gangs - in particular the middle eastern OMGs - import the nasty 'gangsta' guns they want in containers, of which very few are ever likely to be inspected.

To follow on, you are also silent on the many and varied other options 'they' have to wreak mayhem, for example petrol.

When it comes down to the nub of it, there are hundreds of years of Australia's past experience with broad ownership of firearms that challenge and dismiss what you are worried about.

Apart from the violent and other nasty traditions and political cultures constantly being imported where federal governments have botched up immigration and border policies, what possible differences are there between the children of the Fifties and the children of the present day that renders them incapable of being trusted when they reach adulthood?

Cadets used to carry firearms in the street and clean and care for them at home. What prevents them form being just as thoughtful, responsible and careful now?

I am suggesting that the only difference is in the altered minds of the public - minds filled with fears and hysteria, wrong and twisted thinking - put there by the foul, dangerous and limiting political correctness that is widespread and systemic in the West.

It is the cultural Marxism boasted of by the leftist 'Progressives' that enslaves.