Toni,

"//Tell me do you think that it is reasonable for shooters to collect fired cases at the range and sell the brass to scrap metal dealers?
Do you think that possessing a fired case is OK?//

Yes to both.

What does this have to do with the ridiculous ease with which one can obtain firearms in the US?"

Absolutely nothing to do with the US, but it's a starting point to discuss gun control in Australia, the which doesn't work.

Toni,

"The Greens aren't in Government, Shadow. They don't get to set policies."

They are the power in the local council and they decide about which areas can and can't be cleared, just as in Victoria when they stopped people from clearing dangerous bush from around their homes and did nothing to reduce forest litter in their areas of responsibility.

According to reports in the papers, locals in the area, which includes Tathra, had met recently with the relevant Minister to complain about the build-up of potential bushfire fuel.

Nothing was done.

Di Nastily didn't mention this, did he?

Toni,

You wanted me to discuss 'Gun Control'; what aspect would you like to discuss first?

Breathing control, trigger finger control, stance, or perhaps, using optical or the more traditional forms of sights?

Toni,

IM has it in one. The greens manage to inculcate themselves into local and state governments, where they trade votes on close issues for greenie policies such as the bans on cutting away undergrowth, clearance of fuel away from houses, back burning etc.

That you haven't challenged my statement that the greens are deeply unpopular in rural areas shows that you know this.

In the Black Friday fires, there was an instance where a homeowner was fined $100 000 for clearing the bush around his house, and his house was the only one left standing.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Are you really going to trot out Sheahan as your poster boy on this?

Don't be an idiot. The Sheahan's property was next to a national Park and contained an area of old growth eucalyptus forest. There were other areas on their property but this was what they cleared. why? Because they wanted to run horses on the property. It wasn't about bloody fire reduction at all.

In fact after they chopped down the 250 trees, one or two more than needed for fire protection, they left them in huge piles on the property for years. The council's fire hazard expert inspected the site and deemed the dead trees a hazard. It took efforts from both the CFA and the council who issued and order before some of the fire hazard was finally removed, an action which may well have saved his house when the fires went through 6 months later.

This had been their mindset when neighbouring property owners had complained; “We could not care any less than we do now what any self righteous self appointed ‘green police’ person thinks about what we are doing. It is our place, not theirs. We have owned it since 1982. We paid for it not them and they can go and get stuffed.”

Your kind of people Shadow.

SR

https://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html

Just going by what was printed in the SMH, the rag prefered by lefties. If you have anything further to support your claims I will happily read them.

The facts are:

1: Sheahan cleared the trees around his property, and got fined for doing so.
2: When the fires came, his house was saved due to the fire break, whilst most of the surrounding houses were burnt to the ground.
3: In recognition of how dangerous the greens' policies were the NSW Rural fire has issued the 10/50 vegetation clearing provision that overrides any council bylaws allowing the clearing of all trees with 10m of houses and all undergrowth within 50m of houses, which the greens are already screeching about.

That is why the greens are so unpopular in the rural areas.