The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The Greens, Trots or Trolls of the Parliament?

The Greens, Trots or Trolls of the Parliament?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. 17
  13. ...
  14. 49
  15. 50
  16. 51
  17. All
Suse,

"Hi Is Mise, that statement should be absolutely true for all people except police and military Personel of course.
That mad principle of 'having the right to bear arms' certainly has not improved personal safety in the US has it..." [yes it has, but that's another subject].

So you favour the Greens' idea that a farmer's wife, children or the farmer himself could be savaged/mauled/killed by a wild dog and it would be illegal to use a firearm in self defence?

I don't think that you would be like that at all, but that's one of the Greens' firearms principles so one must think that they are absolutely callous as to the welfare of humans put at risk by wild dogs/scrub bulls/feral pigs..
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 3 July 2016 12:39:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It isn't just firearms. Criminals have buffed up rights, while the rights of law-abiding citizens and victims are forgotten.

It is illegal to possess anything that can be alleged to be for self defence. Australia mimics the UK where social policies and laws are concerned. Even where those policies have been demonstrated to be producing effects that are directly opposed to the stated aims.

Below is an example from the UK and emphatically YES, the same applies in all Australian States and territories. It is only in NSW where the Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party has managed to recover some of the basic rights that used to apply for the innocent victims of criminals. Elsewhere, victims of crime are re-victimised by a reversed standard of proof.

UK, but same applies in Oz too,

<Myleene Klass warned after brandishing knife to deter intruders
Police tell TV presenter she was acting illegally in waving kitchen knife at youths who were peering in window late at night

The TV presenter and Marks & Spencer model Myleene Klass has been warned by police for waving a knife at teenagers who were peering into a window of her house late at night.

Klass was in the kitchen with her daughter upstairs when she spotted the youths in her garden just after midnight on Friday. She grabbed a knife and banged the windows before they ran away.

Hertfordshire police warned her she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon", even in her own home, was illegal.

Klass's spokesman, Jonathan Shalit, said the former Hear'Say singer was "utterly terrified" by the intruders and "aghast" at the police warning. "All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off," he told the Sunday Telegraph. "She is not looking to be a vigilante, and has the utmost respect for the law, but when the police explained to her that even if you're at home alone and you have an intruder, you are not allowed to protect yourself, she was bemused.">
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/10/myleene-klass-knife-intruders
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 3 July 2016 1:23:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW, if a home owner's lap dog Poodle scratches/bites an intruder in your home the police might be having some words about dangerous dog ordinance too.

Now some of that is less likely where the attending police might be sensible. BUT first, not all police are that way and secondly, the higher ups and police prosecutor will definitely not be seeing it from the homeowner's viewpoint.

So, an ill-thought out quip meaning "Yes" to the seemingly polite humour from the police who are supposed to be after the bad guy/s, "Lucky you had that, *list object* to hand for any intruder, eh?", could land you in court. Many thousands of dollars and months later a good barrister might see you let free without penalty, but you will never get that money or peace back again.

That is what Suseonline supports. It is largely attributable to a foul reversed standard of proof that re-victimises the innocent victim and leaves all law-abiding citizens defenceless and exposed. Great for criminals though.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 3 July 2016 2:33:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is Mise, Beach,

You fail to mention the need for guns for self protection from those "space aliens", after all you are both off the planet on this.

Is Mise, what about a comment on the use of a gun by the licensed farmer Ian Turnbull? You remember Turnbull, he fits your mold! Turnbull got 34 years for murdering Environment Officer Glen Turner, in cold blood. Gunnies tried to portray Turnbull as some kind of victim, wanting the charge downgraded to manslaughter, some wanted him acquitted. Do you believe Turnbull was only exercising his "right" to protect his property from the law?

Beach, did those pommy coppers ring David Shoebridge from the Watermelon Trotskyests NSW Green's before issuing your Dolly Bird Darling, what's her name, with a police notice. I hope they did.
You are a scream.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 3 July 2016 7:40:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

I answered you on Turnbull, a person that the Greens say could have a gun.

"7.That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm".

What does No. 7 in the Greens' firearm principles mean?
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 3 July 2016 7:51:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul you have again adopted the disgraced lefty tactic of using an
irrelevant example. The inspector was not threatening his life just his livelihood.
There is a difference ignoring which is a typical left technique.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 3 July 2016 7:57:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. 17
  13. ...
  14. 49
  15. 50
  16. 51
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy