Paul,

I think they call it 'projection': you project your fantasies onto others and then accuse them. Perhaps you need to see somebody.

For example, you claim

"I fail to see how Ian Turnbull would be guilty of murder under your definition of self defense, He was a farmer, a special case in itself, according to you."

I've never suggested that. Turnbull was obviously not defending himself.

"The bloke was protecting his property from unwanted government intrusion, ... "

which was perfectly lawful.

" .... which you tout as justification for using a firearm, just protecting what was his, you definitely agree with that."

No, I don't. Again, projection of evil, then accusation of it.

"Maybe the bloke is an embarrassment to your argument, so you offer him up for sacrifice, when you don't really mean it."

Wow. I've never suggested anything of the sort. It's wrong to use any sort of weapon to murder someone. How much clearer do you want it ? Book that shrink, Paul.

"Joe, the old bloke with the walking stick was a "what if" scenario, nothing to do with Ian Turnbull."

You raised the hypothetical, Paul.

"I want you to define self defence, accidental homicide and cold blooded murder. I don't think you blokes can tell the difference."

Can you ? Why do you accuse Is Mise and me of something we would never support ?

"Joe, did you not claim you once helped out some greenie org by planting a 1000 trees, until one fell on you, and it made you see the light."

Actually, two or three thousand. For an Aboriginal farm. Did my knee tendons in. None fell on me, most being around 8 cm tall.

Any other fantasies ? If you intend making a living from satire or something like it, don't give up your UB.

Joe

Poirot,

Is Mise is being empirically quite correct when he suggests, quite logically, that some guns are not designed to kill. Some are designed, and used, to kill feral pests. Even the Greens would give that lukewarm support.

So your statement that ' .... 20-odd murders a day by firearms in the US....one assumes those guns are designed to kill.... "

is a non sequitur on many grounds. This is not the US. A land-use inspector is not a feral pest. 'Some' is not 'all'.

Nobody is suggesting that guns CAN'T be used improperly - simply that they CAN be used properly. Not necessarily by the same people, of course.

Joe

The Greens are cozied up with 'gun control' activists. The stated goal of 'Gun control' is a complete ban and compulsory State confiscation of the lawfully purchased and lawfully employed assets of ordinary licensed, law-abiding citizens.

'Gun control' is a clever disguise as is the thin green veneer over the pink and red of the Greens social agenda. A handle, words, that can be flexed to mean anything for the plausible denial tactics of the totalitarian leftist, but always meaning more restrictions. Death of a thousand cuts.

It is remarkable that leftists are in lock-step with George Soros some other wealth interests. Soros is the genius and main bankroll behind 'gun control'.

Now what would a billionaire currency trader who was convicted by French authorities of serious currency trading manipulation and whose mission is capitalist globalism be interfering in the domestic politics and seeding leftist demonstrations in peaceful western democracies and be so interested in disarming the civilian population of those western democracies?

'Gun control' is uninterested in criminals and their illegal weapons. But why so? They say themselves that they should not be getting led away from their goal of banning all private ownership of firearms.

It is essential to the advocacy of 'gun control' that the already illegal behaviour and illegal firearms of offenders is projected onto ordinary law-abiding, citizens who comply with all laws and would be the strongest opponents of illegal ownership and use.

'Gun control' activism consistently fails the test of honesty. Examples abound of quite deliberate sloppy research, miss-attribution and researcher error (to put it politely). Then there is the Marxist's favourite ploy of poisoning the well against known reputable authorities who have nothing to hide and have open books and sites. Whereas 'gun control' is highly secretive about its objectives, sources of funds, liaisons and so on.

The public and licensed persons strongly agree with evidence-based REGULATION of firearms ownership and use. Although regarding use, how often does an already illegal act, eg murder, have to be made illegal with duplicate laws?

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

Wheels within wheels,
http://www.infowars.com/soros-and-ford-foundation-behind-the-panama-papers/

Poirot,

""Have you worked out yet that some guns are not designed to kill?"

Have you worked out that most are?"

Of course most guns are designed to kill, the majority of firearm made are either for the military or for hunting and in both cases are designed to kill and, what's more, designed to kill effectively.

But then I never said that they were not, you are the one who repeated the anti-gun mantra that all guns are designed to kill, and you are demonstrably wrong.

If there is a failure of honesty in Australia on this subject, it is by the pro gun lobby. They continually claim their agenda is a simple one, the protection of the rights of gunnies to own and use guns for legitimate purposes, nothing could be further from the truth, their real agenda is somewhat different. The pro gun lobby Australia has been heavily financed and influenced by the ultra right NRA of America as it and others including arms dealers try to interfere in Australian domestic politics. These international meddlers want nothing more than a proliferation of guns in Australia for the purpose of forming right wing heavily armed militia to oppose government when they feel it is justified and necessary to do so.
There are useful pro gun idiots in Australia with conservative leaning who are continually duped into believing the phony propaganda of the international extreme right lobby and their political supporters in The Shooters Party, One Nation and Australia First!

Not much argument there from me, Paul. But you do take a point to untestable extremes:

"These international meddlers want nothing more than a proliferation of guns in Australia for the purpose of forming right wing heavily armed militia to oppose government .... "

If this were actually coming about, don't you think that governments here would be concerned ? You alone know better ? Again, you're projecting your paranoia onto others, and into the future.

Anyway, back to topic: it seems the greens have lost a couple of Senate seats and a huge chunk of the people's vote since 2013. It's possible that, Labor and the greens together, won't reach the magic number of 39 senators, enough to trouble the Coalition and its allies.

Could this be the Meg-Leys moment for the greens as it was for the Democrats, when their vote slips away to some piddly percentage, like 5 % ? Maybe trolling might be the best they can. Bob Brown would be pissed off.

Joe