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