Seems that neither of the resident Greens clowns can answer a straight question.

I wonder if that is because the truth would hurt?

I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression, I do know that many of the Greens, and including David Shoebridge, are people of principal.

Dear Is Mise,

Law is an imperfect instrument. Special cases may be cited where almost any law will not be fair all the time. We have in English common law the provision of double jeopardy. A person cannot be tried again if found not guilty even though new evidence shows that the person has committed a crime. However, if we did not have that provision the state could dig up reasons for retrying that person.

If we restrict gun ownership there will be cases in which a person needs a gun and does not have it. However, there are also cases where a child will get a gun which is around the house and accidentally kill a family member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States is an article giving statistics on gun related deaths. Apparently it is more dangerous statistically to gun owners to have a gun than not to have a gun.

Peter Dutton, my member, would get rid of double jeopardy because of a case of injustice due to that provision. I would keep double jeopardy since I think getting rid of it would occasion more injustice. For the same reason I support the Green's position on gun ownership. Although one can cite anecdotes such as you did where having a gun would be good statistically there are more unnecessary deaths resulting from gun ownership than from the restriction of gun ownership.

Peter Dutton probably has that position because he is a former cop and would not restrict the power of the state. You possibly have your position because you like to hunt and don't want your access to guns restricted.

However, I think there would be fewer gun deaths if the Green's proposal were adopted. Fewer children might shoot their parents or siblings accidentally. Restricting gun ownership is an infringement on freedom. However, so is requiring a driver in Australia to drive on the left side of the road. Both restrictions improve public safety.

Is Mise, the joke is "we can't have gun control laws because of a stocking injured in the bush and needing his trusty gun to fight off the feral pigs. How often does that happen?

Foxy; you said <<State law doesn't know if you are crazy,Cross-eyed, True Blue, or simply hazy,You may just be a weird right-winger>>

You should have been to the pre-polls this week, the bloke doing the HTV's for The Shooters and Hooters fits that description to a tee!

Anyway, off shortly to do my bit for The Greens.

<<Prominent NSW Green, Lee Rhiannon is the NSW Vegans' president and patron. Rhiannon is an animal liberationist.>> A busy woman our Lee. So Beach it okay for you to be a member of a sinister right-wing organisation that holds secret party meetings in a basement, god knows what could they be plotting and scheming, but its not okay for Lee Rhiannon to be a vegan. So much for you and civil liberties.

<<where Rhiannon is concerned -she is top dog of the 'Watermelon Greens'>> Again totally misinformed. Beach you have got to get out of that basement more and join the real world.

davidf,

I wasn't refering to the law but to the Greens inept use of language which on the face of it would appear to usurp the right of the Courts to decide if the use of a firearm was justified.
Do you also support the Greens in their continued use of the known lie that the Lyndt Cafe terrorist was a licenced gun owner?

The Greens in their ideologically driven pursuit of law abiding gun owners would deny women any means of self defence, just as do almost all other political parties.

David Shoebridge is a lawyer, how can a lawyer (who presumably understands the law) stand in Parliament and knowingly lie?
Or is he simply misinformed by his advisers?
Either way it shews gross ineptness by the Greens and consequently an unfitness to be in any position of power.