http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tax/panama-papers-reveal-george-soros-deep-money-ties-to-secretive-weapons-firm/news-story/4f34cba3104155cdce5f93ec7751d729

This is one of the outfits alleged to be behind 'Gun Control'*, the highly secretive, publicity-shy overseas interests that interfere in the domestic politics of Australia and other Western democracies with the goal of disarming them.

*'Gun Control', as in confiscations and bans not regulation of lawful ownership.

<Panama Papers reveal George Soros’ deep money ties to secretive weapons firm

BILLIONAIRE George Soros, who has spent millions of dollars financing Democrats and left-wing causes, used a controversial Panamanian law firm to establish a web of offshore investment partnerships that operate around the world and out of the scrutiny of US regulators, according to leaked documents.

The so-called Panama Papers, a trove of 11.5 million financial documents tracing the Mossack Fonseca law firm’s efforts to help politicians, celebrities and criminals shield their money from taxes, contain links to Soros, who funds the journalism group that is disseminating the information. So far, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) has been silent on its benefactor’s ties to the law firm.
..
Soros Capital set up an offshore company in the Cayman Islands for the purpose of investing private equity with the Carlyle Group, alongside members of Saudi Arabia’s Bin Laden family. Carlyle’s partners include ex-heads of state and former CIA officials. The private equity partnership specialises in buying and selling weapons manufacturing and intelligence gathering companies with government and military contracts and it also uses secret offshore companies to conduct business...
George Soros’ Open Society Foundations provides funding for pro-migrant activists throughout Europe.
..

He is the largest donor to Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency, plunking down $US8 million ($11 million), so far. He has donated “up to $US1 million” to the Clinton Foundation. And Secretary of State Clinton’s emails reveal that Soros has lobbied her on behalf of his interests, which encircle the globe, mostly in the dark>

Somebody should strap that guy onto the back of a ballistic missile and fire it into the sun.

Soros is the billionaire currency dealer who nearly sent the Bank of England to the wall, which would have transferred into his hands the savings of thousands of small investors and destroyed the jobs of thousands more.

The lunar left doubtless see that as working for revolution and in their favour.

With his resources he would be an almost impossible grub for the authorities to set a hook into for his devious manipulation of markets and the economies of smaller nations. However the French did manage to convict the SOB of insider trading, which would have to be one of the nastiest white-collar crimes imaginable. It took the French authorities many years to run the mongrel down, with Soros using the might of his political, legal and other connections and appeal after appeal.

Why Soros provides money, organisational support and travel for notorious serial left protesters and for the 'gun control' (as opposed to firearms regulation) that is uninterested in stopping criminals but is aimed at disarming the West instead, is anyone's guess. As an observation though, share prices and currencies are affected by social disorder and disruption.

One of Australia's notorious 'gun control' activists is said to have travelled and studied(?!) courtesy of the Soros organisation. There are persistent allegations that NSW's Trotskyist 'Watermelon' Greens have undisclosed links with highly secretive, 'secret squirrel' 'gun control', Soros and other overseas interests behind it.

It's easy for any leftist nut-job to join the George Soros cause.
Simply go to Adelaide University and you can take part in destroying the country too!

http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/rb-bulletin/2015/11/24/open-society-foundation-fellowships-2016/

Quote "aggressively promoting their ideas in public venues" ...and they call us extreme.

Well I probably shouldn't have posted that.
Some fool is likely to actually apply.

If you Google the following link:

http://www.georgesoros.com/the-life-of-george-soros/

It's worth a read because it gives the background of
this staunch anti-communist and prominent international
supporter of democratic ideals and causes for more than
30 years. His philanthrophy - has supported democracy and
human rights in more than 100 countries.

Hi Foxy,
I'm glad your recent surgery went well.

I know that you sometimes can be a little naive with these things, and you probably also know that I'm opinionated and sometimes rude.
So I'm making the effort to be a little more respectful than usual.
I must say I'm a little jealous of your naivety, ignorance is bliss.
Unfortunately when you learn about the truths of the world, its no longer possible to remain naive anymore.

What I want to tell you is that George Soros really is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
His own website is not going to say that he's one of the most evil men alive.
He's not a good guy by any means.

He supports the EU (watch this documentary on Brexit)
This is essentially an extra tier of government above a federal government, where citizens completely lose all their sovereign rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

He's responsible for pushing an open borders policy that has destroyed European countries, and he's used his Open Society Institute in many countries to destabilize and undermine the existing governments in relation to regime changes, such as has occurred in Ukraine.

onthebeach,
You mentioned the Panama Papers.
If Soros is behind the ICIJ then you can be sure that all this is just a part of a much bigger agenda.
I'd assume it's to push forward the architecture or infrastructure for a global tax system.
In politics, nothing happens by accident.

LOL Fox

Nothing like soros.com on Soros, eh what?

So financial regulators and French courts, Obama too (who would like to see Soros pay tax) are wrong you say and Soros is a 'misunderstood' do-gooder?

He certainly does well for himself and without concern for the thousands of small investors and superannuation funds who could find their nest eggs rendered valueless overnight through the currency manipulation of extremely wealthy jackals like Soros.

This is a highly secretive outfit with a record of covertly interfering in the domestic politics of independent democratic countries including Australia. That is not something that most Australians would welcome.

Foxy,
You also mentioned that George Soros is a "prominent international supporter of democratic ideals".
The worlds actually a funny place where things aren't necessarily what they seem to be.

Take this article here by Paul Craig Roberts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-03/washingtons-fifth-columns-inside-russia-and-china

The point I'm trying to make here is that just because a person is a promoter of democratic ideals, doesn't necessarily mean those particular democratic ideals are a good thing.
Whats more important is the hidden agenda that are being carried out under the cover of those 'democratic ideals'.
- And I want you to know it's not a conspiracy theory, this is the real world we live in.

Soros gets away with his open borders policy by saying that people are more important than borders, and that while others are trying to protect their borders hes trying to protect people.

But its all just a big sneaky plan and a play with words to dupe gullible and naive people who will buy into his rhetoric not knowing that in truth he couldn't care less about people themselves.

The big scam is a push for global government.
He undermines other peoples nations sovereignty with an influx of immigrants, and funding things like 'Black Lives Matters' to cause infighting amongst the population.
- Why do you think there is this 'quiet war' going on against Nationalists, and of portraying them as intolerant extremists and sovereign citizens?
He supports all the LGBTI agenda's and therefore promotes this infighting over transgender bathrooms.
A nation divided is one that is more easily controlled, and we're all too busy fighting over petty issues to pay attention to what is really going on.
With leftist causes George Soros destroys other peoples nations under the cover of being a 'good guy' when what he and others of the 'Bilderberg' group really want is complete control of every resource and human being on the planet, and Global Government.

His support for the EU should send alarm bells ringing, you really should watch that video I mentioned earlier and find out what its all about.

As politically active billionaires go, George Soros is one of the better ones. Some of them use their wealth to campaign for legislative changes that make them wealthier at the expense of everyone else; he supports causes he genuinely believes in.

Soros's actions forcing Britain out of the ERM (but not actually threatening the BoE's viability at all) ultimately proved to be a very good thing, as joining the Euro would've been much worse for the British economy. In the long run an overvalued currency is bad for an economy, and it's better to have the market correct that sooner rather than later.

You may disagree with his stance on certain issues, but his views are widely held. The EU, though it has its drawbacks, is supported by most of the population of Europe, and the fact that it has some (though not much) ability to limit the right of states to impinge the rights of people is probably a good thing.

Black Lives Matter is not intended to cause infighting about the population, it's intended to address the serious problem of people behaving as if black lives don't matter. And anyway, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with controversy.

And as for gun control, it makes it much harder for criminals to acquire guns, much easier for police to take action if criminals do get guns, and much harder for someone to start shooting people.

Beach, you are slipping, it took you nine paragraphs to link your diatribe of nonsense to The NSW Greens.
Please explain the links between the Shooter Party (Australia), the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (SSAA), and international gun dealers and associations who have poured tens of thousands of dollars into election campaigns in Australia, advertising and political lobbying. International gun dealers are members or former members of The Shooters Party board.
Please explain the links between the ultra right, the powerful American National Rifle Association, and its funding of The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia.
Mr Malcolm David Fuller, was the NSW secretary and “registered officer” of the national Shooters’ Party, he was also managing director of Australia’s largest gun importer, which brought in a large quantity of Chinese SKS assault rifles, one of the two types of weapon used by the Tasmanian mas murderer Martin Bryant.

Beach, are you still a supporter of a well armed private 'Citizens Militia'?

Aidan,

Your buffed up Soros is directly the opposite of the sly, tax-avoiding and politically interfering international currency dealer that is criticised in the news article linked to earlier. This one and there are others with similar criticisms of Soros,

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tax/panama-papers-reveal-george-soros-deep-money-ties-to-secretive-weapons-firm/news-story/4f34cba3104155cdce5f93ec7751d729

'Gun control' is the antithesis of effective firearms regulation and is concerned with bans and confiscations affecting only the lawful, licensed citizens. People who obey the laws anyhow. You should be aware that it is part of the modus operandi of criminals to break laws. Politicians can duplicate laws to pretend they have solutions where they don't.

A consistent finding by police services after the years of firearm registration is that very few and often none of the gun crimes are being committed with firearms stolen from licensed citizens.

What about you detail specifically how Howard's 'gun control' manages to deter or catch criminals. Because the only people who are affected by the Howard inspired 'gun control' are the reputable, law-abiding citizens who are certified to be such and comply with the mountain of bureaucratic paper shuffling and time-wasting monitoring (of ordinary citizens, not crims!).

Paul1405,

That is your usual silly stuff and red herrings.

I know of Soros but not enough about him to make any comment. What I can comment on is the hypocrisy of some of the left because he apparently shovels money into projects they hold dear. Ranting non-stop against rich people in general, but okaying Soros who is a lefty throwing some of his riches their way. Even our own dear Aidan, thinks the that Soros is "one of the better ones". Shouldn't you be just a little embarrassed, Aidan?

Dear ArmchairCritic,

Aidan has summed things up beautifully.

I first read about George Soros in Tor Hundloe's
book, "From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability."
This book traces the development of the three key
disciplines underpinning modern environmental decision
making, otherwise known as sustainability science:
ecology, economics and ethics.

It illustrates how these
disciplines, singularly and in concept will need to be
applied in the 21st century if true sustainability is
to be achieved. It also explores the ideas of the
great thinkers and activists who have helped put sustainability
on the cultural and political map.

The author of the book - Professor Tor Hundloe in 2003, was the first
Australian recognised by the award of an Order of Australia
for his development and practice of an economics in line with
ecological reality and ethical imperatives.

Hundloe opens up the world to anyone wanting to better understand
how we got into the mess we're in - and how to get out of it.
The book is worth a read if you can get hold of a copy.
I bought mine several years ago.

Hundloe writes: "There is no reason that a human-centred ethic could
not encompass human concerns for the planet as a whole."

Regarding George Soros part of what Hundloe has to say is:

" In conclusion, I shall turn to a person most known as a
financial speculator(however, a well-read and wise one) to
encapsulate the ideas that humans have worked so hard and
long to develop, and now more than ever will have to rely on, to
build a just and sustainable global human society. Let us not
forget that this project was begun by the ancient Greeks, was
re-established by the Enlightenment thinkers ... Here's what George
Soros has to say:

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

" The Enlightenment constituted a giant step forward ...
Allowing reason to decide what is true and false, what
is right and wrong, was a tremendous innovation. It
marked the beginning of modernity ...The ideas of the
philosophers of the Enlightenment have become ingrained
in our way of thinking. The rule of reason, the supremacy
of science, the universal brotherhood of man... The
political,, social and moral values of the Enlightenment
were admirably stated in the US Declaration of Independence,
and that document continues to be an inspiration for people
throughout the world...Instead of accepting tradition tradition
as the ultimate authority, the Enlightenment subjected tradition
to critical examination. The results were exhilarating. The
creative energies of human intellect were unleashed."

Tor Hundloe writes:

"Reason, the supremacy of science, and the universal brotherhood of
humans are the pillars on which we can build a better future.
That George Soros should laud the Enlightenment for its
achievements, and for foundations it has given us in our quest for
sustainability, proves that a business-person as much as an
ecological scientist or a moral philosopher can willingly embrace the
three E's of sutainability - ecology, economics, and ethics."

Of course - we have seen that people in different walks of life
may interpret the same phenomenon - whether it is an international
business man, a federal budget, a religious doctrine or the issued
of gun-control in very different ways. People are influenced by
their beliefs, values, ethics, politics, and experience. In
other words they tend to see the world from a viewpoint of
subjectivity.

The truth of the matter is that what we see in the world in not
determined by what exists "out there." It is shaped by what our
past experience has prepared us to see and by what we
consciously or unconsciously want to see. We are all guilty of
some measure of bias especially in issues whose subject matter
involves issues of deep human and moral concerns.

Beach, the only silly stuff is your pathetic attemps to link The Greens with some sinister international people and organsations.

According to you "There are persistent allegations that NSW's Trotskyist 'Watermelon' Greens have undisclosed links with highly secretive, 'secret squirrel' 'gun control', Soros and other overseas interests behind it.

Persistent allegations by who? YOU!... You simply make it up as you go.

You wont answer my facts as presented. Not allegations, FACTS!

Beach; you would support The Shooters Party and the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia. Would you not.

I present the following as fact. Is anything I posted about Mr Malcolm David Fuller untrue. This is what Australians should be concerned with, not your scurrilous nonsense against The Greens.

Please explain the links between the Shooter Party (Australia), the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (SSAA), and international gun dealers and associations who have poured tens of thousands of dollars into election campaigns in Australia, advertising and political lobbying. International gun dealers are members or former members of The Shooters Party board.
Please explain the links between the ultra right, the powerful American National Rifle Association, and its funding of The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia.
Mr Malcolm David Fuller, was the NSW secretary and “registered officer” of the national Shooters’ Party, he was also managing director of Australia’s largest gun importer, which brought in a large quantity of Chinese SKS assault rifles, one of the two types of weapon used by the Tasmanian mass murderer Martin Bryant.

Of course you wont answer any of this, as you know it to be true, and it don't suit your narrative.

Paul1405,

As you would be well aware from my posts I have never been a member of any political party and nor am I aligned with any. That is all your narrative, not mine.

Law-abiding people with licences owning registered firearms are not the problem and never were.

However, it is precisely these thousands of reputable, responsible good citizens who can be relied upon to always do the right thing that YOUR NSW 'Watermelon' Greens are so offended by and wilfully slander, deliberately conflating them and their legal firearms with the offending SOBs (and their illegal guns) that YOUR Greens so avidly protect the 'rights' of.

You are in denial and being tricky. Of course the Greens talk the talk and walk the walk of 'gun control' and they never stop talking about bans. Bans that only affect the law-abiding. Because offenders don't buy legal, don't register, don't get licences (they would be laughed at) and they certainly don't possess their guns for any legal purpose.

Why would the Greens slag honest, respectable people and deny them their rights to lawful ownership, recreation and sports, while at the same time the Greens and Labor are falling over their own feet to trash the effective Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act (VLAD), that sent criminal gangs packing from Queensland? It doesn't make sense does it?

BTW, why is 'gun control' so secret squirrel about their membership, sources of funds and contacts? What have they got to hide?

Hi Aiden,
We can agree to disagree.
I think playing down the likes of George Soros is akin to playing down the likes of taking the night off and having your children babysat by pedophiles.

You may think open borders are great.
Tell that to all the women and kids who've been raped by out of control refugees.

As for 'Black Lives Matter', you can't cure racism by being racist.
George Soros knows this will cause civil unrest, and that's his aim.
I support 'All Lives Matter' and those who don't are just useful idiots being played for the fools they are.

Hey Foxy,
I don't have any objection to reasoned rational thinking or sustainability as a general idea or concept.

The problem I have is that others would use 'sustainability' as a vehicle to bring global socialism and fascism on such a global scale that the planets inhabitants may never escape from.

Just remember that 'sustainability' also means 'global depopulation' so if you support this, then you must accept that your decision may eventually push us to make decisions on who lives and who dies.

With 'sustainability' may also come 'death panels'.
Elderly folks use up 90% of health costs in the last 3months of life.
They may decide that its better and cheaper to give you the euthanasia shot instead, and use the resources elsewhere, in the name of 'economic sustainability'.

I'm not saying it to be nasty, the world isn't what it appears to be.
I just want you to understand that many of the things that appear to be good and innocent are in fact Trojan horses meant to trick us, whilst ultimately controlling and enslaving us.

All I want to say is 'Be very careful what you wish for.'

I don't want to have to say 'I told you so', I'm trying to protect and inform all of you, and prevent us from being mislead and making foolish choices with the future of our country.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22267-un-agenda-2030-a-recipe-for-global-socialism

onthebeach,
My intention was not to buff Soros up, but to counteract some of the spin and misinformation that had been posted by you and Armchair.

You seem to have failed to realise that speculators make their money effectively betting on things that are going to happen anyway. The only nest eggs rendered valueless through his activity are those that would soon be valueless had he not acted.

It seems quite ironic that you criticise him for legal weapons trading while simultaneously arguing against gun control!

Where guns are controlled, people who need guns for legal purposes can generally still get them. But it makes it harder for criminals to get guns. And most importantly, it reduces the chance that someone carrying a gun will decide on the spur of the moment to shoot someone.

__________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn, what is there to be embarrassed about? I didn't say Soros was a particularly good guy, but some politically active billionaires are much worse.

And seriously, who's ranting non-stop against rich people in general? Certainly not me.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Armchair,

As for 'Black Lives Matter', you can't cure racism by denying its existence.
You can't cure racism by accusing those who draw attention to it of being racist.

Of course all lives matter. But it is the All Lives Matter crowd who are causing the unrest by falsely accusing the Black Lives Matter movement of claiming that ONLY black lives matter.

And the lives of refugees matter. Rape should be dealt with by by the police, with the perpetrators jailed and, where appropriate, deported. It should not be used as an excuse to deny rights to those refugees who've done nothing wrong.

Beach, since you have not refuted any of the facts I have presented, I assume you accept them. Reasonable Australians, but not you, should be alarmed that an ultra right foreign extremest organisation, the American National Rifle Association, who's stated aim is the abolition of all gun control laws has meddled in Australian politics.

The issue of Queensland's VLAD laws has been extensively discussed on numerous occasions on this forum, you always instigating the discussion. Although the laws were independently reviewed by Justice Alan Wilson, and the Queensland government has moved to implement Justice Wilson's recommendations, you for one refuse to accept the umpires decision. So be it.
With your incessant references to the "NSW's Trotskyist 'Watermelon' Greens", you must have topped the 100th such reference on the forum by now, along with your ranting opinions, indicates you are out of touch with reality, and are politically aligned with the lunatic fringe of the ultra right of Australian politics, people like Jim Saleam and Pauline Hanson. You may say you have never been a member of any political party, and that may be true, but your views and opinions are well and truly aligned with the ultra right of Australian politics.

Aidan, "My intention was not to buff Soros up, but to counteract some of the spin and misinformation that had been posted.."

There isn't any need to buff Soros up. The Soros publicity machine is always working on overdrive and as the news article says, Soros as the darling of the wealthy leftist 'Progressives' such as Hilary Clinton and large contributor to politicians campaign funds, epitomises the 'Big Swinging Dick' on the block, who can throw his weight around and does.

Most would object as the article does, to Soros' extreme secrecy and doubtful motives. Especially his interference in the domestic markets and politics of other countries. His personal benefit always comes through in mega-millions from currency trading, taking advantage of natural calamity, social and political disruption, and of course that tax avoidance and insider trading you overlooked, why?

Aidan, "The only nest eggs rendered valueless through his activity are those that would soon be valueless had he not acted"

You are not that naive.

Aidan, "It seems quite ironic that you criticise him for legal weapons trading while simultaneously arguing against gun control!"

Hardly ironic and you should know that. In every thread I have ever contributed to on this subject I have been an emphatic supporter of the regulation of firearms ownership through the strongest, robust and most effective control possible, which is the firearms licence.

The article (you prefer to attack me personally instead of directing your attentions to it) rightly criticises Soros for his apparent double dealing and hypocrisy. Why be a gun banner and confiscator of legal, individual firearms held by licensed citizens in Western democracies while trading weapons of war on the open market to all comers, and through his company structures, outside of the control of US government?

You don't imagine that is problematical in his case, but why not?

continued..

Aidan, "Where guns are controlled....it makes it harder for criminals to get guns.."

Yet police statistics from gun registration continually prove how extremely unlikely it is for a gun offence to be committed with a firearm stolen from the safes of the licensed public.

At the same time, there is evidence of regular importation (illegal, obviously) to order of the 'gangsta guns' preferred by the drug trafficking bikies. Bikies that Greens and Labor are determined to protect from police in Queensland by deep-sixing the successful VLAD legislation that was supported by the High Court of Australia.

As for your catastrophising the unlikely scenario where a licensed gun owner might suddenly losing his/her head, you should be aware that since Noah was a boy, hundreds of firearms have been transported daily to the range and for other legal purposes. It is done with discretion as the reputable, law-abiding citizens who have a licence can be expected to do.

I don't doubt that some here could also relate personal experience as a young school cadet of carrying home on their bike or on the bus, the most potent assault rifle of WW2, the SMLE, with a magazine capacity of ten and very quick reloading facility. School Cadet Units had operational Bren and Owen guns. What about those 'sniper' rifles with micrometer 'Central' sights used in competitions? Women smiled at the public-spirited Cadets with SMLE slung over the shoulder. Why?

Injuries other than minor, a grazed knee or bruise, in all of the years of Cadet Units? Absolutely none!

You cannot imagine any of that being the case, but it is true. How about that?

The goal of 'gun control' is bans and confiscation of legal, registered, legally-held firearms from legally licensed citizens to disarm the Western democracies.

It is the very antithesis of effective, evidence-based regulation based on professionally conducted analysis of risks and effective, efficient risk treatments.

Of course 'gun control' appeals to the leftist 'Progressives' aka the International Socialists. To lazy politicians too, who ride bandwagons and pretend that more and more laws is the solution to everything.

onthebeach,
Hes probably made a fortune off the firearms, though I did hear he's now recently divested into gold.
Not a bad move considering Plan 'B' in Syria is expected to begin in the next week or so, (who knows whats planned in the M/E) the NATO head yesterday said expect a nuclear war with Russia within 12months.
Whilst Soros pushes gun laws, sales get a boost from the American public as they rush to buy guns.
And yes he does fund the Pro-Clinton 'Media Matters' as well.

If you want a bit more info of how the world works go here.
http://youtu.be/H7b-ynXM1VM

Dear Armchair Critic,

I appreciate your concern very much (and your
civility) and I
understand what you are saying. That's what
I enjoy about OLO - different perspectives given by
many intelligent people, and as a result - much
food for thought. You and Aidan are a good match.

From what I've read about George Soros (including
Tor Hundloe's book) what Soros calls an "Open
Society" is a democratic one. (The opposite to a
one-party state ruled by an unbending ideology,
such as was the Soviet Union under Stalin).
Soros foresees the possibility that the excesses of
modern financial capitalism will lead to a similar breakdown
of democracy. And that is something that Soros appears
to fear.

I would need to read much more about Soros's thoughts -
especially his 1998 book, "The Crisis of Global
Capitalism: Open Society Endangered," to be able to
make any further comments.

Dear Paul,

You've probably already read this link.

I've just come across it.

http://www.guncontrolaustralia.org

Gun Control Australia lists what the problem is today
regarding guns in this country, and what their organisation hopes
to achieve.

Its worth noting though what their stance actually is:

"Our stance - we're not seeking zero gun ownership.
We simply support sensible regulation that puts
the safety of the many ahead of the desire of a few
who seek to erode our gun laws."

An aside on gun control (read eventual a total ban), a TAFE course, compulsory for people first applying for a permit, has been suspended after an attendee shot himself in the foot. Also in SA, the coroner has restarted the hysteria about a privately owned pistol range in Adelaide which has been used twice for people to top themselves. The unrealistic (I believe) squealing of the anti-gun people was one thing, but actual real life stupidity will eventually put the mockers on private ownership of fireams, I'm afraid. The people who pull the strings are starting to panic. Apparently, gun ownership has risen by 27% since Howard's knee-jerk on the matter; driven in particular by young females joining the sport. Disarming the proles has always come from dictatorship.

With reference to Foxy's post about the gun control lobby "just" working against people trying to "erode our gun laws", does anyone know of anyone doing such a thing? I dont. Disclaimer: I have not owned any firearms for several years, nor can I legally buy one, although shooting was my main interest from the the legal age of 15. These days, I probably couldn't hit the proverbial bull in the arse with a handful of wheat, but even if I did want to resume shooting, I would not because of the new demonisation of shooters, even target shooters.

Sorry to bore, but I meant 'before' dictatorship in the first post.

Fox,

Since you has posted that link that has the begging bowl out for public donations, spreads misinformation and is seeking to interfere in domestic politics, can you tell us why the ordinary details that one might expect of any organisation* are deliberately excluded and apparently that has always been the case? Examples, office bearers and bios/occupations, public membership and rights, sources and application of funds, financial statements, links and partnerships and audit arrangements.

*organisation, claimed 'organisation' more likely. It is said to be just a public bureaucrat or political stooge or few with access to a phone, fax and computer.

You might also care to mention any support the secretive, publicity shy person/s behind it get from sources outside Australia and political parties/lobbyists in Australia.

What amazing gall though: political lobbying, begging bowl out for money and demands for YOUR personal information, but THEY get to withhold even the most minor, basic information about themselves (or himself/herself if that is the case).

Not to mention the lie that it is not about denying rights, total bans and confiscations - forced removal of lawfully approved and acquired property from ordinary, law-abiding, licensed citizens of Australia.

Fox, would YOU be volunteering YOUR personal information and banking details under those conditions? Flies in the face of all of the advice to avoid capture and mining of personal information and other use of it, fraud and identity theft on the Net.

Hi Foxy, glad you are back on deck. My view and the Green's policy is similar to that of GCA. We are not out to introduce a prohibition on gun ownership. The 28 point comprehensive firearms policy of the NSW Greens is fair and balanced, but those who favor an open slather approach to guns wont agree.

http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/nsw/firearms

The Greens policy contrast that of the The Shooters and Hooters Party who's policy, if you can call it a policy is full of demands for repealing and removing laws that provide any semblance of reasonable gun control, pandering to thir supporters, the knuckle draggers in society

Beach, you take the cake, making demands of disclosure and accusations of "get (money) from sources outside Australia and political parties/lobbyists in Australia."
I asked you to explain the links between the ultra right, the powerful American National Rifle Association, and its funding of The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia, an anti gun control lobby group. You also failed to comment on international gun dealers and associations who have poured tens of thousands of dollars into election campaigns of pro gun parties in Australia. You say nothing of the involvement of Malcolm David Fuller, who as head of Australia's largest gun importer was also NSW secretary and “registered officer” of the national Shooters’ Party. Nothing to say about the use of a Chinese SKS assault rifle by Martin Bryant the mass murderer of Port Arthur, a gun type Mr Fuller's company imported and profited from!

Paul1405,

Since you have now suddenly discovered that amazing coincidence of sameness between the Greens and 'gun control' policies (and media statements but you might not have remembered that similarity yet), perhaps you can also remember what links if any exist between the Greens and those secret squirrel activists and any overseas backers.

You might also be able to answer those questions I directed at Fox. -Who just knew that she, you, NSW 'Watermelon' Greens and that secret squirrel 'gun control' site would be so simpatico and in lock-step with leftist political activism and disarming legal, law-abiding Australia. -But NOT causing any hindrances like Qld's despised VLAD for those bikie gangs and other criminal interests and their illegal guns. Because unlike the general public, businesses and police, criminals have rights that Greens and Labor must protect, apparently.

It is time that Greens Leader Richard Di Natale sloughed off the problematic 'Watermelon' Greens 'Trots' who are constantly undermining him for a leadership coup that they never have the guts to carry out. However Richard di Natale has some alleged parliamentary accountability problems of his own ATM.

Beach, just as you claim no political affiliations, your forum diatribes seem to be a compilation of the ravings of every right wing nutter and wacko extreme party in Australia. Is that by accident or have you planned it that way. You do Jim Saleam and Pauline Hanson proud.

Paul,

As usual you made a host of accusations about the S&F Party. the SSAA, the NRA and individuals who happen to have an interest in firearms but not one reference; why is that?

Dear Paul,

Having a calm discussion into gun politics in Australia
as Bob Katter once stated is - indeed extremely challenging.
Debate with people who continuously insult others
discourages any normal person from taking part.

I admire your tenacity.

See you on another discussion.

Have you, Paul, with your constant talk of "right wing nutters", ever thought that you night be seen as a left wing nutter? For someone who doesn't like what I say, you certainly have a nasty gob on you.

Fox, 'in the words of Peter Costello' and "as Bob Katter once stated"

Tricky how you borrow quote snippets out of context from people who obviously would never agree with your leftist world view and pretend they are in fact supporting your own opinion.

Of course that has been drawn to your attention on numerous occasions before but somehow or other the questionable ethics of your actions escapes you.

Along with Paul1405 and some ors, you desperately need to think for yourself and not be a simple tool. You are the automaton of others, constantly repeating their meme of 'gun control' in their echo chamber and for their purpose of disarming Australia and Western democracies.

Nothing to do with deterring, collaring or penalising the offenders who possess the illegal guns and commit violent crimes.

Nothing to do with evidence-based laws where regulation takes account of professional assessment of risks and treatments.

Then you have the temerity to post a site that begs money and asks for personal details, but those hidden anonymous behind the site refuse to divulge even the most minor and basic information about themselves - not even their names are given.

onthebeach,

Whether or not there's any need to buff Soros up is irrelevant; nobody has. But don't false claims deserve to be counteracted whoever they're about?

Soros may throw his weight around a bit, but nowhere near as much (and nowhere near as malevolently) as the Koch brothers.

If you think it's naïve to claim "the only nest eggs rendered valueless through his activity are those that would soon be valueless had he not acted", how about suggesting a counterexample?

"The article (you prefer to attack me personally instead of directing your attentions to it)"
Because you seem to blindly accept its spin.

Is there any actual evidence that Soros has been "trading weapons of war on the open market to all comers"? Or was that just a biased assumption?

If our gun laws were not so strict, I'd expect there to be a lot more crimes committed with guns stolen from legal owners.

There's always tension between the need to stop crime and the need to protect our liberty. We certainly need tough laws against organised crime, and that's accepted by most political parties including Labor and the Greens. But how far should they go? What restrictions on citizens' freedom are justified? Can they still be effective without restricting people's freedom so much? These are sensible questions to ask, and Labor and the Greens seem to have come to a different conclusion from you. The language you use suggests that your reaction is a kneejerk condemnation rather than the result of a careful evaluation that reached a different conclusion.

"The goal of 'gun control'..."
Gun control is not a united movement. No doubt some of the people involved with it have the objectives you think they do, but you seem to fail to comprehend that other gun control activists have more modest (and less controversial) objectives. FWIW the situation's the same on the other side of the gun control debate; very few Australian gun control opponents would want us to legalise the armour piercing ammo that the NRA nutters in America say they have a paramount right to own.

Armchair,

"Just remember that 'sustainability' also means 'global depopulation'"
No it does not. Though sustainability would be easier with a lower global population, it's not a requirement. Nor would global depopulation automatically result in sustainability.

Aidan,

That there could be worse than Soros is no defence.

I just thank technology that now allows Central banks today to work more quickly and cooperatively to head off speculative currency sharks like Soros and his mates.

Aiden, "If our gun laws were not so strict, I'd expect there to be a lot more crimes committed with guns stolen from legal owners"

So as far as you are concerned, the law-abiding, licensed citizens are always responsible for the crimes of others.

I challenge you to come up with some evidence to support your expectation and I cannot recall any noteworthy newspaper or police reports of firearms thefts from private owners around twenty-plus years ago. Yet firearms thefts would always have been newsworthy. That there was an insignificant number accords with the very low numbers recorded over that last twenty years. No change.

What you are also avoiding is that crime involving firearms has always been very low in Australia and the trend downwards for well OVER twenty years, ie before Howard, has continued. Nothing to change the trend, because offenders always did break laws. 'Gun control' does squat to affect that.

If anything the low incidence gun crime and its connection with drugs and gangs should advise that the focus must be on the person. Effective regulation can help. But 'gun control' is not about that at all.

There was a cynical but funny poster,

"A man shoots an ageing lion in Africa. It was universally agreed it was the man's fault and he was vilified for it.

A bikie in western Sydney shoots a member of another gang over drug territory. Hey, that's the gun's fault".

Despite your assurances, the goal of 'gun control' is the banning and confiscation of ALL firearms legally held by the public. It is part of the strategy to whittle away rights and large lumps wherever possible.

Of course the criminals will still have their illegal guns. But that was NEVER the concern of 'gun control', just grabbing the legal ones from licensed citizens.

otb,

I usually go to great lengths to avoid responding
to you. This is under my doctor's advice
because you always make it personal and cause me so
much stress. However sometimes one has to be prepared to
respond especially when false references and accusations
are being made.

References such as my "Leftist world view,"
my "Questionable ethics," and supposedly
quotes given "Out of Context?"

Therefore I feel that if you are at all a reasonable
normal person and you want to win an argument and leave with
your credibility and dignity intact this is what you should
do:

1. Know your facts.

2. Be ready to see the other person's perspective.

3. If you can't be open-minded, at least seem that way.

4. Keep your emotions under control.

5. Do not insult or degrade your opponent.

6. It is important to show you meant nothing personal.

(Taken from "Psychology Today")

I trust this will help you.
It has me.

Hi Foxy the rabid right are not going to like the following, but I have broad shoulders. LOL

The Ultra right US National Riffle Association which calls the shots (pardon the pun) for its Australian subsidiary the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia and indirectly The Shooters Party. This time the NRA targeted the Australian governments gun buyback scheme launched in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre.
The NRA posted a video on its official YouTube page on Thursday featuring President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton discussing Australia's gun laws.

The rantings on the video by the NRA included attacks on Australia, its government and people for failing to accept gun ownership as a legitimate method for personal and property protection.
Comments from the rabid right came thick and fast in support of the NRA open slather policy, one American, the obvious nutter, Dane Earley wrote "After reading those headlines in those Australian papers, just imagine our government trying that s#@t ( Australia's gun laws),"

In November last year, pro-gun NSW Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm stared in an NRA video, praising the NRA whilst slamming Australia (was he paid?).
"We love the NRA here in Australia (was it cash for comment?) amongst us gun owners and in fact we rely on you guys (is that a reference to cash?) to also help us hold the line in Australia," he says in the clip. (more cash possibly?)

Come July 2nd the good folk of New South Wales will pass their judgement on Mr Loony Leyonhielm, and it wont be kind

Dear Paul,

Thanks for that information.

The upcoming election will certainly prove interesting.

Found those references yet, Paul?

is Mise, facts do not require references. But just to satisfy you on my last post on Loony Leyonhjelm.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2015/11/17/david-leyonhjelm-nra_n_8580132.html

p/s The sun rises in the east, but I cant be bothered providing a link to prove it to you. Its a fact!

Do you dispute what I said about Mr Malcolm David Fuller, who was the NSW secretary and “registered officer” of the national Shooters’ Party, he was also managing director of Australia’s largest gun importer, which brought in a large quantity of Chinese SKS assault rifles, one of the two types of weapon used by the Tasmanian mass murderer Martin Bryant.

All facts to be found on the public record.

The AEC lied when it published that Fuller was the NSW secretary and “registered officer” of the national Shooters’ Party, ASIC lied when it said Fuller was managing director of Australia’s largest gun importer. Its not a fact that Fuller's company imported a large quantity of Chinese SKS assault rifles, one of the two types of weapon used by the Tasmanian mass murderer Martin Bryant. All a pack of lies is it?

Love to read your alternate facts.

Is Mise and the gang. I should be a shooter, you are all such easy targets! LOL

Aiden,
Quote "As for 'Black Lives Matter', you can't cure racism by denying its existence.
You can't cure racism by accusing those who draw attention to it of being racist."

Fair points..
I hate the way you nullify my statements Aiden, it annoys and infuriates me at times, but you do play a good and fair game and I respect that. (though sometimes I wonder if your getting cash for comments for your "Move along, nothing to see here" responses..)

Quote
"Of course all lives matter. But it is the All Lives Matter crowd who are causing the unrest by falsely accusing the Black Lives Matter movement of claiming that ONLY black lives matter."

No I'm not sure that's true, it's the Soros crowd paying these people to get out onto the street to cause civil unrest that is fueling the problem as much as any racial issue itself.
I think police are more likely to shoot white people without hesitation than blacks, because the issue has become very politicized. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, but I don't think its as bad as that which others make out.

The story I heard regarding Ferguson was that Michael Brown had just held up a local convenience store, was approached and apprehended by police, he initiated a fight with the officer, broke the cops jaw and attempted to take his gun, and that's when he was shot by the cop.

Then the 'Black lives Matter' crowd came out and started burning and looting.
I heard there's a demographic of mainly white cops in Ferguson which itself has a demographic of black folks and this may have contributed to the blacks unease.
I'm not sure if there are allegations of racism against the mainly white police, but assume there probably is.

When the Black folks think someones got their back, they are going to play up every issue they possibly can, even when none exists such as in the above example, but other times, I'll admit they (and white people too) are being shot by police for doing nothing wrong at all.

Hey Foxy,
You didn't need to thank me for my civility.
I guess that you probably think younger people like me need to have more respect anyway!
I was actually still feeling bad that I'd used that euthanasia and death panels analogy when you've been in the hospital recently.
I didn't actually mean you, and I'm kind of sorry I used that argument to make my point.
Sorry for that.

I too think that the true value of this forum is getting everyone's point of view.
I think between all of us we generally cover all the pro's and con's of topics pretty well and it helps to paint a bigger picture.
I mostly always learn something new from others, or am able to see things in a way I hadn't viewed the issue before.

Yes Aiden is a good match for me, he cuts me down to size evertime and it gets under my skin, but he plays fair so thats ok I guess.

I'm not a big book reader, and also don't know George's true beliefs or ideology.
I just know that some of his actions do a lot of hard to a lot of people, whether or not he has what he believes to be the greater good in mind, or something more sinister I'm not sure.

As a member of Bilderberg (Soros) theres no doubt that they are making plans to determine the future direction of the planet and to subtly push the public in a certain direction, and I'm sure they have an 'end justifies the means' attitude not caring who gets hurt as they roll out their global government related agendas.

I think I'm going to use up all my 4 daily posts in one hit, at this rate.

- About Guns in the US -
Not I'm not an expert but this is how I see the whole argument.

Firstly America is a democratic republic and they have a slightly different system than we do.
The Bill of Rights contains laws that are rights bestowed on the citizens set in stone that can't be easily changed.

The right to keep and bear arms and to maintain a militia was not just a right to go hunting or shoot your neighbour during an 'over the back fence' dispute, or rob people on the street when you were broke.

It was written after the War of Independence (I believe), and provides the ultimate checks and balances on government.

Basically the right to keep and bear arms is also kind of like a duty of the citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Take a read of these Freedom Quotes below, for example:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable." JFK

http://freedomlawschool.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/freedom-quotes/

In the US the situation really has gotten out of hand.
Their tyrannical government now seeks to take their guns.
This is why the US gun debate is not a simple issue.

Guns are a tricky issue to get right.
There are legitimate uses for them such as on farms etc.
Right now where I live on a farm, the council has passed laws to protect koalas and has forced people to place their dogs in enclosures.
The dogs are no longer able to scare away predators and livestock is now more at risk meaning there's a greater need for guns when they are needed to put down injured livestock.

Aiden,
Quote>>Armchair,
"Just remember that 'sustainability' also means 'global depopulation'"
No it does not. Though sustainability would be easier with a lower global population, it's not a requirement. Nor would global depopulation automatically result in sustainability.<<

Sustainability may not necessarily mean global depopulation to you and me or other rational thinking people, but it does to the elite.
I know you're intelligent but I cant yet understand why you're so naive.
http://youtu.be/Gc16H3uHKOA

Open border policies combined with 'leftist' destruction of personal and national identity.
I could suggest that what we see occurring in the world is Cloward and Piven on a global scale.

Paul,

"Do you dispute what I said about Mr Malcolm David Fuller, who was the NSW secretary and “registered officer” of the national Shooters’ Party, he was also managing director of Australia’s largest gun importer, which brought in a large quantity of Chinese SKS assault rifles, one of the two types of weapon used by the Tasmanian mass murderer Martin Bryant."

Can you give a reference to this?

I can find nothing on the public record ref. your allegations about Malcolm Fuller.

Dear Armchair Critic,

I appreciate your kind words and your posts.
You are intellectually honest and you use data and
honest arguments to support your perspectives.
You are an excellent addition to this Forum.

Is Mise, you are going to have to drop kick that search engine of yours 'Shootemup', and get something a bit more reliable, I suggest Google. Then the facts will be plain, even for you to see. Mr Fuller is now a director of Highland Outdoors Ltd, gun merchants, and been a gun merchant for many years.

The words of Mr John Tingle founder of The Shooters Party. "I do not know the details of the party’s finances, I am not embarrassed by the sources of its funding, nor by the possibility that Mr Fuller had sold the gun used in the Tasmanian massacre."

Paul,

I've tried Google but still can't find where Fuller sold the rifle that Bryant used, perhaps you would be kind enough to point me in the right direction.
I do know that Malcolm has been in the sporting arms trade for many years, that's not in dispute as I've delt with him myself.
Why is there no criticism of the Government which encouraged the importation of Chinese rifles and,in fact,gave Malcolm Fuller permission to import all of the firearms that he has ever imported?

Why bring Port Arthur into the discussion?
Can you tell us what arms Bryant used.

"Can you tell us what arms Bryant used"

While you are at it Paul1405, you might also wish to give some prominence to the brand of the petrol he used for his arson, in order that you can shift some blame onto the importers of that as well.

Why those highly secretive 'gun control' political lobbyists (and NSW 'Watermelon Greens) would ever want to diminish in any way the responsibility of that disgusting mongrel Martin Bryant for his spree kills? Take a guess, political point-scoring.

Therein lies the crass stupidity of Greens and other lazy politicians in jumping on the simplistic 'gun control' bandwagon, instead of doing their job and teasing out and treating the underlying, more complex problem of violence.

While on the subject, mere words cannot express the revulsion that I and so many feel when the Port Arthur victims, their families and friends are being used for political purposes and headlines by cynical political animals like the 'Watermelon' Greens.

And by sly, secretive, political lobbyists who for years have hidden behind assumed grand titles, while categorically refusing to provide even the most basic identifying details on themselves and their sponsors.

Oh dear Is Mise, I even quoted the Godfather of the Shooters and Hooters Party John Tingle,the old bloke is still kicking as far as i know. Why don't you give Tingle a tingle and ask him yourself.

Why bring Port Arthur into the discussion? It may be uncomfortable, but relevant. Why did the American NRA recently highlight the laws that were introduced by John Howard because of Port Arthur as being bad laws.

Beach, there is a difference between the purpose gun are made for, and what purpose petrol is made for. I'll leave it for you to work that out.

Pious clap trap. "mere words cannot express the revulsion that I and so many feel when the Port Arthur victims, their families and friends are being used for political purposes"

The rabid right don't mind use the deaths of 1200 asylum seekers at sea for political purposes, Is that not correct Beach.

Paul,

Do tell us which make of guns that Bryant used, you might also tell us what the make was of his motor vehicle as you blame the salesman who sold it to him, after all the guns, the petrol and the car were all part of his equipment; you might also add the brand of matches that he used for good measure.

Perhaps you have found a reference to the type of firearms that Bryant used and are going all coy on us.

There is an interesting link on Google that says that Bryant wss left handed and that the shooter was right handed, care to comment?

Its been a few years since I watched these Martin Bryant videos but I think everyone should watch them if they have time.
The quality's not that great however.

http://youtu.be/UdYxtultxZU
http://youtu.be/pJeQ3PgBe4U

Paul,
Its stupid to try to blame the person who sold the gun, and its not the manufacturers fault either.
I remember pre - 'Martin Bryant' Australia.
Anyone could buy a shotgun and ammo straight from any sports store.
Lets not make something out of nothing.

We've got more serious problems facing the planet right now anyway.
The left have a new superhero.
Anyone heard of Trigglypuff?

Paul1405,

I meant what I said, that mere words cannot express the revulsion that I and so many other Australians feel when the Port Arthur victims, their families and friends are being used for political purposes by the Greens and others.

That the Greens also seek to diminish the multiple murderer's responsibility to score political points is also horrendous, hypocrisy too.

It grates on the Tasmanian public that a Royal Commission was never held, with the possibility of any inquiry being shafted by John Howard with gutless politicians going along with that.

That left the media to speculate on what lay behind the murders and grubby politicians to continually replay Port Arthur and use the victims and their families for political gain, delivering to the convict the lasting notoriety he sought. That encourages other spree killers seeking to same publicity.

Ex-PM John Howard, yet another politician with a monumental ego that has to be constantly fed and who obviously misses the public attention of politics, continually renews Port Arthur in the minds of the affected family and friends and the Tasmanian population especially.

How is that for the PM who blocked a Royal Commission because he was worried about causing unnecessary further suffering? Must be different when he struts the world stage and gets feted by Obama's State Department to talk about it.

There should have been a Royal Commission. Now the tabloid media and grubby, unethical attention-seeking politicians like the 'Watermelon' Greens Trots are forever causing speculation for their secondary gain.

Disgusting.

Recently a 20 year memorial was held at Port Arthur. John Howard was an honored guest. What was a positive outcome from that terrible crime was it gave the impetus to politicians to take affirmative action on gun control. Which stopped us from going down the American path, the vast majority of Australians supported John Howard's action.

Over the intervening 20 years the 'gun lobby' has done its best to truncate and weaken those strong State and Federal laws. The Shooters Party continues to blackmail the NSW government with threats of withdrawing its 2 member, balance of power, support in the Legislative Council if the government does not meet its demands on softening gun laws in that state.

The 'gun lobby' has many skeletons in the cupboard, Port Arthur is just one. These inconvenient truths they would prefer society not to remember.

Is Mise I told you, use "Google". Its easy to operate, even for you.

And heroin dealers are not responsible for the end result of the product they profit from. Right Beach!

In fact the twenty year anniversary was a much smaller event than it was spruiked to be. Quite small if the usual cavalcade of politicians (and their new found need for a gaggle of security agents like the US President), bureaucrats, media and other hangers on are excepted from the count.

Which was no surprise because very few people outside of politicians seeking photo opportunities and the tabloid media seeking video grabs of suffering people ever wanted it to turn into a politicians+TV cameras event.

The important thing is to care for the survivors and for those who lost loved ones. I will not enter into discussion as to whether that has occurred. I have my own views. Likewise I have my own views on whether most have ever been allowed any closure. They do not need to have those raw nerves continually exposed by publicity seeking grubs of politicians and media types who are human headlines.

The Port Arthur site should be maintained as a peaceful, beautiful place where quiet reflection is made possible by having none, or at least tolerably few, of the attractions for the ghoulish tourist or film crew.

Again for any crass fool who imagines s/he is furthering the interests of some grubby political party or for overseas interest/s intent on interfering in Australian domestic politics, the Port Arthur tragedy that diminished all Australians and remains a raw nerve, is definitely NOT a suitable subject.

Paul,

"....which brought in a large quantity of Chinese SKS assault rifles, one of the two types of weapon used by the Tasmanian mass murderer Martin Bryan."

I used Google and Bryant did not have an SKS, seems that claims that he did is a bit of Greens "misinformation" (to be polite).

Just for you Is Mise, I know you are in total denial

Archival West Australian Newspaper material from May 1st 1996.

One of the assault rifles used by killer Martin Bryant in the Port Arthur massacre sold for $89 in Australia in the 1980s.
China made thousands of the SKS semi-automatic weapon which were exported worldwide to earn much-needed foreign currency in the 1980s.
Former Australian gun-maker Don Jones said from Tasmania that he could recall the guns selling for $89.
"China flooded the Australian market at an exceptionally cheap rate. They created a problem of dumped ex-military weapons," Mr Jones said.
"The SKS was not such a high-powered rifle compared with other but it was popular because it was cheap."
The SKS was a 7.62mm calibre weapon that could shoot bullets at 735m a second. The gunman's other rifle, the 5.56mm Armalite AR-15, fired at 1000m a second.
Mr Jones said the cheapest guns tended to be used for crime. His former company Australian Automatic Arms made weapons costing $1000 but were bought out by the Federal Government four years ago to curb proliferation of such weapons.
Military style semi-automatic weapons were also outlawed by Canberra and the popularity of the SKS waned. But many examples are thought to be in circulation.
WA is believed to have 70,000 unlicensed weapons although how many are semi-automatics is unknown. One in five WA homes has a gun.
Importing a firearm into WA requires police clearance. State laws outlaw military lookalike weapons and semi-automatic firearms without integral magazines.
WA's laws, rated Australia's toughest, allow low-powered .22 calibre weapons and .22 semi-automatic rifles with integral magazines.
Australian Customs Service confiscated 1800 prohibited goods last financial year but it is not known how many of these were guns.
The Police Federation of Australia and New Zealand called yesterday for uniform gun laws in Australia and supported the New South Wales offer to hand over gun control to the Commonwealth.

Paul,

So you're relying on a 1996 article in a WA newspaper, try taking your own advice and use Google; I can find no reference there to Bryant having an SKS and anyone using an SKS could have been overpowered as they are slow to reload, witness the Chinese soldier who was killed by civilians in Tienamin Square when he attempted to change magazines on his SKK, which is much quicker to reload than an SKS.

So why bring Malcolm Fuller into it?
The Federal Government was the importing authority, aren't they more to blame in your book?

If the Greens, Gun Control Australia* and the ABC are not in cahoots why did they sprout identical lies about the Adler shotgun?

Ever wonder why GCA is not called 'Australian Gun Control'?

Australia's leading shooting exponent Michael Diamond is facing serious firearms charges. Diamond refused a roadside breath test and later blew 0.159. It is alleged by police, a search of Diamonds car produced a hoard of 150 shotgun cartridges. Diamond has been charged with high range drink-driving, not keeping a firearm safe and using a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.

Speaking with the ABC this morning, Diamond referred all questions to Shooting Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-23/arrest-threatens-michael-diamonds-olympic-shooting-dream/7436220

Is Mise the WA article was dated May 1st 1996, 3 days after Port Arthur took place, fresh news at the time.

Paul,

"Australia's leading shooting exponent Michael Diamond

[he is not Australia's leading shooting exponent, far from it]

is facing serious firearms charges. Diamond refused a roadside breath test and later blew 0.159. It is alleged by police, a search of Diamonds car produced a hoard of 150 shotgun cartridges

[hoard? I go through a couple of hundred at the clays on a Saturday afternoon, especially if there is a shoot off].

Diamond has been charged with high range drink-driving, not keeping a firearm safe

[because he was under the influence, not because he didn't have it physically secure under NSW law]

and using a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.

Speaking with the ABC this morning, Diamond referred all questions to Shooting Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-23/arrest-threatens-michael-diamonds-olympic-shooting-dream/7436220

Is Mise the WA article was dated May 1st 1996, 3 days after Port Arthur took place, fresh news at the time"

But not fresh 29 years later. convenient for having a go at a respected business man but not true as you would have found out had you used Google yourself; stop relying on lying Green handouts.

Nothing to say about the Federal Government of the time and their trade deals with China?

Is Mise, please enlighten me, what is a shoot off, is that six guns at ten paces, to see who's quickest on the draw? Is it Dodge City stuff? What is the difference between a shoot off and shoot up?

Now are you claiming the WA article of 1996, that's 20 years ago BTW. is untrue?

I was shocked, by the Micheal Diamond allegations. If a leading public figure of the shooting world should proved to be a wrong doer, what hope is there for all other shooters to be trusted to act responsibly. What can one say!

I don't know what other message one could take from the Diamond charges than the very obvious one, that the firearms licence places very onerous conditions on the holder. -Which this competitor has met to now and hopefully no-one will be prejudging the outcome. Except for the gutter dwelling Greens it seems.

I find it quite distasteful that the Greens would fudge information about the firearm used that the Port Arthur murderer to embarrass some perceived political opponent or associate many years after.

It bears out what I was saying earlier about Greens and other political interests (some from overseas) constantly riding on the backs of the victims and their relatives for shabby political purposes.

How to obtain any closure under those circumstances?

Paul,

"I was shocked, by the Micheal Diamond allegations. If a leading public figure of the shooting world should proved to be a wrong doer, what hope is there for all other shooters to be trusted to act responsibly. What can one say!"

One could say that as a leading member of the Nationalists, an MP, was convicted of murder that all Nationalists are potential murderers but that would be rater stupid, don't you think?

Or that because David Shosbridge has lied to Parliament that all Greens would do likewise

As far as Paul 1405 is concerned Diamond is guilty until proved innocent. Paul1405 is rejoicing, chortling as Greens do at the misfortune of a someone who is a pillar of society, a good man.

However, if Gold medalist Mr Diamond was a Green, Paul and others would be complaining indignantly that Diamond stands to be punished several times over and harshly for the one offence, alleged DUI.

If he was one of their own, they would be frothing at the mouth because not only is he punished twice it is actually thrice because where the legally licensed owners are concerned, police have the discretion to remove his firearms licence and his possessions on the spot, which they do.

Imagine one's expensive possessions, competition tuned shotguns valued at many $thousands each, being casually handled and thrown into the back of a police wagon, onto the steel tray and being bounced for kilometres then treated again with all care and no responsibility to be stacked in a lock-up somewhere. There is no recompense for any damage done either.

He later has to negotiate with police (who have broad discretionary powers) for his firearms licence to be reinstated, which is NOT protected/guaranteed at all and for his possessions to be returned, where again he can he inconvenienced and denied at the pleasure of the police. There is discretionary power for police to scrap or sell these privately-owned, legally purchased and legally registered assets. A reversed standard of proof is applied - he has to make the case, not the police. An expensive court appeal is usually necessary.

On top of that, police conduct a full uniformed raid on the licensed person's home, where they can interrogate all present, but particularly the wife and near relatives. Under the regulations they don't require a Warrant and will remove all of his/her possessions from his/her gun safe. Again to be unceremoniously thrown into the rear tray of a police wagon and carted off.

tbc..

contd..

The firearms regulations were drafted to cause the maximum annoyance, inconvenience, outrageous paperwork and cost (multiple large fees, read as new taxes - Governments excel at that), and doubled-up penalties for the reputable citizens who pass all hurdles and character tests to gain a licence.

To top it all off, from when they seek and obtain a licence these many thousands of proved and police-certified good citizens are treated as potential criminals, red-flagged on police computers as 'persons of interest' (shows on police computers that read number plates) and are subjected to random uniformed police raids for inspection and interrogation in their homes (again no Warrant necessary).

Now the 'gun control' Greens would say that those losses of rights and sad treatment are all quite OK to exact on certified responsible, law-abiding citizens of good character citizens for the 'privilege' of enjoying their hobby, recreation, sport or to protect their income as farmers must do.

But that stands in stark contrast to the howls of self-righteous indignation and protests from the Greens, Labor and their leftist 'Civil Rights' entourage at Queensland's Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 that enabled police to take some action against the excesses, including violent weapons and gun offences and drug trafficking, of outlaw motorcycle gangs (and other organised crime).

Heavens above, merely stopping a bikie in his 'colours' for a few polite questions was seen by the Greens, Labor and the human rights fraternity as one of the grossest invasions of civil rights imaginable. Unfair to bikies! Reprehensible! High dudgeon! QCs, expensive silks, called to the battle line to appeal and protect outlaw bikies' rights in the High Court of Australia. However the High Court upheld the VLAD.

One of the first priorities of Palaszczuk's Labor government and the treacherous Greens was to trash the successful VLAD law. Another was to lower the age of consent for anal sex. No more examples needed, but there are many that show where the leftist 'Progressives' put their values and priorities, and the rights they see as worth protecting.

Is Mise, I can live with people such as yourself using guns for target shooting. However, I still want strong regulation and control as far as guns are concerned, there is always the potential for good people to use them in a bad way.
I understand with Mr Diamond there is some personal family issues involved and that can cause good rational people to act irrationally at times, none of us are above that.

Beach, Michael Diamond is innocent until proven guilty, I have never said he is guilty pf anything. Strangely when it suits your narrative you like police allegations, you use them freely to besmirch the names of others with whom you disagree. You are no clean skin in that department.

With Beach ranting that "sinister forces", both from within and without, are working to disarm Western democracies, and I take that to include Australia, no doubt with the ultimate aim of subjugating society. I see no evidence of anyone trying to disarm proper authority in Australia, the police or military forces, in fact with new technology those authorities have become better equipped than ever. Then who is Beach referring to when he rants of disarmament, it can only be the gun toting private citizens. Why do those of the rabid right want a well armed private citizenry (army). It can only be for two reasons that they see a need for a private armed citizens militia. One the mistaken belief their private militia could be used to repel some sort of external threat. Secondly this private militia under their control could be used to deal with "undesirables" in society, when proper authority fails to act, in their view. That is what it is all about, that is their real agenda, when they attack those of use who want proper gun control.

Paul1405,

'Gun control' is dubious, wealthy, secretive overseas interests interfering in the domestic politics of Western democracies. It is aimed at disarming the law-abiding citizens of Australia.

It has NO effect on illegal guns and criminals and nor is it intended to.

Here is more irrefutable evidence, an almost daily event, that Greens and Labor are going full strap to protect criminal elements who are responsible for those illegal guns and weapons violence - all part of their modus operandi in managing their profitable crime territories:

The Gold Coast Bulletin this morning,

<Labor Government slashes bikie taskforce budget by a third amid fears officers will be moved on

THE budget for Queensland’s bikie gang fighters has been slashed by a third as the State Government refuses to guarantee more resources.

Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls last night said the cutbacks to Taskforce Maxima and the planned watering down of the VLAD laws meant Labor was sending officers on the street with “their hands tied behind their backs”.

The Bulletin had been told Maxima staff were concerned about transfers from the Coast and figures from the Opposition confirmed their fears.

Maxima’s fulltime equivalent staff count dropped from 104 in 2014-15 to 95 in 2015-16.
..
The allocated budget for the taskforce of $2.1 million in 2014-15 had been slashed to $664,000 in 2015-16.>

More,
Violent New Zealand Black Power gang has moved into the Gold Coast and there’s nothing cops can do [because the Palaszcuk Labor government is screwing with the VLAD Law]
http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/crime-court/violent-new-zealand-black-power-gang-has-moved-into-the-gold-coast-and-theres-nothing-cops-can-do/news-story/4b5db99206d18616feb6c221f876bcdb

and

<Kiwi crime gang Mongrel Mob invades Queensland

ONE of the world’s most fearsome crime gangs has invaded Queensland.

The Mongrel Mob, originally from the tough backstreets of New Zealand, has launched a Gold Coast chapter which is now on a collision course with Queensland’s anti-gang taskforce.

Police say they are a “vile” criminal gang known for their brutality, and fear a fresh outbreak of violence on the Glitter Strip.

In the past fortnight large gatherings of Mongrel Mob members have taken place in broad daylight on the Gold Coast and at Logan and Eagleby>
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/kiwi-crime-gang-mongrel-mob-invades-queensland/news-story/ba32b27e79d9656fd1f2a2b6bf0520d4

Beach, any New Zealander convicted of a criminal offence in NZ carrying a custodial sentence of 12 months or more in the past 10 years is denied entry into Australia. New immigration laws brought into effect back in December 2014 mean that anyone who has served a jail sentence of 12 months or more in Australia can be deported.

So, why is it that "Kiwi crime gang Mongrel Mob invades Queensland" Please explain, was Abbott, and now Turnbull falling down on the job?

Haven't your CFMEU and union mates told you that the heavies, the fully patched, get associates to do their dirty work and take any fall that is coming?

Not something they'd be letting on to the 'Useful Idiots', but that is how the union heavies and 'fully patched', the face tattooed lot can move and travel freely, thumbing their noses at police.

Not with the VLAD law though. That had them worried. Finally the Qld police had some teeth. So Labor and Greens are obligingly trashing it and leaving police hamstrung.

Amazing isn't it how Greens and Labor have embraced 'gun control', because it isn't directed at collaring crims and their illegal weapons.

Instead they rail, slag and discriminate against thousands of society's respectable, responsible citizens, blaming them instead and diverting sparse police resources onto the non-productive busy work and paperchase of monitoring the good guys.

Catch 22. Yossarian would recognise it, despairingly.

Any wonder the crims are laughing. Their drug, standover and other businesses are booming. With 'gun control' policy and Labor+Greens holding the reins it is all blue sky for criminals. The left have put the welcome mat out for them. To top it all off they have knobbled the police as demonstrated so graphically (and so often!) by Labor's 'all care and no responsibility' Palaszczuk outfit.

However your 'Watermelon' Greens would be chortling at how they have pulled the wool over the public's eyes too. The Greens are the 'Useful Idiots' of those secret squirrel 'gun control' activists, but they are getting their ready made sensationalist bumpf laced with half-truths and outright fabrications. Hey, that is the stuff the Greens deal in anyhow and it sure makes 'protest' politics even easier.

BTW, what exactly are the academic qualifications of that anti-gun (well, anti respectable licensed citizens having guns) 'Professor Alpers' that 'gun control', Greens and the ABC(!) rely on and prefer for his expert opinions? And are there any criticisms of his reports? This time you might Google. Just another detail the 'Watermelon' knobs are keeping 'on the QT', 'very hush, hush' and 'not to be said'?

Hey, Paul,

What about the lies told about the Adler shotgun?
Nothing to say?
Red face?

Is Mise, okay the Gun Lobby were telling porkies about one of their WMD's. Par for the course, just as they lied about the ultra right wing American National Rifle Association, and its funding of The Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia,

Any comment on foreign interference in Australian domestic politics. The SSAA and its members should be ashamed of themselves. Agree!

Just as this David Leyonhjelm misrepresented himself as some kind of liberal democrat, when he is nothing but an ultra ring wing fruit, who used deceitful manipulation of the voting system to get himself elected. Fortunately the waste of space will be given the boot come 2nd July.

Beach, as one of the last remaining anachronism of Queensland's White Shoe Brigade of the 80's, do you see every Maori and Islander on the Gold Coast as a gang member, or does that apply to black people in general. They seem to be the ones you are constantly targeting for special attention as undesirables.

Is the retired Supreme Court Judge Alan Wilson who conducted an independent inquiry into Queensland's VLAD laws, also in league with bikies and criminals? As you try to make out Labor and the Greens are.

Paul1405,

As has already been stated but you ignore information that does not suit you, it is hardly surprising that a review set up and scoped by Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and her Attorney General Yvette D'ath* (Bill Ludwig's AWU lawyer), to 'deep six' the successful VLAD law, would do just that.

* http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2015/02/bill-ludwigs-awu-lawyer-yvette-dath-is-now-queenslands-attorney-general.html

BTW, what exactly are the academic qualifications of that anti-gun (well, anti respectable licensed citizens having guns) 'Professor Alpers' that 'gun control', Greens and the ABC(!) rely on and prefer for his expert opinions? And are there any criticisms of his reports?

The answer would be illuminating for those here who have done the hard yards to get their qualifications, especially PhDs and are themselves interested in senior academic roles.

Paul,

Ducking for cover on the Adler?

How about a reference on the SSAA funding?

Can you give us an insight into the funding of Gun Control Australia?

is Mise, 'Gun Control Australia' with their shoe string budget is funded by thinking Aussies only, the concerned citizenry, mums and dads, the little people. the good Aussie battlers. On the other hand the Gun Lobby, the gunnie's, have received massive amounts of money from mega rich sinister international forces, arms dealers and ultra right foreign subversives! Clandestine people and organisations, faceless manipulators of the Australian political system. That's about it, can't be much fairer on the subject than that.

Tip, Use Google. I have given you all the facts.

Paul,

How about the Adler?
How about all yhe lies by the Greens and GCA?

GCA wouldn't be so secretive about its membership if it had any; rumour has it that it's only three people and a copier.

You won't give references to back up your claims because your claims are false.

But do tell us how the Adler shotgun is new technology, tell us how terrifingly fast it can be fired tell us how works.

Is Mise, Gun Control Australia has to keep its membership secret, remember the other side is armed to the teeth, and all we have is love and kindness to defend ourselves with. Where does one view the membership list for SS Australia?

Lets move on. Maybe we can talk about Northern NSW farmer Ian Turnbull.

To quote ABC News "A farmer felt a sense of calmness when he started shooting at a New South Wales environment officer investigating illegal land clearing, a Sydney court has heard."

A sad and shameful story it is. Again, no gun, no death.

How about the Adler(shotgun)? Another dangerous weapon that can be used to kill people. End of comment.

Paul1405,

Once again I have read more than enough of your posts to confirm that your knowledge of gun regulations is absolutely zero, that you have nothing of value to contribute to this subject and you are here just to stir.

I don't doubt your claimed membership of the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens, who come across just as you do, half-baked and out for a stir to get attention.

Regarding 'gun control', the only thing you got right was that it is just a few zealots (a judge's opinion of one in particular) who would have faded from the scene long ago were it not for a few grubby, opportunist NSW 'Watermelon' Greens politicians jumping on the bandwagon and the sponsorship from secretive overseas outfits who interfere in the domestic politics of Australia and other democracies.

As a protest party without any pretensions of ever making a government and therefor never needing to ensure their policies are workable and can be integrated with other government programs, the Greens can always let loose and BS as much as they want. The media uses them for their entertainment value. Which explains why so few media outlets, ABC too, ever stoop to giving the Greens any serious review and criticism.

And of course the tabloids hacks - the ABC seems to have a few - who are incapable of investigative journalism and instead copy and paste the scandalous misinformation of 'gun control' media releases. 'Fact checked' ABC? Sometimes it is 'fact free' and entirely without the balance of an opposing opinion. Ethics?

The mistake the trusting public continually make is to take the melodrama, structured content and editorialising of Q&A and other media talk fests as having any news value ie credibility, at all. -When the ABC itself says, "NO, not news, it is entertainment. How could viewers not understand that?".

I suppose the same could be said of the Greens and the remainder of the Parliament does say it, that the Greens are NOT to be seriously either, it is all protesting for headlines so the elite score handsomely paid sinecures in Parliament.

So, Paul, all your claims are piss and wind and that is why you can't give references,
The Greens had so much to say about the Adler, it's strange that they didn't spread the same alarmist lies about all the other legal lever action shotguns that are on the market.

Still it's a break from the bull that they keep sprouting about semi-automatic pistols.

Beach, what I do know is strong gun laws save lives. Unlike the US with its lax gun laws and skyrocketing gun deaths.

Back to your original claims One of Australia's notorious 'gun control' activists is said to have travelled and studied(?!) courtesy of the Soros organisation. There are persistent allegations that NSW's Trotskyist 'Watermelon' Greens have undisclosed links with highly secretive, 'secret squirrel' 'gun control', Soros and other overseas interests behind it."

Please provide references to your outrageous claims, so Is Mise can verify them.

I believe you made it all up. Nothing new in that!

Paul,

"I believe you made it all up. Nothing new in that!"

Et tu, Paulus?

Beach, I posted your original accusations. If they are valid why can't you name. "Australia's notorious 'gun control' activists", you refer to, the fact is this person does not exists, and you made it up. Secondly "persistent allegations" against the Greens, name the sources of these persistent allegations, or is that another one of your sensational fabrications, I think it is. Show the link between the Greens and "Soros and other overseas interests" or is that simply more of your sensational BS you regularly post, in your feeble attempts to smear the Greens and others. I think so!

Paul1405,

That is just forum baiting and deflection.

Along with some others I drafted a number of detailed posts on this thread and other similar threads, drawing on the history and provisions of firearms regulation, the unfair and scurrilous conflating of the many thousands of law-abiding, licensed citizens with the crimes and illegal guns of the organised crime gangs that Greens and Labor are being seen to protect. Trashing Queensland's successful VLAD is an example of that.

Also the deliberate confusion, the Big Lie of 'gun control' - bans and confiscations to disarm Australia - with what the law-abiding, vulnerable citizens actually want and demand, which is effective firearms REGULATION that manages risks and deters and collars wrongdoers. And strong, well-trained police forces who are coordinating their efforts across all jurisdictions.

The licence is the sole strong, robust control of any merit, the rest of the paraphernalia is just expensive, ineffective nuisance-making and tax collection and window dressing that wastes police resources and takes trained police away from investigations and collaring criminals.

Strong penalties for crimes and that includes illegal use of any weapon, including guns. Accepting that redundancy in laws while allowing politicians the appearance of taking action, is a waste of time and can weaken available laws and enforcement.

Next, firm action on gang violence and drug trafficking, which is why the illegal guns are being imported and used. That relies on better inspection of those thousands of containers and improved intel.

Politicians SUPPORTING police, not rolling logs in their way by removing funding and scattering effective units to the four winds, as is the case with Qld Labor, who with Greens support, are trashing the successful VLAD law and defunding and dispersing the units involved.

The Greens' determined push to destroy VLAD proves they don't give a hoot about crime, just the easy wagon ride of 'gun control' to blame and disarm the legally licensed citizens instead.

That is the Catch 22 of 'gun control' and the lazy 'Protest Party' Greens who have hitched a free ride on the 'gun control' wagon to get headlines.

There is one thing to be said for Australia's "Uniform" (Ha! Ha!) Gun Laws, in very few other places would one find such stupidity in the drafting of law.
Such stupidities either shew gross ignorance and an utter lack of consultation, or a desire to make life hard for the law abiding.

Well Beach, you make these allegations, do your best to smear the Greens, make claims about an unnamed, but notorious 'gun control' activists, no such person exists. When asked to put up, you shut up!

Paul1405,

You could stand in a deluge and assert bald-faced that it wasn't raining.

Either that or you are singularly naive and your the Greens knobs are leaving you out of the loop.

Use that Google you ask others to use and see if you can find any references to any 'gun control' activists on the Greens site,

Paul1405, (to another poster) "Tip, Use Google. I have given you all the facts"

LOL, but you give NO facts and no references. When others give facts and references you ignore them and move the goal posts again.

Beach, obviously being in the loop as you are LOL. Just give us the name of that notorious but as yet unnamed, 'gun control' activists,
The reason you can't give us a name is simple, you don't have one.

You go on about Queensland's VLAD laws, yet fail to make any comment on either the Honourable Justice Alan M Wilson, or his independent report into those laws, you simply nut on about Labor and The Greens.
All you post is innuendo and hearsay, never any facts just you rabid opinions, and then claim it to be fact.

I see the notorious pro gun activists, David Leyonhjelm (named) is running expensive TV advertising in Sydney in a desperate attempt to get elected to the Senate. One can only speculate as to the source of finance for such costly advertising.
Leyonhjelm's party only declared an income of $93.477.00 with the AEC in 2014/15. Must have found a new lot of sympathetic financial support to afford TV advertising of that caliber.
Being in the loop as you are Beach, can you enlighten?

p/s The Shooters and Hooters Party declared their biggest donor to be the innocuous 'Hunter District Hunting Club' who coughed up $31,313.00 in 2014/15/ A rather financially flushed organisation, to be able to throw in $30k of members money.

I think Leyonhjelm takes money from numerous lobbyists.
I think he supports monsanto and tobacco companies also.

Paul1405,

Just more of your deflections and red herrings.

How are you going with that Google search of the Greens' site for activists connected with 'gun control'? Have the Greens knobs been keeping something from you? It seems they could be. LOL

What about this outstanding question among many that you keep on ducking? This one,

"BTW, what exactly are the academic qualifications of that anti-gun (well, anti respectable licensed citizens having guns) 'Professor Alpers' that 'gun control', Greens and the ABC(!) rely on and prefer for his expert opinions? And are there any criticisms of his reports? This time you might Google. Just another detail the 'Watermelon' knobs are keeping 'on the QT', 'very hush, hush' and 'not to be said'?"

See here [onthebeach, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 11:53:30 AM]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7297&page=0

Paul,

"p/s The Shooters and Hooters Party declared their biggest donor to be the innocuous 'Hunter District Hunting Club' who coughed up $31,313.00 in 2014/15/ A rather financially flushed organisation, to be able to throw in $30k of members money."

That the best that you can do?

What about your allegations about the NRA?

The 'best'(sic) the Greens do is to cynically conflate the offenders and their illegal guns and crimes - the criminals THEY support and protect by shafting the successful VLAD law, for instance - with the law-abiding licensed citizens and their lawful pursuits, sport, recreation and work.

The reason why 'gun control' activists and the shabby headline hunting 'Protest Party' the Greens never exhibit any knowledge of the existing firearms regulations is because they are NOT interested in effective regulation to deter and collar criminals at all. Why bone up on effective regulation if you just want to ban?

'Gun control's' sole goal is to steal back the lawfully purchased and legally held firearms of the ordinary citizens in Western democracies.

'Gun control' is bans, State seizures and confiscations of the legally acquired, held and used assets of ordinary citizens who have already been certified by police as being of excellent character and crime free. The very citizens who are reliably and staunchly opposed to crime in fact.

The actions of 'gun control' by government are well demonstrated by the heavy handed illegal, without Warrant, confiscations after Hurricane Katrina (US), exclusively from ordinary licensed citizens (government has records of their ownership). Ordinary citizens were threatened with loaded assault weapons in the process. But the ferals, the criminals, kept their illegal guns.

Katrina illegal gun confiscation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKkUG1F2JiI

It is timely to remind political parties who throw their weight around like the totalitarian Greens who are forever going on about the 'Big State' where the State is the sole repository of authority and power (and should have exclusive ownership of firearms) that the government is NOT the State. The State is the people.

Australia is not to become the Greens Trotskyists, the 'Watermelon Greens' version of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and it never will be.

On the Uniform National Gun Laws.

In Western Australia it is an offence to possess a single piece of inert brass i.e. a fired cartridge case, in all the other States one can have fired brass, it just doesn't matter; no one cares.

Now is that a sensible law?

NSW farmer Ian Turnbull found guilty of shooting murder of environment officer Glen Turner.
This murderer held a gun Licence, Beach was Ian Turnbull one of your "respectable licensed citizens (having guns)".The outcome in this trial seems to give the lie to your claim, obviously not all are so "respectable".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-27/nsw-farmer-found-guilty-of-murdering-environment-officer/7452728

Thanks AC, we know where the dosh comes from to finance the un-democratic non-liberal Leyonhjelm. Fortunately come 2nd July Leyonhjelm will be politically no more.

Paul,

Back in the days before Howard's laws
'....to make Australia a safer place", people in risky jobs were allowed to carry a pistol for self defence, had the do-gooders not been allowed to force their myopic views on society Turnbull (not the PM!) might be the one that is dead.

Hey Paul1405,

I don't know Leyonhjelm's ideology, I'm not very political.
I support his efforts sticking up for smokers paying too much (because I smoke) but I'm not keen on the GMO agenda.
Not sure his stance on guns, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if both sides of the gun agenda had groups supporting and pushing each argument.
I haven't noticed any pro-gun articles as such though and one might expect them if there was an campaign of some kind.

I don't like your example, it sucks.
I still believe farmers need guns to protect and put down livestock and pests when necessary so they are the class that legitimately need guns the most.
Your example's a tragic case, (of murder nonetheless) but its hard to make a judgement on it when farmers are being pushed to the wall and are being placed in such a position where they may be the generation that loses the family farm and family legacy.
They are just as likely to put the gun in their own mouths leaving a wife and kids to fend for themselves (If they haven't already left) given the stress they are under and its a real shame they aren't just able to get on with farming the great food this country is capable of producing.
Its hard to know whether or not the Environmental Agency were actively out to get him (had there been previous confrontations?)or whether he was under stress and delusional in his thinking.
In either case he wasn't of sound mind, but it doesn't change what he did.

I blame the government at some level for not doing more to support farmers.

Paul1405,

That is just more of your deflections and red herrings.

An offender was gaoled. Beaut! Full marks to those police the Greens habitually insult and sledge while defending criminals' rights.

How does it have anything to do with these people (see below) and the many thousands like them that the Greens slag and defame?

"Six Australian shooters to target Paralympic gold in Rio

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2016

Australia’s Paralympic shooters have pledged to dedicate their success in Rio to late five-time Paralympian Ashley Adams, after the Australian Paralympic Committee (APC) today announced the six shooters heading to the Games this September.
..
“Australia has an impressive history in shooting at the Paralympics, starting off with Libby hitting the mark with a gold in 1976.

“Our shooters have posted some terrific results since London, and we’re very hopeful these results will continue in Rio,” McLoughlin said.

Paralympic shooting is open to all athletes with a physical disability in both standing and wheelchair classes. Athletes compete in rifle and pistol events from distances of 10, 25 and 50m, in men's, women's and mixed competitions.

The Rio Paralympic Games will take place from 7-18th September, 2016."..
http://www.shootingaustralia.org/media/articles/2016/six-australian-shooters-to-target-paralympic-gold-in-rio/

Paul1405,
How are you going with that Google search of the Greens' site for activists connected with 'gun control'? Have the Greens knobs been keeping something from you? It seems they could be.

What about that outstanding question (among many) you continue to duck? Here,

"What exactly are the academic qualifications of that anti-gun (well, anti- respectable licensed citizens having guns) 'Professor Alpers' that 'gun control', Greens and the ABC(!) rely on and prefer for his expert opinions? And are there any criticisms of his reports? Just another detail the 'Watermelon' knobs are keeping 'on the QT', 'very hush, hush' and 'not to be said'?"

See here [onthebeach, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 11:53:30 AM]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7297&page=0

And who is that Samantha Lee that the NSW Greens appear to be cozied up up? That must come as a big surprise to you Paul1405. More evidence that the Greens knobs are not taking you into their confidences? LOL

Is Mise, nothing like a one eighty to turn the victim into the culprit, unfortunately for your line of argument we are in the real world of here and now. Give me Howard's myopic laws any day, if it means saving but one life. Please do not wheel out that silly old furphy that strong gun laws don't save lives, that one has been done to death, forgive the pun.

AC, I wished we never have to speak of people like farmer Ian Turnbull and the tragedy that his violent use of a gun has brought into so many peoples lives, not the least his own. But that is the reality of guns in society. I wont argue the particulars of this case, a court has already done that and reached its verdict.
"I support his (Leyonhjelm) efforts sticking up for smokers paying too much (because I smoke)" Well, for me that is just another nail in his political coffin.

Beach, as usual you are all over the shop, first its something on Australia’s Paralympic shooters, what is your point?
Then you go onto Samantha Lee GCA and the Greens. as if Samantha Lee is some evil doer. What is your point.
I would prefer the Greens to cozy up to someone who is committed to saving lives than to a crackpot who called himself Mr Moderate and then favored an armed citizens militia. Of course the Greens policy is closely aligned with the aims and aspirations of people like Gun Control Australia and the Homicide Victims Support Group than it is with the Shooters and Hooters or that SS mob. Are you trying to make out I don't know this? If you are then you are sadly mistaken, its all old news

Paul,

180 degree turns?
You'd be very familiar with them!

I didn't attempt to turn the victim into the culprit, I observed that a person in his position/job should have been allowed to be armed.
The co-culprits are the Greens and other groups that deny people the means of self defence.

Paul1405,

You have been caught out again.

But you do not have the politeness and grace to admit it.

That is typical for the Greens and the Trotskyist NSW 'Watermelon' Greens in particular. There is that standing joke about the Greens and their propensity to deal in half-truths and outright fabrications.

You consistently gone out on a limb to deny any contact between the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens and 'gun control' activists. Even when you bluff was called and it was suggested you check out the Greens website and media outlets you continually squirmed, ducked, moved the goal posts and laid down your usual red herrings.

Now, what about an answer to that other question you are ducking? Here you go,

"What exactly are the academic qualifications of that anti-gun (well, anti- respectable licensed citizens having guns) 'Professor Alpers' that 'gun control', Greens and the ABC(!) rely on and prefer for his expert opinions? And are there any criticisms of his reports? Just another detail the 'Watermelon' knobs are keeping 'on the QT', 'very hush, hush' and 'not to be said'?"

See here [onthebeach, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 11:53:30 AM]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7297&page=0

Is Mise, I take it you favor a good old style Dodge City shootout then. So when mum, dad and the kids go for the weekly Saturday shop to the local 'Wollies', not only should they take their family grocery list, but they should also be pack'n Colt 45's as well, Derringers for the kids! You never know when you are likely to come across a stroppy check-out-chick, or get slow service at Macca's. When they bring that in I'll be on the first stage out of town. Is that what the American NRA tells you blokes to think or do you get it from old John Wayne movies?

Beach, your "news" is 6 months out of date. David Shoebridge (NSW Greens MLC) held a media conference with both GCA and the Homicide Victims Support Group late last year, you must have missed it, or were you too busy with a anti Green tiraid in the Murdoch gutter press, to catch up with the real news.

Beach, just to help you out, another with no Google skills.

http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/philip.alpers.php

Paul,

I favour law abiding citizens being able to defend their lives against unlawful attack.

Obviously you and the Greens don't.

Paul,

Interesting link to Alpers; but the question is, what are his academic qualifications?

Paul1405,

In this thread and others you have continually prevaricated about any links between the Greens, the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens especially and 'gun control' and that includes the content of Greens speeches, 'policy' (such as it is) and press releases.

You now have the hide to assert as true what you have previously denied!

Regarding Samantha Lee, I notice (from the Googling you suggest) that the prestigious, public and audited SSAA Victoria, an association recognised under the firearms regulations of Victoria and all Australian jurisdictions, has been forced to release a video to defend the reputations of its members from misinformation and alleged slanderous attack,

http://www.facebook.com/ssaavic/videos/899110916866599

Now, what about Professor Alpers' qualifications? Why would the Greens be ducking for cover when he is the expert they (and the ABC!) are forever quoting and not perceiving the need for another view for balance?

Paul,

As you are shy when it comes to references, here's one for Alpers:
http://corregidor.org/acgq/web_redirect_3628.3645.8883/forum_pages/article_alpers.html

Seems that he has far less qualifications than I do.
Maybe I could become an Adjunct Professor as I'm a recognized expert in the field of firearms, by the High Court of Australia no less.

Wonder who is funding him?

Dear Paul,

Here's what I've found on the man:

http://www.aoav.org.uk/2013/top-100-the-most-influential-people-in-the-world-of-armed-violence/

http://www.theconversation.com/profiles/philip-alpers-150554

http://www.sydney.educ.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/philip.alpers.php

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typo.

Here's the correct link:

http://www.sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/philip.alpers.php

So Fox, what are Professor Alpers' relevant qualifications?

Maybe if any of the dear readers with a Doctorate or Higher Doctorate from the University of Sydney or another university could advise what qualification and quality of individual research they would expect?

Similarly, they might comment on what scholastic and research contribution (published in the peer reviewed journals of note) they would expect of a senior fellow at Harvard?

Foxy,

"2004–present Adjunct Associate Professor, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney" from one of your links and your other links are just as worthless.

But. maybe, Paul will enlighten us about Alper's elusive qualifications?

Thanks Foxy, Associate Professor Philip Alpers is certainly eminently qualified to speak on matters of gun control. His opinions will not go down well with the gun happy brigade such as Is Mise and OTB.

With Beach all in favor of a well armed para military citizens militia under the control of his like minded friends. and with Is Mise calling for armed citizens to right any perceived wrong doings. Society would certainly be different with these two in control.

Is Mise, could you please explain how you would foresee the ordinary good citizenry being armed for self protection. Would their guns be loaded and concealed as they went about their daily business, one would never known when one would feel the urge to defend oneself. Under what circumstance would a good citizen be free to open fire? What would be the consequences should one good citizen inadvertently shoot dead another good citizen. Would that simply be a case of "tough titties" or could there be some ramifications for the perpetrator?. PLEASE EXPLAIN!

"Paul will enlighten us about Alper's elusive qualifications?"

And who peer reviews his 'research'. Cringeworthy. See here,

<“Mr Alpers’ unfounded concerns that firearms stolen from licensed owners are somehow leaking to into the black market and threatening public safety are a stretch, given that research by the Australian Institute of Criminology shows that only 3 per cent of firearms stolen from licensed owners are subsequently used to commit a crime.

“The finding that restrictions on self-loading longarms has had no impact on suicides should come as no surprise to anyone because of the very mechanics of these firearms.

“Suggestions that our gun laws have been watered down or weakened are also questionable with no clear example given demonstrating that the public is somehow at risk because of any changes to regulations surrounding law-abiding firearm owners.”>

http://ssaa.org.au/media/press-releases/ssaa-refutes-alpers-latest-dubious-research-concerning-firearms-and-port-arthur/

Partisan opinions offered by the likes of the SSAA are of no value. This organisation supports an open slather approach to gun ownership, "arm the citizens" they say. When unpalatable research is brought forward the gun happy brigade simply ridicules the findings, and attempts to "shoot the messenger". This is the case with the work done by Philip Alpers and others, ridicule the research and do your best to blacken the good name of the reporter. Do not offer any worthwhile alternate research, just open fire!
Beach you are big on qualifications, what are the qualifications of the gun happy Geoff Jones to speak on matters of gun control.

Paul,

Partisan opinions offered by the likes of The Greens, Gun Control Australia, Alpers et al are of no value.

However instead of making unfounded and un-referenced assertions, just shew us where the claims of the SSAA are in error.

Regarding self defence, all of your suppositions are covered by law.

The Law also allows that a person in fear of their life or serious injury unlawful attack has the right to defend themselves; do you disagree with the law?
We all have the right to defend ourselves.

Is Mise, I am not questioning the existing law, what I have asked is simple;

Do you agree, or disagree with the supposition that the ordinary citizen being of arbitrary good character should be free to carry a firearm for the purposes of self defense.

I disagree with that supposition. Your view?

Paul1405,

That is all ducking and red herrings.

What relevant academic qualifications does Professor Alpers have?

Taking (say) the time he has been with the University of Sydney, where and when has he published his research in journals of stature and what was the result of the peer review?

Paul,

Of course the ordinary citizen should be able to have a firearm for self defebce; he/she has a natural and legal right to self defence therefore it logically follows that there exists a right to possess an adequate means of defence.

The State has the right to require an adequate standard of training, such as that given to police, who are, after all, ordinary citizens.

Is Mise, your are entitled to your view, but like thousands of others in the community I will continue to resists violence in all its forms. Be it gun violence in a domestic situation, or premeditated murder by criminals, state sanctioned murder in times of war, no matter what the circumstance people still needlessly lose their lives to guns. After all guns really only have one purpose, and that is to kill.

I don't know what motivates you to believe that by arming ordinary citizens of arbitrary good character, whoever they are,
will in someway make both the individual and society safer. Possibly you are drawing on the 'American experience' witch indicates the exact opposite.

We have had another tragedy, this time in South Australia, where a mum and her two young children have been found dead in horrific circumstances in a farmhouse north of Adelaide. As yet police have not released details of what exactly occurred. A man has been taken into custody in relation to the matter and charged with three counts of murder.

Paul1405,

The deceitful, opportunist NSW 'Watermelon' Greens are the perfect 'Useful Idiots' for 'Gun control' aren't they? It is a match made in heaven, or more likely that other place.

'Gun control' is about confiscations and bans affecting lawful, licensed citizens. It is NOT about deterring or collaring criminals, or even higher penalties. The last mentioned was proved by the refusal of the NSW Greens to support harsher penalties for the illegal possession and use of guns.

As well and as if anymore proof is needed of the breathtaking mendacity of the Greens, there they are along with Qld Labor Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk white-anting and promising to trash the successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (VLAD). This Act that survived an expensive Bikie appeal to the High Court of Australia is an act of the Parliament of Queensland, enacted to "severely punish members of criminal organisations that commit serious offenses".

This is a regular occurrence, but NOT a problem for the Greens or 'gun control',

<Hells Angels bikie found with gun, cocaine: police
May 30 2016
A semi-automatic handgun and cocaine have been seized from the car of an alleged senior Hells Angels bikie on the Gold Coast.

Police said they pulled over two men on the Gold Coast Highway at Broadbeach on Saturday night and found a .22 calibre gun and silencer.

Police say an alleged Hells Angels bikie had a gun and drugs in his car during a traffic stop on the Gold Coast..>
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/hells-angels-bikie-found-with-gun-cocaine-police-20160530-gp70h0.html

tbc..

Paul,

"Of course the ordinary citizen should be able to have a firearm for self defebce; he/she has a natural and legal right to self defence therefore it logically follows that there exists a right to possess an adequate means of defence."

Debate that statement; do you not believe that people have a right to defend themselves against unlawful attack?

Is Mise, please define "unlawful attack", a madman coming at you with a machete. or an angry neighbor abusing you over the back fence about your barking dog. I suspect a shooting could take place in both cases given the way you want the citizens armed and ready to defend themselves.

You are happy for the drunk bloke who just lost his job sitting on the seat in the street, to have a gun, the angry fella next to you on the bus who just found out his misses has got 5 kids to another bloke, the woman going off in the supermarket about the overcharging, and the driver you just cut off when changing lanes, your happy for all these people and others, to carry a loaded gun. Because that is exactly what you are saying.

Beach read Justice Alan Wilson's independent report. At what point did that gun go from being legal, which it must have been at some stage, to being illegal. Gun don't know their legal position, guns just kill people.

Paul,

Just debate my statement that you asked for, flights of fancy are not necessary; logic will be quite enough.

Have a read of http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/hipa1998n109408.pdf

Is Mise the reality is you are happy for every Rambo nutter you can name to carry a concealed firearm as a so called self defense measure. How many deaths by guns are you willing to accept so you and other gunnies can carry on enjoying the perverse pleasure of shooting.

Talking of perverse pleasure. That NSW Shooters and Hooters Party cretin, the slimy Bob Borsak has been photographed with the carcass of an endangered majestic elephant, he killed when on a so called safari in Africa. The grub claims he only kills wild life to satisfy his huge lustful appetite for dead meat! Borsak had this to say "I choose to hunt and gather my own meat because it is my right to do so." Although Borsak is the size of an overstuffed porker. Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham interjected, asking : "Did you eat the elephant?"

Borsak replied that he had.

Jeremy said the revelation was disgusting.

"It's sick to shoot and kill an elephant for thrills, and it's revolting that Mr Borsak would eat the elephant," Mr Buckingham said. "He's unfit for office."

We very much doubt Borsak ate the elephant at all, but shot it to satisfy his perverse pleasure of killing.

Any comment on Borsak?

Paul,

Just debate my statement that you asked for, flights of fancy are not necessary; logic will be quite enough.

Is Mise, people get angry, people lose their tempers, people have crises moments in their lives, people do things they later regret. Its not flights of fantasy at all.

Take that farmer and cold blooded killer, Ian Turnbull, he may have been a "good citizen" when he was given a gun licence. Later on circumstance turned him into a cold blooded killer. Do you support giving gun licences to cold blooded killers. If you did not protest the issuing of a gun licence to Ian Turnbull then you will have to admit you agreed with a cold blooded killer having a bun licence!

Nothing to say on the subject? Nothing to say about Borsak, that's what you vote for!

Paul,

Paul,

Just debate my statement that you asked for, flights of fancy are not necessary; logic will be quite enough.

Just logically destroy the proposition and that will do.

//you will have to admit you agreed with a cold blooded killer having a bun licence!//

I was not aware that it was necessary to be licensed to carry a bun. It certainly wasn't the case in all my Enid Blyton books, in which the characters usually consumed 2-3 times their own bodyweight in buns, with lashings of ginger beer, and didn't need a licence to do so.

This bun licensing racket is just more interference from the nanny state. Whatever happened to the Australia of my youth when an ordinary citizen of good moral standing was free to wield his choice of bread product* with extreme prejudice? It's all the fault to those wicked 'Durian' Liberals, acting as puppets for clandestine foreign organisations** to wrench lawfully owned buns from the grasp of little Aussie battlers who desperately need those buns to protect themselves, their families and their livelihoods in the harsh frontier existence of first world suburbia.

* Except flatbread of course, because that's towelhead bread.
** The Freemasons. Or maybe the Illuminati. They take it in turns to be the shadowy puppet-masters orchestrating evil plots like bun control.

Forgive me Toni for I know not what I do. What I do know is I would feel a whole lot safer if the general community were pak'n buns and not guns! Is Mise wants to arm every loony and loopy in society, only after he has anointed them as "good citizens" first...of course! Beach sees himself at the head of a well armed Citizens Militia, his very own personal private army, no doubt he will promote himself to the exalted rank of colonel first, like that fella from the chicken shop. As a modern day comic strip hero he will assume the mantel of command, being the protector of society, cleansing Australia of undesirables, such as, Trotskyist Watermelon Greens, and pizza delivery boys who run late.
Sleep well my friend, we are in safe hands!

Paul,

Borsak shot the elephant as part of a conservation program, as you well know.
Turnbull was a farmer and the Greens agree that farmers need guns; many farmers are allowed guns that the ordinary licenced shooter can't have.

So debate my answer, tear it apart logically and if you don't think that people have a right to defend themselves then have the guts to say so.

Is Mise,

I fully support the right of all Australians to defend themselves with the loaf, roll, damper, muffin bagel, donut, scone, anpan, barmbrack, biali, boule, brioche, baguette, kipferl, naan, pretzel etc. of their choice. Just no breadsticks. Those things are dangerous; you could take somebody's eye out with one.

Toni,

Perhaps you might try a little logical argument and leave the kindergarten humour to Paul as he is far better at it than you.

Paul,

What conservation areas do the Greens administer or fund?

//Perhaps you might try a little logical argument//

What would be the point? Gun nuts don't listen to logical arguments; they listen to arguments in favour of guns.

Is Mise fat Bob Borsak said in the NSW Parliament that he only hunted to satisfy his blood lust, and his carnivorous cravings for the fleshy stuff. The unanswered question remains; did fat Bob mislead the parliament, or did fat Bob eat the elephant. He has been known to say "I'm so hungry I could eat an elephant." before consuming 24 Big Mac's down at Ronald's cafe.

Now, you are claiming Borsak was so overcome with conservationial zeal, that he had to part with 20,000 bucks, and rush off to Africa and bag himself an elephant. The world awaits your answer.

Is Mise, do you eat the pigeons you shoot, with or without the feathers?

And finally, how are the book sales going? I remember the book 'Road Kill Recipes for the Unsuccessful Hunter' or some such title. You gave it a free plug on the forum once upon a time. Bob needs a copy, wants to know what's under E for elephant?

Sorry, that should have been E for endangered species, I'm sure fat Bob does likes something a little special on his plate,

Toni now joins Paul in evading a logical argument; an argument that they both know that they can't win.

Tell me, Paul, where are all the conservation areas that the Greens administer? All the wildlife refuge areas? All the waterfowl habitats?

My guess is ZERO!

//Toni now joins Paul in evading a logical argument; an argument that they both know that they can't win.//

The problem isn't with the nature of the argument, Is Mise: it's with the nature of the opponent. I could show you all the evidence in the world that more guns result in more shooting deaths, and you'd call it biased and irrelevant and ignore the lot. How can you have a logical argument with somebody who still clings to his half-baked hypotheses even after they've been empirically refuted? It's like trying to argue with a creationist.

Now if you can rope in somebody to argue in your place, I'd be willing to take you up on your offer. The forum is home to a few people who understand the nature of logical debate and the value of evidence and I'd be happy to argue with one of them. I'd recommend AJ Philips. But trying to argue with you would be futile since you have demonstrated previously your lack of interest in evidence-based debates.

Toni Lavis, "I could show you all the evidence in the world that more guns result in more shooting deaths"

Go ahead. Remembering that correlation does not imply causation,

http://www.fastcodesign.com/3030529/infographic-of-the-day/hilarious-graphs-prove-that-correlation-isnt-causation

Well, that's Toni thrown in the towel.

How about you Paul?
Since you're the one that asked the question you ought to argue it on logical grounds.

Going to have a go or are we to have more 'humour' as you try to worm your way out?

How's the research going on the Adler?
You know the shotgun that the Greens and their running mates Gun Control Australia lie about, the gun that can fire five shots in five seconds.
Just to let you know what goes on in the real world; Saturday before last I fired 6 shots in a pistol rapid fire match in 4 seconds (electronically timed), one second inside the time allowed for that segment of the match.
I wasn't using one of the Greens much hated semi-automatic pistols nor even a double action revolver but an exact reproduction of an 1873
Colt single action revolver, in .357 Magnum (far more powerful and longer range than the 12 gauge Adler).
Score: 49 out of a possible 60 (9,9,8,8,8,7)
Of course, at my age, I'm slowing down a bit; what some of the young blokes can do with the same pistols would make a Green go white!

I'm just as fast with an 1848 Colt, so if rate of fire is the problem that the FOEs think it is then they're going to have to go back a few years for a fresh start.

Is Mise, all that guff in your last post, does that mean you hit the monkey?

to answer your question as I always do. I will answer for NSW, The Greens through their dedicated parliamentary team, along with our actives members, and supporters, work tirelessly to protect all the States national parks and open spaces from those of your ilk, gunnies, shooters, hooters and your general yahoos, who endeavor to takeover and destroy the little we have to satisfy their own selfish interests.
I can ask you the same question, what has the Shooters and Hooters Party, your SS mob and all those yahoos done to protect our enviroment. NOTHING! just the opposite, they set out to destroy it for their own selfish pleasure.

I asked you before to comment on one of your own, Tony Azzie, leading member of the gunnie community, and killer of endangered wombats! This is your peoples idea of conservation, if its not Fat Bob killing a majestic elephant in Africa, its Azzi killing protected species at Yass NSW.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/multimillionaire-car-dealer-tony-azzi-investigated-over-wombat-deaths-20151218-glqoga.html

Please explain how your notion of "good citizens" carrying guns for self protection will work?

How many people, 50% of the population, 90%, how many.
Will those guns be concealed in public, or will they be on open display, Dodge City style.
Under what circumstances could they be used.
What penalties if any, would be applied to those that did the wrong thing.
What will be the role of the police (sheriff) in all this.
Will citizens be involved in shoot outs.
Will people be able to settle their difference with a gun fight in the streets, wild west style.

Just watch any old John Wayne western, then tell me if that is how you envisage Australian society operating in the 21st century.

Please explain!

I disapprove of all guns. End of story.

Paul,

Nice rant.

Now debate the question and do you believe that people have a right to self defence?

Is Mise, the primary source of defense for the ordinary citizenry should be in the hands of the police. Often in times of argument and dispute the police need to be involved.
Wherever possible a person finding them self in physical danger should remove oneself from that environment, and to a position of safety if at all possible. Then and only then should a person need to defend them self in a reasonable manor as a last resort.
Having said that I don't see any need to arm the populace as you would have it, in fashion of a lawless town of gunslingers.

Now you tell me how you see guns and the ordinary citizen.

Please explain how your notion of "good citizens" carrying guns for self protection will work?

How many people, 50% of the population, 90%, how many.
Will those guns be concealed in public, or will they be on open display, Dodge City style.
Under what circumstances could they be used.
What penalties if any, would be applied to those that did the wrong thing.
What will be the role of the police (sheriff) in all this.
Will citizens be involved in shoot outs.
Will people be able to settle their difference with a gun fight in the streets, wild west style.

These are all reasonable question, you choose to ignore.

Paul'

All of your questions are irrelevant to the question of whether people have a right to defend themselves; do they have that right?

If they have that right then we may consider how that right might be tempered for the good of society.

Take the case of a farmer on whose property there is a dangerous scrub bull.
Should the farmer be allowed to take a firearm with him when he goes out to repair some fences?
He isn't setting out with the intention of hunting the bull but just wants to have a rifle handy if the bull attacks him.

Is Mise still ducking and weaving when asked to state your position on the issue of guns for so called self defense. I have put my position clearly but you refuse to state your position.

Its clear that your position is one of uncontrolled gun ownership. You have no regard for the cost in human terms from such a selfish attitude!

Paul,

"Take the case of a farmer on whose property there is a dangerous scrub bull.
Should the farmer be allowed to take a firearm with him when he goes out to repair some fences?
He isn't setting out with the intention of hunting the bull but just wants to have a rifle handy if the bull attacks him."

Should the farmer be allowed to protect himself?

The only dangerous scrub bull we have is you and those ridiculous Shooter and Hooters, along with a gaggle pf crazy mad old men from the SS, trying to relive the "glory" day of the Boer War or something. The irony that shows how stupid 'Gunnies' are is the thing they are most likely to shoot first and foremost is themselves! The fools don't even know which end the bullet comes out of! And you want to arm the rest of society, over your dead body!

Here is a link where David Shoebridge debates that other talking head and well known knuckle gragger from from the Shooters and Hooters Party Fat Bob Two, another one of the shooters total morons they have speak (more like grunts) for them.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/article/2016/04/04/shooters-and-fishers-goes-head-head-greens-gun-control

This David Shoebridge?

"DAVID Shoebridge has effectively given criminal gangs a list of hotspot towns to target and done nothing to prevent the real problem which is illegal firearms being manufactured or imported illegally into the country"

http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/news/in-the-firing-linedavid-shoebridge-has-effectively/2997001/

From the Greens Party who along with Labor's Palaszczuk are scuttling the successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act (VLAD) that was supported by the High Court of Australia?

Law-abiding people with licences owning registered firearms are not the problem and never were.

However, it is precisely these thousands of reputable, responsible good citizens who can be relied upon to always do the right thing that YOUR NSW 'Watermelon' Greens are so offended by and wilfully slander, deliberately conflating them and their legal firearms with the offending SOBs (and their illegal guns) that YOUR Greens so avidly protect the 'rights' of.

Why would the Greens slag honest, respectable people and deny them their rights to lawful ownership, recreation and sports, while at the same time the Greens and Labor are falling over their own feet to trash the effective Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act (VLAD), that sent criminal gangs packing from Queensland? It isn't just outlaw motorcycle gangs and their violence. What about the feared Russian Mafia in Queensland and the likelihood of dangerous South American gangs moving into profitable Australia?

The opposition of the Greens and Labor's Ms Palaszczuk to the VLAD laws doesn't make sense does it?

BTW,

1) Why is 'gun control' so secret squirrel about their membership, sources of funds and contacts? What have they got to hide?

2) What relevant academic qualifications does have?

3) Taking (say) the time Professor Alpers has been with the University of Sydney, where and when has he published his research in journals of stature and what was the result of the peer review?

2) What relevant academic qualifications does Professor Alpers, University of NSW, have?

Paul,

There aren't scrub bulls in Sydney but believe me they exist in the bush and they have no fear of anything, least of all man.

So do you not believe that a farmer, on his own property, should be allowed to take his rifle with him to protect himself in case of an attack by a scrub bull?

Feral pigs are known to attack, their tusks causing deep gouges to the bone.

Damage to stock and assets would be in the hundreds of millions a year.

Add to that the range of diseases carried by them. FMD and other diseases and pests are imported by ethnics who seem to believe it is fair game to deceive Customs with their present food parcels from their home country, eg home made salami. Or as a consequence of the limited inspections of imported goods. None of that registers with the Greens of course.

Farmers on their off-road agricultural bikes often disturb feral pigs. Regrettably, the Howard-inspired 'gun control' regulations require farmers to return to their homestead safe, usually well away over rough ground, to unlock firearm then ammunition. By then the ferals are well away. How do you get any work done though?

It is impossible to traverse scrub with a rifle slung over the shoulder. How to mount on bike without similar dangerous snagging and damage? Not possible. It makes sense for the duly licensed farmer to carry a pistol, but that is becoming almost impossible to have approved.

The problem is ignorant bureaucrat lawyers in their air conditioned iron lungs in Canberra, who advise policy, putting their opinions into it and who see no need to consult with the public and stakeholders either.

There is recent proof from FOI requests that senior bureaucrats in A-Gs do not regard reading invited submissions and comment from public stakeholders as a worthwhile use of their time, so they didn't bother! What utter gall!

You pair of scrub bulls have proven to be such easy targets, sitting ducks in fact, more often than not shooting yourselves in the foot, when it comes to debating the facts. Every volley you fired missed its target, and now you are out of ammunition. So all I can say is I'll offer you a final cigarette, a blindfold and a last word and then it will be time for you two fine gentlemen to face the firing squad at dawn, figuratively speaking that is. Any last requests?

Well before its all over I just want to repeat my original message..
Someone really should strap that George Soros onto the back of a ballistic missile and fire it into the sun.
Yep - I'm all good now too.

Yes, Paul, one last request; answer the question about the farmer.

But you already know and that's why you won't answer.

The farmer would be breaking the law if he took a rifle out to defend himself against a scrub bull because self defence is not a reason to possess a firearm, but if he takes his rifle out with the intention of hunting the bull then he's covered because that's legal.

Another stupid law.

What would you do if attacked by a life threatening scrub bull 20 miles from town, Paul? Ring the police?

Armchair Critic, "Someone really should strap that George Soros onto the back of a ballistic missile and fire it into the sun"

Too right! A slow trip too for the billionaire currency dealer who has been convicted of currency manipulation and interferes in the domestic politics of Australia and other countries.

Save some seats too for his 'useful idiots', the slack Greens and ors who have hitched a ride on his 'gun control' wagon for the cheap sensationalism and headlines.

Paul1405,
It is amusing that you came into this thread asserting as always that the Greens policy had nothing to do with 'gun control' and its objective of a complete ban of legally licensed citizens owning firearms and State confiscations.

Now that the weight of evidence is against you and there is a heap more to come from your (claimed) mate Shoebridge alone, you have performed the full backflip and pike.

Nothing like the Greens for fabrications, double-talk and hypocrisy, eh? What a cowboy outfit and always treacherous. Couldn't lie straight in bed between two pallets of bricks.

The Greens and GCA are still on about the Adler lever action shotgun but they are strangely silent on all the other lever action shotguns that are on the market.

Why is this so?

Is it because they want to target just one distributor or is it because they don't keep up with developments (like the 1886 Winchester clones), or are just plain stupid?

Just for your information, Paul, the ultra fast firing Adler (Greens' Lies) can not fire ten shots as fast as a common old double barrel gun and could be beaten by some single barrel guns in the right hands.

Is Mise should I find myself 32km (I've gone metric, I see you are still in the dark ages). Would that scrub bully possibly be you, as you seem to be full of bull. I would immediately call upon Fat Bob from the Shooters and Hooters to attack the said beast with his trusty blunderbuss, a Smith & Wesson, Carbine, double action, fully automatic, four poster with reverse sights, shotgun (bet you haven't got one of those, but would like one. ha!) to deal with the ornery varmint. Naturally Fat Bob would have to part with 20,000 smackers for the privilege, he can eat the flyblown caress later, The $20,000 will go into the bullies conservation fund for later use, protecting bullies everywhere, like the Shooters and Hooters, and the SSAA!

Paul,

You can't answer the questions!

How about that simple one; what academic qualifications does "Professor" Alpers have?

The Greens picked on the Adler because they thought that it was new technology, or they thought that they could fool people into thinking that it was and they failed miserably.
Admittedly they fooled Tony Abbott, but that's not really much of an achievement; poor Tony couldn't recognize late 19th Century technology when he saw it.

George Soros and ballistic missiles?

That won't solve our global plight

However, Donald Trump being given the flick

Just may do the global trick!

Foxy,

Trump is the trump.

Is Mise takes on that Scrub Bull

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG3DC2Bgpug

Beach, as usual you seem to suffer from a complete lack of comprehension. The NSW Greens, of which I am a member, have a carefully thought out 28 point policy on Firearms. That policy is clear and unequivocal, except for the most moronic of minds, sorry you have difficulty understanding it. Again I post that policy for your edification.
Unfortunately for you, but fortunate for the rest of society, you will not find any support from the Greens for an armed 'citizens militia', or draconian laws that favor a police state, objectives you so desire. At least I am proud of the party I support, and make no secret of it. Unlike you who once claimed on the forum to hold moderate views, with no political affiliation, yet trumpet radical right wing opinions at every opportunity. You should join a radical right party, they could use you, they need all the support they can get, if you haven't already.

http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/nsw/firearms

The Greens have a reputation for dishonesty to achieve their political ends. Greens senators and leaders especially subscribe to Lenin's maxim that,

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin

For example, Bob Brown the previous Greens leader irresponsibly claimed that the thousands of reputable Aussie citizens with firearms licenses, were carrying "hand machine guns in their (car) glove boxes". As Greens leader Bob Brown also said that mining was responsible for the devastating Queensland floods.

For someone with the IQ (and hopefully the mental stability) to complete a medical degree, those are remarkable claims. Ludicrous. But they certainly received free national publicity for the Greens. Mud intended to stick and some would, even though it is easily proved to be absolute rubbish. Mendacious.

My interest is obtaining transparency, accountability and value for money for the moneys the State compulsorily takes from citizens.

Where the Greens are concerned that is always a challenge. Because the Greens is a protest party with no pretensions of ever being responsible for a coherent set of policies to govern. The Greens have always enjoyed an easy ride.

According to the ABC whose informal editorial policy (for which it refuses to be made accountable), it very rarely if ever subjects the Greens to any real examination because the Greens are not in government and it is the government that should be the focus and subjected to criticism.

Again, it is amusing that you came into this thread asserting as always that the Greens policy had nothing to do with 'gun control' and its objective of a complete ban of legally licensed citizens owning firearms and State confiscations.

Now, what about you answer some of those questions you are evading?

Paul,

".... seem to suffer from a complete lack of comprehension. The NSW Greens, of which I am a member, have a carefully thought out 28 point policy on Firearms"

Carefully thought out?

Paul you are improving as a humourist.
LOL, ROTFL, CWM etc.

I understand where you gun happy brigade are coming from, and there certainly are controversial aspects of The NSW Greens 28 point firearms policy you could not agree with. The requiremnet that gun owners demonstrate mental stability being one, two... children not owning and using firearms freely, three..no guns by mail order, or available from the local supermarket, with no checks, four... people with a criminal record, or a history of violence owning and using guns, lots more. All very controversial for the gunnies who want Australia to be a US style gun toting society.

Ian Turnbull, licensed NSW gun owner, found guilty of murder with that legal gun of his! What do you have to say to that? Let him off scot-free.

"gunnies who want Australia to be a US style gun toting society"

It bears repeating that the Greens have a reputation for dishonesty to achieve their political ends. Greens senators and leaders especially subscribe to Lenin's maxim that,

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin

That Greens 'policy' is just the lazy Trotskyist Greens riding the 'gun control' wagon of overseas interests. Billionaire currency dealers and corporations with a record of interfering in the domestic politics of western democracies.

Now why would a billionaire currency dealer want to support and sponsor far left demonstrations and disarming the law-abiding citizens of the western democracies? Why are those 'gun control' activists so secret squirrel and the Greens so secretive about any dealings they have with them?

The hypocritical Greens have not supported the LNP's attempts to introduce mandatory minimum sentencing for illegal firearms trafficking, despite the fact that their Victorian counterparts publicly supported the passage of similar laws just last year.

The Greens are soft on crime, particularly drug trafficking where the weapons violence, involving guns as well, is most prevalent and they are forever protecting offender's rights.

Paul,

"Ian Turnbull, licensed NSW gun owner, found guilty of murder with that legal gun of his! What do you have to say to that? Let him off scot-free."

Don't be stupid; it's Greens policy to allow farmers to have firearms.

Is Mise, The Greens policy;

13 Tighter legislated minimum standards for the refusal and cancellation of licenses, including:

13.3 Mental or physical fitness.

Under Greens policy Ian Turnbull would not have held a gun licence, given his mental state.

Unlike the Shooters and Hooters and their backers (you) with your give a gun to every nutter possible, policy.

I think you and your out of touch sidekick Beach have once again been well and truly done by me and others on this gunnnie thing. Time you guys said goodnight on the subject and hung up your guns permanently. Do you agree?

Off the planet Beach has taken to quoting VLAD Lenin...desperate!

Paul1405, "Under Greens policy Ian Turnbull would not have held a gun licence, given his mental state"

His 'mental state'?

Trust the Greens to attempt to diminish the responsibility and accountability of a murderer for his planned and callously executed offence.

What you are saying Paul1405 is that the murderer should have received the lesser conviction of manslaughter or lesser because of a claimed 'mental state'.

You and the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens portray the murderer as a victim, lessening his offence. You disagree with the Prosecutor, the Court and the victim's sister:

<"Mr Turner was remembered by his sister as "a man who was full of vitality and he had a passion for life".

"The murderer was portrayed as the victim — a poor depressed respectable farmer, driven to despair by the Office of Environment and Heritage," Fran Pearce said.

"In reality, he is a wealthy property developer who simply refused to accept the law applied to him.

"Today's verdict does not bring Glen back, but we do take some comfort knowing that justice has been done.">
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-27/nsw-farmer-found-guilty-of-murdering-environment-officer/7452728

Fair dinkum, the NSW 'Watermelon' Greens Trots are too lazy and confused to think things through. They let a few 'gun control' activists do their thinking for them. The Greens are the 'Useful Idiots' of the manipulative overseas backers who are pulling their strings.

Trust the Greens to be politicising a murder.

Paul,

"Under Greens policy Ian Turnbull would not have held a gun licence, given his mental state"

What utter bull!

Is Mise, looks like you and Beach have parted company on Ian Turnbull! You described Turnbull as some kind of hard done by farmer. Beach agrees with me, a cold blooded killer.
Unlike you, I don't believe Turnbull should have held a gun licence.
Looks like the fascists from the North, and the Trotskists from the South have something in common.

Beach the real 'Useful Idiots' in all this are the dupes of the international gun merchants, you and Is Mise for two, who spout the nonsense that more guns in the community have no adverse effect on the number of gun related deaths, proven utter nonsense. As you know the ones who are under the influence of these peddlers of death, are the likes of The Shooters Party and the SSAA who take financial reward from the international gun lobby. The American NRA for one had directly financed the gun lobby in Australia. Deny that one!

Paul1405, "Beach agrees with me, a cold blooded killer"

No, that is another of your 'wobblies'. I have already taken you to task for excusing the murderer because of alleged 'mental health', or so you would have it. The record is there in B&W. Here,

onthebeach, Monday, 6 June 2016 9:06:01 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7297&page=29

The fact is that you were diminishing the murderer's culpability. You were echoing a defence claim that the Court did NOT accept.

You are at odds with the Court findings and its quite proper sentencing.

Trust the Greens to be politicising a murder.

It bears repeating that the Greens have a reputation for dishonesty to achieve their political ends. Greens senators and leaders especially subscribe to Lenin's maxim that,

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin

So Beach, you claim that Ian Turnbull was simply a normal person with a gun (licensed) who took it upon himself to cold bloodily kill another human being. If this be the case then we the unarmed are indeed in a extremely vulnerable position. At anytime a licensed gunnie, given some perceived provocation, could take it upon themselves to open fire at will.

Given you know so much about The Greens and what Leninist maxim they subscribe to. Can I ask. Which is your favorite Hitler quote, the one you personally adhere to?

The Court that decided that. You disagree with the Court.

What I am saying is,

- trust the Greens to be politicising a murder; and

- the Greens have a reputation for dishonesty to achieve their political ends.

The gun happy brigades favorite pin up boy, and role model, Michael Diamond who is accused of drink driving (high range) and at the same time possessing a shotgun and 150 deadly rounds in his car. Diamond is now demanding special treatment in court, Diamond wants his charges dealt with quickly so he can pack his bags for Rio. NO CHANCE said the judge.

One can only speculate as to how many gunnies get around drunk in their cars, with loaded firearms at hand!
Is Mise do you have any figures on that score?

Is Mise nothing on that leading shooter, and favorite son, Tony Azzi, and the accusations of him killing protected wildlife (defenseless wombats)?

I have only mentioned the more well behaved shooters, you would be shock at the actions of the real bad ones!

The gunnies hold to the VLAD Lenin maxim; "A lie told often enough becomes the truth.",

Grow up, Paul.

I note that the Greens oppose minors aged 12 to 18 being taught safety with firearms; is that in the hopes that a minor who happens across a gun, will because he/she has never been taught safety procedures have an accident and thus provide the Greens with more grist for their mill?

Do the Greens oppose driver training for those under 18?
Do they oppose minors driving motor vehicles?

How about minors on farms, should they be taught safety with chain saws?

The Greens' gun law proposals are a farce.
They want semi-automatic pistols banned yet have nothing to say about the faster firing double action revolver.

How fast is fast, Paul, as I've said I can and do fire 6 accurate shots in under 5 seconds and from an 1873 model single action pistol, i.e. a pistol that has to be manually cocked for each shot; no just pulling the trigger.

Come, come Is Mise, So called "safety with firearms for children" is just a smoke screen, by the gunnies who's aim is arming children with guns! Your ruse is that transparent.
What did you want me to grow up about, the facts about Diamond, Turnbull or Azzi.
You should grow up, making an outlandish claim that the Greens want children to have gun accidents, what spurious rubbish.

Will you comment on the nine-year-old girl from New Jersey who accidentally shot dead 39-year-old gun instructor Charles Vacca with an Uzi submachine gun. Do you agree with children using submachine guns? The girl once lived in Mosman, Sydney, before moving to the US. Did she ever attend your shooting range for instruction?
Or comment on all the children who have killed their mothers etc. A 2 year old shot and killed his mother in a shop. What gun instruction do you propose for 2 year old's?

Paul1405,

In Is Mise's credit he continues to correct Greens' fabrications and misinformation.

In your case you have made it very apparent that you are not interested in a discussion but are out to troll other posters. -As you boasted to another poster in the thread on the passing of Mohammed Ali. Where you stated bald-faced that you treated other posters as 'sport'. Some boast.

As an example, you are back to your mischief-making and speculative gossip where Michael Diamond is concerned and appearing to pre-judge this man and before all facts are known. He is after all, innocent until proved guilty. -You did that back on page 11 and you were forced to backflip, after others went to some pains to dispel your inferences and clear the air (page 12).

Apart from that, the thread is repleat with your usual disjointed, offensive remarks that are 'way out there', silly and lunar. As soon as you are forced to back away, you are off again with more rude and unfounded claims, only to be challenged and again forced to pull your head in.

That is how the Greens 'Watermelons' roll isn't it? Keep throwing mud and hope some will stick. Never coming to terms with anything. Always the protest party appealing to the serially discontented. In a peaceful, democratic First World country where they enjoy low crime, the best welfare, health services and housing and all for no contribution expected from them, or forthcoming.

Greens leader Richard di Natale has all of his work before him. Bob Brown failed before to control the exasperating NSW 'Watermelon' Greens Trotskyists, who are digging holes under the leadership and disrupting the party in the process. All about the political ambitions of a some of those lazy NSW 'Watermelons', eh.

Beach, you are the forums leading exponent of specious nonsense. Daily you refer to the New South Wales Watermelon Trotskyist Greens. You simply try to repeat that lie constantly in the hope others will believe it. You claimed the Greens adhere to Vladimir Lenins maxim of 'The Big Lie'. I, like the majority of Greens have no connection to Trotskyism or Leninism, and you can add Stalinism to the list as well, ideologies we find abhorrent from three detestable people of history. You on the other hand mask any political connection you may have, but given the content of your posts, i would think you are an adherent of the extreme right, but shamefully never letting your guard down, obviously believing you have more credibility that way. calming once to be of the "moderate persuasion", what a joke, could that be your personal "Big Lie".

You should get an understanding of something before you go around labeling others with it! This may help a little,

Trotskyism is an extreme left-wing political ideology which originated in the split in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1920s between supporters of Joseph Stalin and supporters of Leon Trotsky. Stalin easily defeated Trotsky and forced him into exile, then had him assassinated.

The only person on the forum I treat as "sport" is you. Frankly, if your post is more that 3 lines, and most are, I can't be bothered reading them, as they are based on some kind of ideological rubbish, and are a dead pan diatribe, As for your links, I haven't opened one since you posted that one containing a virus. Something the coward in you failed to even acknowledge as an being done in error.

Paul1405,

You make all sorts of allegations against anyone who disagrees with you. I don't feel special, just one of many you slur when inconvenient facts get in your road. Or just because you can do it.

You are in denial about the 'Watermelon' influence in the Greens and that the Greens is just a loose protest crew of competing, conflicting factions. As many factions are there are members.

From Wikipedia,
"Eco-socialism, green socialism or socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of Marxism, socialism, and/or libertarian socialism with that of green politics, ecology and alter-globalization or anti-globalization.

Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transnational structures.

Eco-socialists advocate dismantling capitalism, focusing on common ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers, and restoring the commons."

Does any of that ring a bell? It would be a kind, diplomatic description of the totalitarian NSW 'Watermelon' Greens though.

You have considerable front to deny for example that previous Greens leader Bob Brown regularly tried to pull Lee Rhiannon and others into line.

This is how the Greens roll,
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/february/1391173200/guy-rundle/future-greens

Greens leader Richard di Natale has all of his work before him. He and the missus get a lot of cheap help at home though, imported.

Beach you sledged one long time poster Belly, who unlike you was rather moderate. You sledged him so much that he left the forum in protest for the treatment he received from you. I quote;

"I (Belly) will take a spell.
But highlight it was OTB not me or Foxy who took this to the public.
In his post here and a long list of other taunting posts.
And would ask, what if all posters behaved like that here.
Using half truth and lies to taunt other posters.
I highlight again with out some fences, some reason taunting is not seen as OK we all suffer."

You grab whatever you think will make your argument. even waffle about eco-socialism from an unknown on 'Wikipedia', maybe you wrote that stuff yourself. As for your knowledge of The Greens, its zero, you have never been a member, you know no one who is a member, nor have you ever spoken to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the party. Relying mainly on trash as published in the News Corp gutter press.

p/s Unlike Belly *who was wrong for leaving i'm going nowhere, staying right here with you, after all its a political forum and I, and you, have got to expect that there are people like you and me around.

Paul1405,

You are aware of the site rules, which you are trying to circumvent in the hope of stirring the possum. That is what the site rules are intended to deter.

If you have issues or questions to do with moderation, post to the administrator.

I make it a practice to never comment on moderation of the site. I suggest you do the same.

Now, what about answering those questions that have been put to you?

The same goes for you Beach, you said I slur you. which means; "an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation."
That can't be true as the anonymous "onthebeach" you have no reputation to damage or insult.
I said at the time that Belly the person was wrong for taking Belly the alter ego off the forum. I did not consider you responsible for him taking his bat and ball and going home, never to return to the playground. That was his decision.

BTT

Another day and another opportunity for the headline-hunting, ambulance-chasing, speculative gossip creating NSW Greens to sink the slipper into a familiar target, the NSW police.

Trouble-making helped by the ABC of course, who never seem to question the cr@p they get from the Greens.

"Hornsby shooting: Greens call for probe into police treatment of people with mental illnesses"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-10/inquiry-needed-into-police-shooting-at-hornsby-greens-say/7498926

First, the headline, where anyone would have expected it to reflect what happened, the FACTS and should have been something like this,

"Assailant armed with a knife and shouting Allahu Akbar shot while attacking police"

From Greens Shoebridge, "There is woefully inadequate training for the police to deal with mental illness".

What an airhead. The heavy insinuation being that the police whose lives and those of the public were at risk had other alternatives. Let Shoebridge stand in front of a determined man with a large blade and use his 'professional skills' to instantly diagnose the offender and counsel him. Ridiculous.

Where attacked at close quarters by a determined assailant with an edged weapon who refuses to quit, the training manual of any police force in the world would instruct the use of deadly force to centre mass as the only reasonable alternative. Deadly attack necessitates deadly force to stop.

Any wonder the Greens come across as cynical stirrers and troublemakers and only concerned about the political capital they can make out of the misfortune of others.

What about the ABC though? Giving Shoebridge a free podium, no questions asked, to set some hares running before the full facts are known. Hey, the Greens must be very special special where the ABC is concerned.

That's right Beach, again we have had an incident where two inexperienced police officers chose to open fire on a mentally unstable man, identified as 23-year-old Jerry Sourian. The shooting took place in the busy shopping center of Hornsby. They wounded not only the knife carrying Sourian, they also wounded three elderly ladies. The officers had the option of using Tasers but chose firearms. Again there will be police investigating police, something I never have confidence in producing an unbiased outcome. A senior police officer was quick to rush the media and defend the actions of the two officers involved, again showing a police bias in these matters.
Of course in your ideal police state, Beach, you would want these types of incidents to go unreported, or in favor of the police at all times. I totally agree with David Shoebridge on this one, we need an independent special commission of inquiry into the use of police force against people with mental illnesses. Not some media hound copper with a lardy dah, knee jerk, defense of his fellow officers

The (alleged) offender was the one with the large, sharp, blade, 20-30 cms of it or thereabouts from the video.

It was his choice of offence, location and timing.

The offender chose a busy shopping Mall. As seen in the video, the public are at a very great disadvantage where an offender does that. They mill about and are easy victims. Most people don't know what to do or how to react.

The police had to intervene and stand their ground. They are heroes.

I join with the overwhelming number of the public who say, "Well done, police" and at the same time we offer sympathy to the members of the public who were injured and wish them a speedy recovery, with help from government.

Meanwhile the Greens will be trying to make the offender the victim and the police the bad guys. Oh whoops, it isn't politically correct to say guys is it? New 'Progressive' PC speak, eh?

Without a full independent investigation with the transparency that should come with such a review, justice cannot be seen to be done. What we will get is a behind closed doors, internal police inquiry, which cannot guarantee fairness of outcome. Already a senior police office has trampled the media to let it be known what the management of the force expect. To often a whitewash is suspected, but given the secrecy of these internal inquires cannot be proven. Time and again the findings favor the officers involved, I suppose this investigation will be no different, considering no one was killed.

Beach another of your big lies " I join with the overwhelming number of the public who say, "Well done, police". Evidence please! Claiming to speak for the righteous majority, when in fact you do no such thing!

Paul,

Much to Richard di Natale's credit he has come out in favour of the shooting sports.
Somewhat surprising but a good thing; maybe there is hope for him yet.

Do you disagree with minors being taught the angers of chain saws?
What do you think of 12 year olds being allowed to drive motor vehicles?

is Mise, if you read Greens policy on firearms you will see there is no suggestion of a prohibition on guns. My personal beliefs are somewhat tougher than the policy, but I can live with the policy.

Take this " Improved cooperation between the NSW government and other levels of government in Australia to strengthen national uniform gun laws, firearms training and a national register of firearms"

The Greens support firearms training, if they wanted all guns removed from society there would be no training, now would there.
The notion that the Greens want to see the Western Democracies total disarmed, are the crazed machinations of that right wing glove puppet who pops in here every now and then to deliver an anti Green diatribe. He's overdue, should be here shortly.

Paul1405, "The notion that the Greens want to see the Western Democracies total disarmed.."

Weasel words pretending that the military was included. Whereas the Greens would of course see the State as the sole owner and user of firearms. That is the totalitarian Greens for you and their totalitarian State.

Of course the goal of 'gun control' is to ban private ownership and confiscate all privately owned firearms from legally licensed citizens. Ti claim otherwise is absolute rot.

However 'gun control' and the Greens are not interested at all in criminals and their illegal weapons. The Greens are soft on criminals and go all out to protect their rights.

Take the example of the knife attacker in Hornsby, where that meddlesome Greens politician Shoebridge, a proponent of 'gun control' is spinning the knife-wielding attacker as the victim and the protecting police as the baddies. Of course the Greens conveniently forget the victims, the threatened public and those injured, accidentally it seems as can be expected where a serious offence is committed in a crowded area. It is though the only victim is the knife-wielding perpetrator. That is the total bare-faced hypocrisy and gall of the NSW Greens.

Shame, Shoebridge, shame!

'Gun control' is NOT concerned with effective regulation. Nor is 'gun control' aimed at evidence based laws. 'Gun control' is NOT about deterring or collaring criminals either.

'Gun control' is solely targeted at restrictions, bans and confiscations affecting legally licensed citizens.

'Gun control' is the antithesis of effective REGULATION of firearms.

The right wing glove puppet arrived on queue. Not interested in policy, but to deliver one of his well rehearsed anti Greens diatribes, something he is becoming expert at, does it daily on this forum. What is 'One Nations' policy on guns? When confronted about any policy Pauline runs! preferring to send her foot soldiers do the dirty work on sites like this.

Once again I post Greens NSW detailed policy on firearms.

http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/nsw/firearms

Other might care to do likewise, but unfortunate their policy does not extend beyound the one liner;

"Shoot to Kill!"

Another matter of grave concern is, it has been shown that right wing extremists elements in society are stock piling guns

The Greens have set up a website listing unnamed firearm license holders’ gun hauls and their postcode.

A person living near Newcastle who owns 322 guns topped the list, while a gun owner in suburban Mosman has an arsenal of 278. More than 850,000 firearms are registered across the state.

“These private arsenals represent a real threat to community safety,” Mr Shoebridge said.

The full story;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/private-gun-arsenals-a-threat-says-greens-david-shoebridge/news-story/094cf5691b473a092973da7682aa8402

The Greens have breached Privacy to give the locations of legal collections, most likely of historical significance and licensed dealers. A really dumb and dangerous thing to do. Unprincipled and immoral. Because it is possible for organised crime to take pieces of information, match with others and come to an informed conclusion on the best places to strike. Advises criminals what large areas to exclude and which to concentrate on.

As for the Greens 'policy' on firearms, there is no difference with the objectives of those shady, secret squirrel 'gun control' activists.

Licensed citizens and their legal firearms are not the problem. Criminals and their illegal weapons are.

The Greens have no interest in effective, evidence-based firearms regulation. Or else they wouldn't demonstrate such complete ignorance of the available laws. They would have studied the regulations and would be making every effort to consult with the stakeholders who have the licences, many thousands of honest ordinary Aussies, and their clubs and associations.

Instead, the Greens slander licensed owners and their government accredited, internationally recognised associations.

Paul1405, you are a case in point. Because you are forever going on about 'more tightening' without ever bothering to inform yourself of the present conditions. That is about one side always giving concessions and the other constantly demanding more concessions.

However the real madness is the Catch 22, that 'gun control' only affects the honest, law-abiding ordinary citizen who does seek and obtain a licence and can be trusted to register his/her firearms. They are also the unfortunates who receive very harsh penalties for even minor paperwork discrepancies - minor victimless errors that could never affect anyone and such lapses are referred to as 'gun crimes'!

Examples and links would be lost on you as usual. Because you, the Greens and those few 'gun control' serial activists are solely about taking rights from ordinary licensed citizens.

The laws need 'more tightening' you say. What a joke, you know squat about those laws and have never shown any intention of informing yourself.

Unfortunately Beach, you have failed to equate yourself with Greens NSW Firearms policy. What makes you an expert on gun law, as you claim to be.
Here is some of One Nations so called firearms policy, just take it on board, and then thing of some of the ramifications;

"Licences will be issued on a lifetime basis"
"the licence holder is free to obtain a firearm of the type suitable to their purpose."
"We (One Nation) recognise the growing concern among Australians with regard to their increasing vulnerability within the home. Australians have the right to defend themselves and their families in their own homes. Subject to other provisions stated in this policy, we acknowledge their legitimate right to firearm ownership."
"Legislation regarding safe storage provisions shall accommodate situations where the firearm is under the direct physical control of the owner and where locked storage impedes a legitimate intended purpose"

This is nutter policy pandering to the Nutter's in society.
I would predict that if this sort of policy was to ever become law, that for every instance of self defense in the home, there would be dozens of domestic violence related shootings.

The real agenda of these right wing nutters is not protection in the home. but the formation of what Beach advocates private regiments of so called Citizen Militia.

The final crack up is who do they want to run firearms (no) control? "This panel shall be made up of representatives of firearm owners, professional, recreational and industry." in other word the lunatics will be in charge of the asylum! Beach and Is Mise I see a future position for you.

Shocking news from the United States where a licensed gun owner Omar Mateen is accused of the mass murder of 50 people, and the wounding of 52 others, the worse mass shooting of its type in US history.
Mateen was killed after taking hostages at the Pulse club, a gay nightclub in Orlando Florida.
Until the good citizens of the United States start listing to people like their President Barack Obama about the dangers of unrestricted guns in the community, this carnage is going to continue. Help Australia if ever the extremists get their way here. Some say it can't happen here, or can it!
President Obama said Americans were united in grief, outrage and "resolve to defend our people" after "an act of terror and an act of hate".

Shocking news from the United States where Jihadist Islamic fundamentalist Muslim Omar Mateen criminally obtained a licence and a firearm by deception and fraud, breaking numerous other laws in the process and stands accused of murdering fifty patrons of a gay bar, many of whom were black, the worst terrorist shooting in US history.

Do Muslim fundamentalists have serious issues with homosexuality, as well as despising anyone who is not a Muslim, Paul1405? You might advise.

As yet Beach, what motivated this licensed gun owning madman is not clear. You would like your rant to be so, as it would serve well to deflect any scrutiny of lax US gun laws, and any comparisons to be drawn, should Australia go down that US path of uncontrolled gun ownership.

"In the past two weeks Mateen legally purchased a Glock pistol and a long gun, ATF Assistant Special Agent in Charge Trevor Velinor told reporters.
It's not known if those weapons were used in the attack.
"He is not a prohibited person. They can legally walk into a gun dealership and acquire and purchase firearms. He did so. And he did so within the last week or so," Velinor said.

Full story from CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/

At the moment I will leave my judgement as it is, until more facts become clear.

Please comment on the One Nation nonsense, because you are a wholehearted supporter of One Nation's gun policy.

I am not and I never have been a member of any political party. You know that.

A white man shoots a geriatric African lion for a fee.

The man is universally vilified and demonised. It is his fault.

A Muslim walks into a gay bar and kills fifty patrons, injuring many more.

Hey, it's the gun's fault.

Do Muslim fundamentalists have serious issues with homosexuality, as well as despising anyone who is not a Muslim, Paul1405? You might advise.

"I am not and I never have been a member of any political party." Neutrality is part of the persona you like to project on the forum, after all you are of the "moderate" persuasion, so you claim. Of course you don't have to be a member to be a supporter. You should remember that, like thousands of others, I am a member of the NSW Greens, I am not a Trotskyist or a watermelon, as you continually try to label me as, by default. "NSW Watermelon Trotskyist Greens", in that vain I will continue to label you as I see fit.

I am not out to justify any form of radical Islam, or any kind of radicalism, for that matter, in fact I detest everything radicalism stands for. I would not doubt this Maniac In America, Omar Mateen, like Man Monis in Sydney, or the crazed Norwegian Anders Breivk were drawn to some radical nonsense, most likely were. What I am concerned about is the way these nutters are able to obtain guns and it appears in the case of Mateen, legally. That indicates to me the system of gun regulation is severely flawed, and those that support that flawed system are in part culpable for the crime.

All guns, legal and illegal, start out being legally manufactured. The manufacture knows the guns he produces have one, and only one primary purpose, and that is to kill. Just because some of those guns fall into illegal hands through a flawed control system, does not negate the responsibility of those in authority controlling and maintaining the system, like polititions, manufactures, legal dealers etc.
When polititions nove to relax gun laws, as they do, they know full well that by their actions, more innocent people will die. They cannot simply throw up their arms and say "It wasn't me who fired the gun, it was a madman!" No, you and those that support you didn't fire the gun, you and them, just helped load the ammunition!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-30/queensland-police-seize-drugs-money-guns-gold-coast/7373042

That gun is deadly legal or illegal!

Paul1405,

You must never read the links you post before spouting the bumpf you get from 'gun control' activists.

The story you posted confirms facts already proved, that almost all violent crimes including gun crime are associated with drugs and gangs.

So why would Qld Labor Premier Palaszczuk with the support of the treacherous Greens be scuttling the successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (VLAD) which was enacted (and supported by the High Court of Australia) to "severely punish members of criminal organisations that commit serious offenses"?

Palaszczuk has opined that it is "excessively harsh" on criminals. Say what?

It is always the case that where decisions matter, Labor and Greens are very soft on criminals, especially of the drug trafficking kind who are destroying the futures of children. They are the ones with the imported illegal 'gangsta guns' and they are the ones doing the drive-by shootings and murdering people. Apart from the Islamic terrorists of course. No concerns expressed for victims of crime and for the general public though. Oh, and every excuse made for those Islamic terrorists too, both here and overseas.

Paul,

"....All guns, legal and illegal, start out being legally manufactured."
Utter baloney, and one of the recurring lies that the Greens and other ratbag groups keep putting out.

The famous Israeli Uzi sun-machine gun started life as an illegally manufactured weapon back when the Brits controlled Palestine.

Our own famous Owen gun started as an illegally made gun by Evelyn Owen, it only became legal when it was manufactured under contract to the Federal Government by Lysaghts.

India has strict gun laws and thousands of illegally manufactured guns, known generically as 'Country guns'; including some very sophisticated sub-machine guns which are electrically ignited and have selective fire capabilities.

Don't you ever read the local press?
There have been news items about the manufacture of illegal firearms in Australia.

But even so, 'gun control's' mantra, "....All guns, legal and illegal, start out being legally manufactured" is specious.

Deceitful. Deceptive. False. Flakey. That is the 'Watermelon' Greens all over. All care and no responsibility. In fact, very little responsibility taken either. Just mud slingers who if elected, very quickly lose any pretensions of environmental concern. Very thin environmental green camo on the outside and all red the rest of the way through.

The lazy, seat-polishing Greens are the 'Useful Idiots' of the wealthy, highly secretive overseas interests behind the leftist push for 'gun control' in the Western democracies. The same overseas interests who dabble in the domestic politics of Australia and for what end?

All thinking people, the reputable citizens who have been qualified for firearms licences most of all, believe that effective REGULATION of the PERSONS who can possess firearms is necessary. The strongest, most robust control is the licence. The rest is expensive, wasteful, window dressing that wastes police resources.

'Gun control' is about something else entirely. It is about bans and confiscations from ordinary honest, licensed, citizens and the all-powerful totalitarian State having sole possession and use of weapons to control the population.

Many migrants have endured governments/States like that, where there are no rights, everything is a privilege and citizens must first obtain permission from the State. North Korea could be an example.

Paul1405 is already well on the way there, saying that if he doesn't like what you do, you should be controlled. You should be subject to a ban or a confiscation.

However it is none of Paul1405's business whatsoever what any other citizen does as long as s/he is acting within the law. Of course what Greens might be doing in their own time would cover a very broad (and grey) range, but never you mind they'd say.

Greens, "Just do as we say, not as we do".

Are you two going to claim that the guns used by Martin Bryant, Ian Turnbull and now Omar Mateen were illegal. Is Mise nothing like a bit of history. Maybe just to satisfy your pedanticism I should have said the vast majority of guns start out being manufactured legally. I stand corrected.

Beach, you favor a police state, want to form a wacko armed citizen militia, Kim Jong-un would be proud of you.

Paul1405,

It is only necessary to take the first mentioned which is Bryant to disprove your idiotic assertion.

Bryant did NOT have a firearms licence so yes of course his possession of any firearm was illegal.

Just to go a little further to show the idiocy of your position, Bryant didn't have a car licence either, but the cars that were necessary for the commission of his crimes were driven by him, one stolen.

But don't you think that the most serious crimes were his murders and maiming of innocent people? A PERSON did that, Bryant. You and the 'Watermelon' Greens are just trying to diminish his callous responsibility for planning and carrying out his horrendous crimes.

What the Greens and those wealthy overseas interests behind 'gun control' fail to understand is that breaking laws is part of the modus operandi of offenders. Offenders don't care how much duplication there is in laws and what does any of that matter to them anyhow where they are resolved to commit the most serious of crimes, to take human lives.

Here is one for you: all knives start legal so blame the knife for the commission of ISIL's disgusting stabbing murders of a policeman and his wife. Thank God their wee boy was saved by brave police, today,

Islamic State terrorist murders police officer in Paris
Police officer and wife killed in knife attack

A policeman and his wife were killed in a frenzied knife attack at their home in a Paris suburb on Monday night by a man who reportedly shouted “Allahu Akhbar”.

The man had been sentenced in 2013 for taking part in a jihadist organisation with links to Pakistan, press agency AFP reported on Tuesday."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/paris-hostage-situation-after-man-kills-policeman/

Beach. you simply try to deflect any blame from those that control the supply and distribution of firearms. Yes, Bryant was using legally manufactured guns, Ian Turnbull even had a State sanctioned licence for the firearm he used to commit murder, as did Mateen in the US.
Was John Howard wrong for moving against guns in the community in the way that he did? I don't think so!
There are those like you, that hide behind the respectability of so called "good citizens should have guns" notion, when all you want is the power to control a private military style citizens militia. You called it community gun clubs or whatever, but it would be more of a private army, than a gun club, would it not?

I assume by your silence you support the nutter gun policy of One Nation. Not having said a word against it. But you have not been critical of the NSW Greens Firearms policy either, a bit to logical for argument I suspect.

You do yourself no favours diminishing the responsibility of fiends for their brutal crimes by trying to sheet some of the blame elsewhere.

That evil "Allahu Akhbar" shouting fiend who murdered the policeman and his wife in Paris is directly and solely responsible for their deaths, not the maker of the knife.

Paul,

You haven't commented on the Greens leader sticking up for the shooting sports; don't you agree with Di Natoli?

I must apologize for any perceived tardiness in making replies as I'm suffering a Telstra 'outage' at the moment, have been off the land line 'phone and consequently, the home computer for the last ten days; am on a promise of restoration by the 17th, not holding the breath!!

Can't find out the reason why, but the Shire Council started digging up the road about ten days ago.....??

Is Mise, I hope you get over that bout of Telstraitis quickly, although it is known to persists, sometimes the only remedy is a complete break from "THEM", but I suppose they are they only providers in your location.
There is no truth to the rumor that it was The Greens digging up your internet cable, and not the local council, we are believers in free speech, even for you and Beach.

Beach, I do not put knife manufactures in the same category as gun makers. Guns are made to kill, knives have other intended purposes.

How about a comment on One Nation's firearms policy.
How about a comment on John Howard.
How about trying to discredit Greens Firearms Policy.

The evidence is clear, more guns in the community, more deaths from firearms. The American lesson teaches us that, you are not that stupid! I give you credit for some intelligence.

Even a fool would come to the realisation that very, very few firearms in civilian hands are weapons. It is the usage dictated by the offender, his/her thinking, motivation and purpose, the USE, that makes inanimate objects into weapons.

That applies from fists through to edged and other weapons, including poisons, for instance.

Even a fool would come to the realisation that an offender who sets out to commit the most horrendous, serious crime imaginable, to murder, cares naught about other laws. Nor does he especially care about the method and a bomb is even more effective. The horror is in the casualness and apparent randomness of the murder. Dead is dead, irrespective of the method.

But the killer can perceive certain methods as being more attractive to editors, political interests and others who should know better who want to increase their audience and in some cases their own celebrity, by sensationalising rather than simply reporting the crimes.

In Australia it is rather obvious who makes political hay out of such dreadful events.

Regrettably, the ambulance-chasing 'NSW 'Watermelon' Greens can be relied upon to sensationalise and score headlines while piggy-backing on the still-warm corpses and the bereaved families and friends.

That is usual for the headline hunting Greens, whose leader once infamously claimed that mining was responsible for the Queensland floods. Bob Brown said that from a safe and comfy office while Queenslanders, myself being one of them, were trying to find people lost in the raging floods.

Many Queenslanders are still recovering financially and emotionally from those floods. For some, the sad losses will never go away. But the headline hunting Greens are long gone, to chase ambulances elsewhere.

The ruthless Greens don't give a hoot that they could be responsible for encouraging copy cat killers and suicides. The Greens need an ethics and principles graft. Along with a responsibility graft. Especially when they are in election mode as they are at present. They are nothing like the original green movement at all. Human headline 'Trots' with social agendas instead of tree lovers.

Once again Beach you are all over the shop. Regularly losing the plot as you tend to do. now its Queensland floods. You would rather dodge the questions than answer honestly. As a One Nation supporter do you agree with their firearms policy or not. After all you will be voting for that and their other ratbag policies very soon.

You claim that guns are just incidental to killings and it would all happen anyway. Take the case of the 9 year old who shot the gun instructor in the US. These nutters give guns to 5 year old's. Are you say the young girl would have killed the instructor with a knife or a bomb if she couldn't get her hands on a gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvRNo3oP-S0

Here are lunatics with guns! These are not criminals but people Beach would describe as "good citizens". Beach do you support these lunatics. This is what would be going on in Australian backyards if the gun lobby had its way!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AFw74gPbvE

More accidental shootings;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RyXpZueVkc

Paul,

".... Guns are made to kill, knives have other intended purposes....The evidence is clear, more guns in the community, more deaths from firearms."

All guns are not made to kill, nor are all guns capable of killing.
Many thousands of guns are made for target shooting and others are made to fire blanks only and are not able to discharge live ammunition.
Others, of extremely low power, are made for indoor shooting such as the Zimmerstutzen rifles and many air pistols etc.
So it is a general lie by the antis that all guns are made to kill.

AS for more guns in a community more deaths from firearms, this is another lie.
Only recently the Greens were moaning about the fact that there are now more guns in the Australian community than before Port Arthur; where is the commensurate rise in gun deaths?

As I've said before, a few references on your part to back up your statements would be appreciated; it would also help if you thought before hitting 'Post'.

Is Mise,

I will concede that any gun incapable of killing people you can keep, cap guns, pop guns, water pistols, those ridiculous paint ball guns, silicon sealant guns etc. The rest go in the crusher!

Paul1405,

So now you are proposing to remove the sections of the regulations and the Police discretion regarding imitation firearms?

For someone who is forever going on about 'tightening' firearms regulations (you don't even get the title anywhere near right), you continue to make a complete ass of yourself with your complete ignorance of the regulations and why some of the conditions exist.

You have also finally admitted what you have denied for scores of posts, that you and the 'Watermelon' Greens are actually out to ban all private LEGAL ownership of firearms.

Like that highly secretive foreign sponsored 'gun control' crew, you and the 'Watermelon' Greens just want to deny law-abiding citizens their rights and confiscate their legal property.

But you and the Greens DO support criminals rights. And the Greens and Labor totally oppose and are withdrawing Qld's successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013:
"..2 [VLAD]Objects
(1) The objects of the Act are to—
(a) disestablish associations that encourage, foster or
support persons who commit serious offences; and

(b) increase public safety and security by the
disestablishment of the associations; and

(c) deny to persons who commit serious offences the
assistance and support gained from association with
other persons who participate in the affairs of the
associations.

(2) The objects are to be achieved by—
(a) imposing significant terms of imprisonment for vicious
lawless associates who commit declared offences; and

(b) removing the possibility of parole for vicious lawless
associates serving terms of imprisonment except in
limited circumstances; and

(c) encouraging vicious lawless associates to cooperate
with law enforcement agencies in the investigation and
prosecution of serious criminal activity"

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/V/VicLawAssocDA13.pdf

Why would the Greens be determined to destroy legislation that works, passed High Court appeals and is supported by the public?