The Greens are an invasive species and can be hunted at the ballot box, with a pencil.
http://ssaavic.com.au/the-greens-are-the-new-invasive-species/?utm_source=SSAA+Victoria+e-newsletters&utm_campaign=bfbee43bbf-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_08_21_12_49&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_205558685a-bfbee43bbf-39047113

The Greens in Victoria want to ban all hunting, even though it is demonstrable that that State benefits economically and environmentally from such activity.

Banning the Greens would be the moral thing to do !

Given the steady rate that the Greens seem to shedding votes (see recent by-elections), they are perhaps not as invasive as they once were. They remain in the noxious weed category, however, and should be avoided like the plague in the upcoming election. The senate needs to be nudged to the right to protect us from the likes of the Greens, as well, now, the Liberals and Labor. Although long-time anti-senate person, I now believe that we need the upper house to protect us from the dreadful scum in the lower house.

KAT (Latter's party) could be making a big drive for the senate. The knee jerking media and PC politicians of all colours (including Hanson) have all recovered from their faux shock/horror at Senator Anning's speech even faster than normal, and Bob is using Anning for advertising his party very positively and inviting people to join up for the special price of one dollar. That's $1 more than you have to pay to get into the Greens. I read the other day that the desperate Greens will sign you up for nothing.

No fan of the greens never theless this thread proposes we end democracy and ban or what? a party we do not like, very proud that this view will be seen by most of my country men as madness

Belly,

"The Greens are an invasive species and can be hunted at the ballot box, with a pencil."

Hardly calling for a ban.

Do you write your own posts or do you have an adviser?

a party we do not like
Belly,
you're missing the ponit. The Greens are disliked but that's not the reason, they're saboteurs & must be pulled into line at their expense, not ours.

another thread better left than engage in childish behavior

Issy, hows things in Nigeria or is that Mozambique? Ah! the gun crazy is at it again. Even with the wods of cash to spend from the Yankee NRA at the 2014 Victorian State election Issy's Shooters and Hooters Party scored a magnificent 0.08% of the vote, which was about one quarter of the vote of the Sex Party! What a joke the gunnies are in Victoria. The Greens scored a healthy 11.48% or over 385,000 votes. The poor old Shooters and Hooters less than 3,000 vote in a state with a population of 6 million.

Then there was ttbn Conservative Party, well like in every other election they were missing in action, failed to face the voters yet again!

Paul,

At it again?

Lies piled on lies may be the Greens way of doing things, but you have yet to come up with any evidence that the NRA of the Us has ever donated a cent to shooters in Australia.

You completely ignore, understandably, that the Greens want to cause economic hardship in parts of Victoria, hunting is big bucks in that State.

//The Greens are an invasive species and can be hunted//

Yeah, but hunting soft targets like the Greens is for cowards with no honour.

A real man hunts the hunter.

A real man hunts the hunter.
Toni Lavis,
So how'd you classify a human male Green so it can be hunted ?

'So how'd you classify a human male Green so it can be hunted ?'

- As blood sucking vampires, sucking the life out of this country.

An inconvenient truth is that the Greens get more first preference votes than the Nationals. In fact overall they came third, behind the ALP and the Liberals - but ahead of everybody else.

https://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-20499-NAT.htm

Rather than whine about the Greens (for no specific reasons mentioned) maybe you should be cheering for the dodgy electoral system that keeps them from winning seats.

rache,

"Rather than whine about the Greens (for no specific reasons mentioned) maybe you should be cheering for the dodgy electoral system that keeps them from winning seats".

There are specific reasons in the OP; the Electoral system, rather than being dodgy, is designed to find out who the electors prefer, which it does and fortunately sufficient people do not prefer the Greens.

Primary votes, as such, don't really matter.

Issy, I had not read your link before this post, I opened it for the first time now, and as I expected it was some nonsense (only looked who it was from), from the Victorian chapter of the Yankee red necks the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), an organization that counts members of the Ku Klux Klan among its ranks!

Fortunate in Victoria the Australia chapter which goes under the pseudonym of the SSAA is irrelevant. Issy you said "Primary votes, as such, don't really matter", you better believe it. in Victoria the SSAA political arm, which I laughingly refer to as The Shooters and Hooters Party, were out polled four to one by the Sex Party, it shows Victorians prefer sex to guns, BTW, the Sex Party can almost count their votes on one hand.

Unfortunately there are disastrous consequences sometimes when the SSAA becomes involved. Here in NSW recently we had members of the SSAA St Marys Gun Club facilitate the obtaining of firearms by a mentally tortured father John Edwards, who then grievously went on to murdered his two children Jack and Jennifer.
I ask, who really is the invasive species. A Green who wants to share their love of nature, or a misfit at a gun club who facilitates in the murder of two innocent children

//So how'd you classify a human male Green so it can be hunted ?//

Reclassify it as a duckling and let other ducklings sort it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVLSU_p_Xo0

Guns don't kill duckling, ducklings kill ducklings
They're the biggest threat to your masculinity.

Hi Belly. I address this to you, I count you as a forum friend, we think alike on many issues. When you say "No fan of the greens". Labor and the Greens need to be united allies as never before, as we face a new powerful onslaught from the extremists of the right. The Greens need to be there to counter the fringe dwellers of the extreme right, the Horrorable Hanson and the Corny Banana types. If the Abbott clone Dutton wins today, as I expect he will. Labor will need to fight hard to win government, the right will use their considerable resources, not just within the parliament, but particularly through their vast media holding to attack and discredit Labor, and steer voters back to the conservative side. Wrongly, they will try and paint this Dud Dutton as some kind of new conservative messiah for the Australian people. If the other fool Morrison wins, its not going to be any easier for our side. There is no sure things in politics, and there is no lay down misere for Shorten and Labor. I must stress overconfidence can spell death for Labor, if we are not all very careful.

Hi Toni, thanks for that YouTube. Can't let the opportunity pass, not post the facts from the Victorian Game Management Authority concerning the funsters that are the gunnie freaks that took part in what is laughingly called "The Victorian Duck Hunting Season" in March this year.

A spokesperson for the GMA said one hunter’s firearm was seized after they were found taking protected wildlife, while three hunters had their firearms seized for hunting in a closed area.

Five hunters would also receive infringement notices, the spokesperson said, including two who failed to comply with new laws that required hunters to make all reasonable efforts to retrieve shot birds.

“We said in the lead-up to duck hunting season that hunters who did the wrong thing risked having their firearms licences and their firearms confiscated, and we are disappointed some people didn’t heed this warning,” the spokesperson said.

The protest groups were said to be well behaved by the GMA, and no infringement notices were issued to them.

It must be said the safest thing to be during duck season is a duck. Very unsafe to be a cow, or even an elephant at this time of the year in Victoria, as one of the Elmer Fudd types will mistake you for a duck, and that means you're a dead "duck"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G8Xlx7dfT8

Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 24 August 2018 6:52:43 AM
A Green who wants to share their love of nature

Answer- From experience "Greens" are "not a green party but a Trotsky party" (international as opposed to Stalinist socialism)- (at least not now- perhaps they were during the Franklin Dam proposal)- Some call them watermelons- because they are reds masquerading as greens. It was interesting to see them hold out for 20% rather than the 10% Rudd was offering and getting nothing with the Carbon Trading Scheme. Many "Greens" seem to be against population reduction policies that would see less pressure on the environment. Richard Di Natale leader of the "Greens" also a "pretty interesting" person- seemingly has a lot to say on refugees and Australia Day. The words don't seem to correspond to "green" environmental policy.

And what "experience" is that CM? Were you a Greens Party member, who had a 'on the road to Damascus' moment and run off and join the National Socialists. This Trotsky/Stalin, nonsense of yours is exactly that, NONSENSE!

(international as opposed to Stalinist socialism)- The blokes done some stock standard reading about 20th century Communism.

(at least not now- perhaps they were during the Franklin Dam proposal)- The blokes done some stock standard reading about environmental issues in Australia.

Some call them watermelons- because they are reds masquerading as greens.- The blokes been talking to a barfly down at the pub.

Canem Malum,
Thanks for the info, I always thought they're called Green because of being green behind the ears. But in defence of my ignorance I only have the likes of Di Natale & Hansen-Young & handful of local hippies/welfare recipients as examples.

It seems Paul is upset that Canem has been reading things of which he doesn't approve or is Paul just unused to dealing with people who've read.

But fear not, if the society that Paul longs for does come about, only approved texts will be available.

"The blokes been talking to a barfly down at the pub."
Or simply been paying attention over the past decade.

Still with the big lies, Paul?
You are a true Green, I'll say that for you.

How about addressing the economic aspect of the Green candidates proposal, that's the main point of the OP.

Dear Is Mise,

You really are a little person aren't you. Why on earth did you write: “The Greens are an invasive species and can be hunted at the ballot box”?

Did you get a giggle when you posted it? Did you think you were just a little bit too clever for all the other 'mugs'? Did you want to 'stir up the chooks' a little?

This in the same week when a member of your little organisation got suspended for raising concerns about some of the idiots you lot were letting in to the 'range of last resort'.

“An official from Australia’s largest gun group who was suspended after raising safety concerns at a Sydney firing range says it is “only a matter of time” until there is another mass shooting.”

You are a selfish person only sympathetic to your own fetish. You are no laughing matter.

Dear individual,

You wrote; “Banning the Greens would be the moral thing to do!”

This from a bloke who was defending the likes of Barnaby Joyce for God's sake. Mate you have repeatedly shown that you have very little understanding of moral behaviour. All the Green senators who had questions over their eligability to sit in parliament went and resigned. Most of those from the majors put us through the expense of the High Court.

Dear Paul1405,

I may have in the past expressed my continuing reservations about the Greens and I do not resile from them, however I will say Di Natale's speech in the Senate was right on point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCEFwi4gf18&t=28s

I watched de Natale's speech in the Senate as well
as Bill Shorten's and Tanya Plibersek's in the H. of
Reps. All were very emotive and expressed what most
voters were thinking. They were all spot on.

This has been a horrid week for this country.

It's time that we the voters made sure that politicians
who continued to put their self-interests first
were kept out of our parliament. Why do we allow these
people to remain - and wreck things for everyone else?
Shame on them - and shame on us for voting them in -
the first place.

Steele,

Address the financial concerns in the OP, there's a good lad.

Dear Is Mise,

The link is 404'ed so that is not possible.

But I directly referenced the organisation involved in my post and raised the very serious issue raised by one of your members, one that threatens the lives of ordinary Australians, and one you appear to be determined to ignore.

This is yet another illustration of you holding the right to go and hunt where ever you want over Australia lives. You are just as selfish as the mugs in Canberra. Stop thinking about your own fetish and start giving a damn about other people for once.

So what is your response to the concerns raised by your member?

Hi Steele, I have expressed my reservations about some aspects of Greens policy in the past, openly at times. You cannot be an honest member of any political party and expect to agree with all things at all times. As a former Labor Party member, I clashed with several people within that organisation concerning party policy. Just attend a national conference, or delegates forum.or even a branch meeting if you want to hear some heated policy debate.
In any broad based, grass roots, democratic party you are going to get considerable divergence and decention when it comes to policy and direction. That is how it should be.

I have only ever attended one Liberal Party branch meeting in my life, that was in the early 1970's, and I was invited. Thinking a new prospective member no doubt, little did they know. It was all rather civilized, I recall a white linen table cloth on the front main table, where were sat three rather elderly persons, a nice lady, branch treasurer, Noelene the only name I remember, and two gentlemen, the chairman in the middle, and the branch secretary to his left. On the table were two photos, one of a very young and distinguished looking Sir Robert Menzies, and an even younger looking official photograph of Queen Elizabeth II.
The meeting opened with a short prayer, from the dozen or so in attendance, I think followed by a few bars of 'God Save The Queen' or did that come at the end, can't remember. The meeting was rather ho hum, then it adjourned to the back of the room for some light refreshment, tea and cake, a nice home made cake it was, the highlight of the night. The only thing of a real political nature was a older lady with blue dye through her graying hair telling me what a frightfully horrid man that Mr Whitlam was. That was the one and only time I ever attended a Liberal Party meeting, I never ever went to another one of their meetings, they were just too radical for me.

Hi Issy, if there is anything I have posted on this thread which you believe is less than a truthful fact, I will be more than happy to investigate and correct where appropriate.

Just put it up me old salt, and I'll be back with the chat asap.

Is Mise,

So you see no problem with someone like Fraser Anning becoming a Senator with only 17 votes, replacing a former member who had only 55 votes?

It's not at all "what people want" it's the result of gerrymandering, the distorting preferential voting system and where the votes are cast.

This thread is supposed to be about the Greens unconcern for the economic wellbeing of sections of the Victorians people but as usual those who are anti-firearm ownership shew their fixation with firearms which seems to illustrate Freud's speculation that those who fear weapons suffer from sexual inadequacy and/or fear of the act.

Hunting is not confined to the use off firearms and I know a couple of Indigenous blokes in Vic who hunt with traditional weapons.

Paul,

You have on numerous occasions and in this thread alluded to the NRA of the US having funded Australian shooting organisations, so tell us when, where and how much.

Steele,

Give up your attempts to be the OLO psychiatrist, it's rather childish.

Steele,

Just tried the link and it worked fine.

It worked for Paul also, although he says that he didn't read it, as Paul keeps an open mind it would have gone straight through anyway.

rache,

How many votes did they get overall?

Not just primary votes, in a three way contest if A gets 42 of the primary vote and B gets 36 and C gets 22 then C's votes are distributed, A gets 2 preferred votes and B gets 20,

So B is elected with 56 votes and is thus the candidate preferred by most of the electors, can't get fairer than that.

If there are faults in the system then fix the faults, but primary votes, as such, mean nothing.

Hi there Issy,

The political wing of the SSAA in Australia received donations from Thales Australia Limited, defence contractor and small arms manufacture whose parent company Thales US Inc, a global multinational. Thales US Inc has close links in the United States with the National Rifle Association.

I must admit it is hard to prove "funny gun money from overseas". The gun lobbies main political arm The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party, which at the 2015 NSW state election disclosed three suspect donations, one of $17,000 from the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia, $5,000 from the New South Wales firearms dealer Magnum Sports Pty Ltd and $30,000 from its own association entity the Federation of Hunting Clubs.

The suspicion, but hard to prove, is foreign arms dealers and foreign quasi political organisations like the NRA channel money to pro gun political parties and politicians like Katter and Leyonhjelm in Australia through sham fronts like the above mentioned.

What I would like to see is whenever a politician gets to his feet to speak in the Parliament he first declares who he is speaking for. In the case of your Shooters and Hooters mob they could say something like "I stand here before to speak on behalf of the purveyors of death and destruction throughout the world." It would be a nice touch, then we would know who they represent.

//who are anti-firearm ownership shew their fixation with firearms which seems to illustrate Freud's speculation that those who fear weapons suffer from sexual inadequacy and/or fear of the act.//

Bollocks, Freud never said anything about people fearing weapons.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#Misattributed

He did think that they were phallic symbols.

“All complicated machines and appliances are very probably the genitals — as a rule the male genitals — in the description of which the symbolism of dreams is as indefatigable as human wit. It is quite unmistakable that all weapons and tools are used as symbols for the male organ: e.g., ploughshare, hammer, gun, revolver, dagger, sword, etc.”
- Sigmund Freud, Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis.

But really, who takes anything that lunatic said seriously? He was no scientist, just a weird old pervert. Why am I not suprised that Is Mise is a fan of that particular form of humbug?

//Hunting is not confined to the use off firearms and I know a couple of Indigenous blokes in Vic who hunt with traditional weapons.//

Jesus, if guns are symbolic of penises, what do you think a big, long, hard spear counts as? I mean come on, it literally has a shaft and a head. The only way you're going to get a more phallic weapon than that is if you starting beating the poor ducks to death with actual dildos.

//Give up your attempts to be the OLO psychiatrist, it's rather childish.//

Seriously? After you just invoked Freud, of all people?

Although to be fair, I should point out that technically you're not trying to be psychiatrist, because you're trying to be a psycho-analyst as well as therapist, thus making you an:

http://arresteddevelopment.wikia.com/wiki/Analrapist

Hi Toni, Issy is trying to over compensate. He has just ordered a "howitzer" to replace his existing "derringer". It comes mail order wrapped in plain brown paper so the neighbours wont know whats inside. Issy believes nothing impresses them more down at the fun gun club than when he flashes his big "bazooka".

Toni,

Well said, I think that Freud was a perv too but I thought that I'd get in first before Paul or some other nitwit brought up the subject of phallic symbolism, seems, from Paul's post that I was just in time.

Paul,

Rotten try on the money, where does Gun Control Australia get it's funding from?

How about addressing the economic outcome of the Greens' mad proposal to ban hunting in Victoria?
Do they have a proposal to overcome the problems of lost income by those who cater to the hunters?

Is Mise,
Looks like I WAS right with my original assumption as to that loose assembly of inadequate mutts calling them themselves Green. It just has to be because of the green behind their ears.

//Rotten try on the money// Issy, you think your mobs smoke screen is effective in hiding the cash from foreign sources. Most of the time it is, but now and then things do leak out.
Foreign cash to bogus fronts who wouldn't have two pennies to rub together. Then the front mob makes a "legitimate" donation to the pro gun parties. The Liberals have been caught out using the same scam to hide illegal developer donations in NSW.

Dear Is Mise,

Nope, this is all I get from the link;

404
Not Found
The resource requested could not be found on this server!

Anyway your economic argument is entirely fatuous. Where have you factored in the rise of gun crime, a direct result of legal weapons entering the criminal system? Where have you factored in the increased costs of protecting police against an increasingly armed criminal class? Where have you factored in the cost to Victoria in lives that will be the inevitable cost of your organisation's push into this state, the gun club of last resort, the one you go to when you plan on slaughtering your family, the one whose lax standards its own officials warn will result in mass shootings?

Go polish your gun metal in your own state Is Mise, no need for your fetishes here mate.

Ha Issy, you probably used the same line of argument when they introduced new life saving, safety features into automobiles. It was having an adverse economic affect on the incomes of the coffin manufacturing businesses. Don't forget the undertakers, they were also economically impacted as well.

Blow me down, advice, Indy has fallen out of his tree and fortunately landed on his head, therefore no damage. Issy, when Indy tries to join in as your tag team partner, you're argument is in big trouble. He's worse that that Wally you had before, Leoj, aka OTB, aka Stupid.

Anyway, I'm off to watch and listen to "Elvis" at the club. Fortunately its not a gun club, as a bad "Elvis" could be in big trouble in such an establishment.

Paul,

You said that you'd answer, where is your proof for your Green inspired lies?

Steele,

Sounds like you are getting desperate as well, give us another thoughtless rant or two.
Hunting is a legitimate sport and a means of putting fresh and wholesome meat on the table/in the freezer, or do you think that all meat comes in a plastic package from Coles or Woolies?

You should try corned venison, superb.

As an aside, I once bought sausages from Coles and they were so terrible that we could not eat them.
Gave the uncooked ones to the dog, and I swear that when he smelled them, he looked at me, curled his lip and walked off in disgust.

Dear Is Mise,

Rant, sure but mindless? Hardly.

I put a series of quite relevant questions to you and you did not address a single one of them.

Let me try again. If there was a complete economic analysis done on the rising cost of gun ownership and it outstripped the revenue generated by hunters would you agree to it being restricted?

Steele,

"If there was a complete economic analysis done on the rising cost of gun ownership and it outstripped the revenue generated by hunters would you agree to it being restricted?"

Of course I would, and it's already severely restricted, sometimes quite stupidly.

Steele,

"Anyway your economic argument is entirely fatuous. Where have you factored in the rise of gun crime, a direct result of legal weapons entering the criminal system? "

Proof?
There are numerous reports of this practice, all based on guesswork and simplistic reasoning.

"Where have you factored in the increased costs of protecting police against an increasingly armed criminal class?"

Doesn't need factoring in as the police should have sufficient protection for any eventuality, if they do not then the police managment/politicians are at fault.

" Where have you factored in the cost to Victoria in lives that will be the inevitable cost of your organisation's push into this state, the gun club of last resort, the one you go to when you plan on slaughtering your family, the one whose lax standards its own officials warn will result in mass shootings?"

Nowhere because that's in NSW and the discussion is about the Greens' economic recklessness in Victoria, any way the organisations mainly concerned are Victorian ones.

"...the one whose lax standards its own officials warn will result in mass shootings?"
I don't have any information about this at all, how about a link?

Anyway, why do you put any credibility on what he is saying?
Is it because it suits, or because of him being a shooter?

Paul1405,
Cheers mate, thanks for proving me right, owe you one.

//Hunting is a legitimate sport//

Yeah, I'm not so sure about that. I get the legitimate part; it is a legal activity. But sport? I think sport should involve some element of fair competition. And shotguns vs. waterfowl seems like a very one sided affair to me. That seems less sporting to me than taking on a no-legged man in an arse-kicking competition.

//and a means of putting fresh and wholesome meat on the table/in the freezer or do you think that all meat comes in a plastic package from Coles or Woolies?//

Other meat retailers are available.

Yes, my meat does come from the butchers because it's the 21st century and livestock farming and butchery have been around since I don't know when.... you sound a bit like one of those Greens who think we should wind the clock back on a human progress and live in simple agrarian communes, except you want to take us back even further to before the development of agriculture to a hunter-gatherer existence.

Bugger that. I like my food, and I like my fresh, whole, farmed duck. It comes pre-plucked and ready to roast, and it tastes better.

I kind of understand the attraction of hunting, as a keen bushwalker and camper. But as somebody who enjoys both camping and good food, I think I'd prefer a simulated hunting experience: go camping somewhere, then get up early in the morning to trudge through some swampland - something I'd be quite happy doing anyway. But when you get to your 'shooting' spot, you just let off some firecrackers, watch all the nice ducks fly off in a panic - loud bangs and excitement, all the joy of real hunting. And then you go back to camp and unwrap your store-bought duck and pop it in the camp oven, so that you can have a nice meal of duck that you don't have to pluck yourself. Duck plucking is a tiresome task.

So there you go: camping, loud bangs and excitement, and a tasty meal of roasted duck. The hunting tourism operators still get their share of the pie, because you're camping on their land and scaring their ducks. And the duck farmers benefit too. Everybody wins, except for the people who want to kill ducks for the thrill of it, whom I'm not sure we should be encouraging. Oh, and the farmed ducks of course.... but they were destined to die for the plate anyway.

Toni,

Brilliant, now what is your solution for deer?

Keep in mind that they are a feral pest in many places.

Solution for drought affected farmers re the culling of 'roos at the moment would be helpful also.

Hi Issy, I provided you with evidence of dodgy money from foreign sources being channelled into the pro gun Shooters and Hooters and you deny it.
Just one for you to explain, $30,000 was "donated" to the Shooters Party from the so called 'Federation of Hunt Clubs'. Which coincidentally operates from the same address in Baulkham Hills NSW as does the Shooters Party. With a membership of zero where would the "Federation" pluck $30 gees to "donate" to the Shooters and Hooters? If its not from dodgy sources.

BTW; Are you still flogging that book 'Road Kill Recipes for the Disappointed Hunter' have you tried the one from Leading NSW gunnie and used car salesman Tony Azzi 'Fricasseed Wombat with Koala Saurce'

You do remember Tony, not our Toni with an "i", the evil Tony with a "y" and a heap of dead wombats;

http://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-wombat-strikes-back-20151221-glsq12.html

//Keep in mind that they are a feral pest in many places.

Solution for drought affected farmers re the culling of 'roos at the moment would be helpful also.//

Yes, what about them? Isn't this thread supposed to be about the Greens wanting to ban duck hunting in Victoria?

No, Toni, it's supposed to be about the irresponsible Greens wanting to ban hunting altogether and depriving Victorians of considerable income.
For some reason those with a fetish about guns seem to keep bringing them up.

Paul,

You call that evidence?
Where is the link to the NRA of the US that you keep prattling on about?

Bet that you have a picture of Dr. Goebbels on the wall.

Steele,

As a knife owner do you feel that knife owners are responsible for knife crime?

//No, Toni, it's supposed to be about the irresponsible Greens wanting to ban hunting altogether and depriving Victorians of considerable income.//

Do they, though? I can't find where that claim has been made in the article linked to in your original piece, nor does it appear in the opinion piece by Greens candidate Nicole Rowan that your article referred to:

http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/5562076/bad-for-the-country-greens-are-the-country/

And here's a news article which explicitly says Ms Rowan would focus on 'ending duck hunting'. Note the use of the word duck in that sentence.

http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/5322941/greens-target-northern-victoria-for-first-regional-mp/

I've been unable to find anything to support the claim that the Greens seek an end to all hunting; I suspect you may have slightly misread your original article.

Surely Toni you can read between the lines of green policy. Their history is one of never being satisfied until they have total control, & have totally destroyed other peoples activities & dreams.

You are totally wrong about hunting too. It has nothing to do with "bang" noises, it is satisfying our primal instinct to feed our selves. Feeding ourselves from nature is closer to nature than catching a duck at the supermarket. Those even closer to our instincts will hunt with a bow or a snare, no bang needed. You & the greens are further from nature than that bloke with his gun.

My shotgun never fired a round without supplying something for the table, even if only a hand of coconuts shot down from a palm too high to climb.

I personally would never bother with duck hunting, no matter how much effort you put into cooking, they are simply not worth eating, except as emergency food. Thinking of emergency, which will come some time, it is only those capable of catching food other than in the super market who will survive. Perhaps you should start practising.

The same goes for fishing, people prove they could feed their family. The catch & release system practised by game fishermen is great. They get to satisfy the need to be able to provide their own food, but can then release the target unharmed. I have run hundreds of tourist Great Barrier Reef fishing trips, but don't eat fish, apart from Spanish Marcel.

At times I was out there for weeks, with new parties & supplies flown out to rendezvous by seaplane. I was happy out there, provided the stake supply was maintained. Ask me to eat the catch, & the boat was on it's way back to civilisation.

Is Mise,

I'm afraid I don't agree.
What's really happening in your example is that despite still not having an overall majority there are more people in direct support of A than B, but B gets elected with less votes than A and there are more people voting against the winner than for him/her.

The second place-getter in any sporting event isn't awarded first prize.

Being forced to allocate preferences for candidates you don't necessarily support amplifies a distortion in the system.
Making preferential voting optional would change the outcome of most elections.

It's not "sport" if only one side knows what's happening and has total technological advantage over the other.
Perhaps to satisfy their blood-lust, there should be a private farm somewhere where shooters could go and shoot ducks in a pen.

rache,

How do you know that the majority of the voters don't hate A's guts?
The system needs tweaking, doing away with voting above the line would be a good start..
People aren't asked if they like the candidates, just their preference or who they hate least in their desired order.

What's your thoughts on First Past the Post?

Perhaps horse racing isn't a sport either or frog jumping competitions but they are defined as sports so we're stuck with them as sports.

Perhaps you are a vegetarian or do you think that all meat eaters should satisfy their blood lust by going to a farm and killing their own meat rather than having abattoirs?

Dear Is Mise,

These are the types of costs I m talking about.

"King Valley residents have told authorities that illegal hunters — many who travel to the region from across the state — were flouting hunting laws nightly, and were putting livestock and human lives at risk, while leaving behind a trail of bloody, headless carcasses near roads and homes."

This is the kind of life residents are forced to lead;

""Every time we see spot lighters on the road, we have to turn the lights on in the house just to make sure they go away or they don't shoot at us."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-26/illegal-hunting-has-residents-fearful/9911904

What will you say after the first fatality in the region? "Sorry, off to get some more polish."?

Hassy, what a load of guff. //Their (Greens) history is one of never being satisfied until they have total control, & have totally destroyed other peoples activities & dreams.//
Its more a case of selfish people like you, who are intent on destroying the environment to satisfy your own greedy commercial interests. Its partly through the reckless destructive actions of commercial operators //I (Hasbeen) have run hundreds of tourist Great Barrier Reef fishing trips// that now sees the Reef in such an environmentally perilous state. Do you take any personal responsibility for the calamitous conditions that today exist on the Great Barrier Reef, I think not.
I hope the splinters from the stakes got stuck in your tongue!

As for the erroneous claims against Nicole Rowan by the Australian chapter of the Yankee NRA put forward in their (SSAA) propaganda piece, and linked to by Is Mise, they are exactly that erroneous. They contain nothing of truthful substance what so ever. Nicole will make a great addition to the Victorian Parliament.
Issy do you expect your Shooters and Hooters Party to improve on their miserable 2014 vote of 0.08%.

Paul,

You did read it after all, good lad.

Now how about a reference or two and some substantiation that what the SSAA has said is wrong.

How are you going on the funds tracing trail?

Know the reef well do you Paul. From your posting history I doubt you would recognise a bit of coral, if you fell over it.

Of course you would believe the rip off merchants at James Cook, the AIMS lot & the marine park authority. You hear them bleating for more money on their ABC so regularly.

I have dealt with the wan#ers. They are the ones who told me the reef off the Whitsundays would have no coral left by 1987. Why we feed them is a total mystery.

Steele,

"It is an offence to hunt deer at night, hunt deer with artificial lights, carry a loaded firearm in vehicles, and possess or discharge a loaded firearm on or across a public thoroughfare"

That's from the link that you posted, doesn't seem to be a problem that is caused by licensed hunters, so don't blame gun owners in general nor dedicated deer hunters in particular.

It's a Law and Order issue and should be dealt with by the relevant authorities and if they can't deal with the problem then Heaven help us if there are any real terrorists about.

I had a friend in the Mittagong area in NSW who had the same problem, he was an ex WWII bloke and he found that an armour piercing .303 into engine blocks was a great deterrent, in fact it not only stopped the engines it stopped the problem.

Issy, you have been given that much evidence, yet still try and propagate the lie that the gun happy brigades political arm is not being financed by foreign interest. Do you really believe your back door schemes are that watertight that no one can prove you wrong.

Hassy, I could not possibly know the Great Barrier Reef as well as you. Considering you spent years pumping a mixture of environmentally unfriendly bilge water, and other nasties all over the bloody thing. You also seem to have a deep seated resentment for anyone who is educated, and for those that use their education for the betterment of mankind as scientists, educators or researchers. I am not familiar with your personal level of education, but I suspect it is rather low. You seem to think, you with your rudimentary homespun knowledge that you are a cut above those that really do know. Sir, it is the know all base ignorant that are the real dangers to society.

Someone once said; "Einstein plus and idiot, is smarter than Einstein on his own." I'll at least give you that!

Paul,

"Issy, you have been given that much evidence, yet still try and propagate the lie that the gun happy brigades political arm is not being financed by foreign interest. Do you really believe your back door schemes are that watertight that no one can prove you wrong"

Well, go on; prove it.

So far you have offered nothing of substance, except Green bull.

//I had a friend in the Mittagong area in NSW who had the same problem, he was an ex WWII bloke and he found that an armour piercing .303 into engine blocks was a great deterrent, in fact it not only stopped the engines it stopped the problem.//

This is typical Issy, and his belief in 'Dodge City' justice. Here we have one old gun crazy, evident by his WWII status, taking it upon himself to shoot at some other gun crazies. Issy I assume, like those in N.E. Victoria all the gun crazies have a licence. We should be very concerned!

Issy, what evidence will you accept; pics of Charlton Heston personally handing over the Yankee dollars to your two mates in the NSW Parliament, Tweedle-Dum and his sidekick Tweedle-Even-Dumer?

Paul,

The evidence that I will accept is any evidence that would be acceptable in a Court of Law, until you find something, just continue to lie and generally waffle on.

Dear Is Mise,

You wrote;
“I had a friend in the Mittagong area in NSW who had the same problem, he was an ex WWII bloke and he found that an armour piercing .303 into engine blocks was a great deterrent”

Oh isn't that just bloody great mate. To solve the problem of bullets flying at night is to introduce more of them?

These residents did not face this problem 10 or even 5 years ago. The very same gun culture you are propagating is responsible for this. More mugs with guns is a direct result of the campaigning of you and your lot. Now you want the rest of us to pay for increased police numbers to deal with the byproduct of your fetish.

And don't go banging on about knives again. There is little chance of one of them coming through the wall of a farmhouse lying down range of a deer at night is there.

You are a very selfish person.

//Do they, though?//

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8417#264353

I'll take that as a 'no' then, shall I?

Steele,

There are more than enough police to deal with the issue but they seem to be doing zilch.

If caught illegal hunters should face the full consequences of the law, i doubt very much that they hold licences and whats all that about headless carcasses?

They would hardly be after trophies and if they were where would they find a taxidermist to do the job for them.

Don't you like to think that as a knife owner, you are condemned, by your own logic, to bear some responsibility for knife crime, same goes if you drive a car, you are partly responsible for road deaths and definitely responsible for some of the polution burden.

Shame on you!

Just what we need Issy, one of your 90 year old decrepit's running around the bush at night firing off a .303 riffle with armour piercing bullets!
What else have you got for us? A geriatric with a machine gun!

//whats all that about headless carcasses?// Who said they were deer, could be some of the locals, your mob are capable of anything.

//The evidence that I (Is Mise) will accept is any evidence that would be acceptable in a Court of Law// Issy you're watching too much 'Judge Judy'.

Issy this has been another no contest with your weekly gun happy thread;

YOUR ARGUMENT HAS BEEN SHOT TO PIECES YET AGAIN!

Dear Is Mise,

You wrote;

“There are more than enough police to deal with the issue but they seem to be doing zilch.”

So you want police taken from other duties so they can fill the extensive back roads in deer country through the night just so you can enjoy your fetish?

For the residents the invasive species infecting this area are mugs with guns and I would say most will have licenses.

Here is some disturbing footage, mostly sound, of America's latest mass shooting. Where? At a video game tournament. The shooter was upset because he lost.
http://neatclip.com/clip/d8zqpv18g

4 dead and 15 injured. This is what you want for my country. You sir are the invasive species.

Issy there was a message there for you

'PLEASE RECONNECT YOUR CONTROLLER IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE"

Was that one of your Yankee mates doing the bang bang, while the commentator says "Got a lot of good games going on today, not a tough out today, excuse me not an easy out!"

While some poor bastard in the background say's "Oh, f&^k what are you shooting WITH!"

Your kinda people Issy.

Steele,

"So you want police taken from other duties so they can fill the extensive back roads in deer country through the night just so you can enjoy your fetish?"

Do you ever read what you write?

If the extensive back roads are filled with police how could the illegal shooters ''enjoy their fetish"?

Dr. Goebbels,

Keep up the lies, you have no evidence whatsoever, and this thread is about the Greens reckless economic policies and how Victorians can be affected by them.

If you wan't to discuss the latest irrelevant US shooting start a thread on it, don't hijack this one.

Dear Is Mise,

Please tell me where your understanding gap is on what I wrote and I will endevour to nurse you through it.

As to hijacking the thread go take a flying leap. This shooting in America is a direct result of their fetishistic gun culture, exactly the type you would have for us here.

Victorian farming families having to bolt up to get the lights on before a bullet comes through the window shows you lot are gaining ground but I for one will not stop calling you out on it so get use to it.

"So you want police taken from other duties so they can fill the extensive back roads in deer country through the night just so you can enjoy your fetish?"

That's the piece of self contradictory writing that you can guide me through.

Dear Is Mise,

Pretty simple mate. You don't want the rouge hunter giving 'legal' hunters a bad name or to have hunting banned in areas because of the problem.

You said;

“It's a Law and Order issue and should be dealt with by the relevant authorities”

Well the community being impacted by hunters only recently got its first policeman as per the link.

“"There is a small group of rogue hunters who are putting lives and properties at risk, and the local community and police won't tolerate it," said Whitfield's sole police officer, Senior Constable Paul Guy.”

“Residents have been encouraged to report illegal hunting activities through triple-0 to capture data, so resources could potentially be re-directed to the region.”

That means police resources that had been directed elsewhere now having to deal with rouge hunters so the 'good name' and access of your 'sport/fetish' can be maintained.

This is a direct cost to the community and should be factored into any accounting of the so called economic benefits hunters supposedly bring to the state.

Issy, calling me Dr. Goebbels, and you a paid up member of the SS, I'll call you Heinrich Himmler in your snappy black uniform.

Steele,

Thanks for that, so there was a logical meaning to your sentence after all and i can see it now, although had I got it in an essay you'd have lost marks.

________

Ya, Herr Doktor.

Just out of curiosity, Steele and Paul & Co, do you get a kick out of it every time someone is raped and/or murdered when they were not allowed any means of self defence?

Or do you think that ordinary Australians should have the legal right to defend themselves against unlawful attack?

//Or do you think that ordinary Australians should have the legal right to defend themselves against unlawful attack?//

We do, Is Mise. At least in NSW.

http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/defences/self-defense

So let's see now... so far you've told us that the Greens want to ban all hunting in Victoria when they're actually only after duck hunting. So that was a barefaced lie. And now you're trying to tell us that people don't have a right to self-defence when they definitely do. Do you think us so stupid that we'll just swallow whatever untruths you try and convince us of, or is your tendency to tell obvious whoppers just a compulsive behaviour that you can't properly control?

Oh, and before you start with any of your usual bollocks: the legal right to defend yourself and the legal right to wander the streets carrying whatever weapon you fancy are not the same thing. After all, if the legal right to defend yourself does amount to the legal right to own and carry whatever weapon you deem necessary for your protection, why limit it to guns? If nutters are allowed to wander the streets with whatever guns they like, I'm not going to feel safe just with a gun for self-defence. What's to stop somebody I haven't even seen shooting me in the back? No, if self-defence means whatever hardware you need to feel safe, I demand the right to a tank.

Well, why not? As long as people are responsible tank owners and only ever use them for self-defence, hunting feral pests and squashing the occasional car when you can't find a park, what possible problem could there be with letting private citizens own tanks? And of course weapons capable of defending against tanks, in case some wrong'un manages to get their hands on one and uses it for mischief.

Heinrich, how are things in Dodge City these days? I see you're still giving Nuremberg a wide birth.

Just on your Dodge City justice;
//Or do you think that ordinary Australians should have the legal right to defend themselves against unlawful attack?//

Toni has given you a fair answer to that.

Just a couple of questions;

Of the 25 million inhabitants of Australia, at your best guess, how many do you envisage being granted the right to carry a gun for self defence? All 25 million, or only those aged 5 years and older.

What kind of guns would you allow to be carried as a self defence weapon? Would an AK47 qualify.

Under what circumstance should one be able to use their weapon for self defence? Is it when one feels threatened, example when someone pushes in at the supermarket checkout, you would have the right to blow them away if they get too stroppy with you.

Toni,

So the Greens do not want to ban hunting, that's news to me; reference?

Since when doos asking a question have all the connotations that you attribute to it?

It is perfectly legal to own a tank in NSW and probably so in the other States, do check your facts before you go into emotional rant mode.

Paul,

He didn't and where have I ever said that all Australians should have guns?

Perhaps you might help Toni by explaining the Greens attitude to hunting?

//Or do you think that ordinary Australians should have the legal right to defend themselves against unlawful attack?// Which they already do.
If that's it, and you're not including the carrying of offensive weapons such as guns //where have I (Is Mise) ever said that all Australians should have guns// Then there is no argument.

What do you think about government sponsored karate lessons?

What about if you loose a video game, is that justification for opening up? Maybe you agree that winners should be able to let off some excess steam with a few well placed shots at the looser's, and vise versa.

BTW, do you guys every reenact the "Shootout at the O.K. Corral" using live ammo of course. Seems quite reasonable to me.

//So the Greens do not want to ban hunting, that's news to me; reference?//

I can see you're building up to one of your silly little semantics games, so let me just stop you right there and be very clear about this.

I have not said that the Greens 'do not want to ban hunting'.

I have said that I have been unable to find any evidence to support the claim that the Greens want to ban ALL hunting - not in the article linked to in your original post, not in the opinion piece by Nicole Rowan that it was written in response to, not in anything you've subsequently posted, and not by using a search engine (google).

I have said that Greens candidate Nicole Rowan - you know, the person the original article you posted was railing against - wants to ban duck hunting. Which is, I'll grant you, hunting. But it is not, and I must be clear about this, all hunting.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8417#264353

Alles klar, Herr Himmler?

Toni,

She is a Green and in their Official Web Site they say,

"26. A ban on recreational shooting of all animals, including Australian native water birds"

Therefore she wishes to ban all hunting and commercial hunting is, no doubt, covered by the Greens myriad of other proposed bans, regulations and wishes.

//Since when doos asking a question have all the connotations that you attribute to it?//

Come off it, Mr. Bimmler. We've done this silly little dance about a zillion times before: first you ask if we think people should have the right to self-defence, then we reply 'yes, obviously' and helpfully point to the laws about self-defence that say 'yes, people have a right to self-defence' that you're feigning ignorance of, then you whine that those laws are no good if people can't carry guns for their self-defence. I'd just thought I'd fast forward through a few of these excessively rehearsed steps and get to the point where we discuss the wisdom of winding back gun control laws, which is after all what you're driving at... or has been the last 7,000 or so times we did this, at any rate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2eUopy9sd8

//It is perfectly legal to own a tank in NSW//

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough before... I do know how you like to split hairs. I don't just want some museum piece. I want a properly working tank, Heinrich. None of your partially decommissioned junk. How am I supposed to hunt for feral cats and adequately defend myself against wrong'uns without a tank gun? And I'll want to be driving it on public roads, down to the shops and stuff. After all, it's no good having a tank for self-defence if you can't take it out in the public square.

Still perfectly legal, Reichsführer?

//What do you think about government sponsored karate lessons?//

What about pointed sticks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w

Toni, what is your POINT? Nothing STICKS in my mind. Great YouTube.

Toni,

Where have I ever advocated winding back the Gun Laws, apart from the stupid bits?

Personally, I'm all in favour of them, especially the bits that strengthen gun owners politically and the ones that deliver material benefits, such as improved ranges (with modern ammenities), increased safety by proper storage requirements and the increase in new ranges and new gun clubs.

Never have I advocated arming everyone and I've said before that I don't want to carry a pistol, I'm happy with my walking stick, having been a practicer of its defensive use since I first visited India many years ago.
http://magazine.fighttimes.com/the-walking-stick-method-of-self-defence/

Issy, you haven't got one of those Russian walking sticks have you, you know the kind, the ones where you jab them in the leg, and they fall down dead. Great self defence weapon, I use mine all the time!
I really think the local council should do more to clean up the place, all those dead bodies lying around, its getting rather smelly.

p/s That old bag in number 9, she'll never criticize my geraniums ever again. As for the bloke in number 5 with the noisy lawnmower, wait till Sunday morning, he'll feel the sharp end of my stick as well!

Trust our resident Green comic to make fun of cowardly murder.

In other news...

http://www.9news.com.au/2018/08/26/16/10/sofala-teenage-boy-accidentally-shot-with-shotgun-central-west-nsw-property

Poor guy. But it's an unfortunate fact of life that where you have guns you will, sooner or later, have gun accidents. And the number of those accidents is proportional to the number of guns.

So let's keep those numbers as low as possible to try and minimise this sort of accident. After all, is the thrill of blasting some harmless waterfowl out of the sky worth the risk of accidentally causing severe injury to your friends and family?

Hi Toni, Issy will only dismiss the above as not relevant. Another case of one of those law abiding good folk from the gunnie brigade have a momentory laps, when it comes to his firearms.

"Detectives have spoken to a 57-year-old man, but he has since been released. His firearms and firearms licence were seized."

"Investigations continue."

Issy, so you don't believe a poisoned tipped umberalla is an effective self defence weapon?

How about answering my question, I answered yours?

Do you support members of the Australian general public carrying a concealed loaded gun as a means of self defence? If so please explain with some detail.

Paul,

"Do you support members of the Australian general public carrying a concealed loaded gun as a means of self defence? If so please explain with some detail"

No; is that sufficient detail?

Toni,

The same applies to cars and just about everything else that has a potential for danger.

India, bye the way, is becoming choked with cars in the cities and the accident rate is rising.

//The same applies to cars and just about everything else that has a potential for danger.//

Yes, and that's why we regulate them. And I know you say you're in favour of regulation... but when anybody suggests further regulation in Australia, or even in the US where it is clearly desperately needed, suddenly you stop being in favour of regulation and start whining about the jackbooted heel of the state crushing the rights of poor oppressed gun owners.

//India, bye the way, is becoming choked with cars in the cities and the accident rate is rising.//

Yeah, but they're all Asian drivers, what do you expect?

Issy, what methods do you believe could be effective in self defence, if guns are not an option.

//raped and/or murdered when they were not allowed any means of self defence.// What means would you envisage?

Paul,

Walking sticks and umbrellas and some of the currently available non lethal means; these are available in Australia to law enforcement personell and criminals, under John Howard's laws the victims are necessarily unable to defend themselves.
The Greens are fully in accord with the theory of undefended victims, for some sick reason.

//under John Howard's laws the victims are necessarily unable to defend themselves.
The Greens are fully in accord with the theory of undefended victims, for some sick reason.//

//then you whine that those laws are no good if people can't carry guns for their self-defence//

Ah good, I see you're progressing right on schedule there, Captain Predictable.

I note some time ago, an old man was charged with murder in Florida.
He was attacked and eventually saw him on the ground and about to cop a good kicking.
Someone with a phone had the sick sense of recording it.
In this case, lucky he did, because the next thing we see is the old man, now sitting on the ground, move his right hand/arm up in the direction of the bad guy, a couple of bangs, and down the baddy goes.
A great day for humanity and justice and especially for the older and more vulnerable generation.
Even though he was charged, it was later dropped, because in Florida, (which is dominated by retiree's and oldies) it is legal for an oldie to be armed.
And so it should be, here too!
The baddies would think long and hard before they did anything, not knowing if you are 'loaded' or not.
As for the argument that they too will start carrying guns, is a nonsense, there are those past present and future who will carry a gun for evil means, but unless you know the old man is carrying a fortune on him, it isn't worth the pain to pull a gun on him for his phone or small amount of money or credit card.
So our chances, although never one hundred percent perfect, will tilt many fold in our favour if we were allowed to 'carry'.

Nice try at squirming Issy, umbrellas and walking sticks. So you agree with The Greens, and not the Shooters and One Nation, that self defence is not a legitimate reason to own a gun.

Glad you have finally come on board.

Paul,

"Issy, what methods do you believe could be effective in self defence, if guns are not an option."

Nice try, but you ruled guns out as an option, not me.

I gave you an honest answer, based on your question but in typical Greens' fashion you shift the goal posts.

I firmly believe that everyone has the right to the best means of self-defence and that is usually a pistol.

Ah! Now I see, you do want to arm the population with guns as a means of self defence.

//I (Is Mise) firmly believe that everyone has the right to the best means of self-defence and that is usually a pistol.//

"Everyone" does that include infants, children, criminals, the mentally deranged, the blind, etc etc.

The meaning of the word everyone; every person.

If you feel it is not appropriate for say, criminals and infants to defend themselves with guns. Then how do you suggest they defend themselves?

Being a man of knowledge, could you give us your estimate of what percentage of the adult population, arbitrarily those over 18, that it would be appropriate for them to carry a loaded pistol as their best means of self-defence?

Paul,

"Ah! Now I see, you do want to arm the population with guns as a means of self defence."

No I don't.

Issy, stop your wriggling, please estimate what percentage of the adult population you believe would be best served by carrying a loaded pistol as their means of self-defence.

//I (Is Mise) firmly believe that everyone has the right to the best means of self-defence and that is usually a pistol.//

Paul,

As usual you do not read what people say but jump in with your own wrong interpretation, or what you desire them to say.

I never said that everyone should have a pistol but that they have a right to the best means of self-defence, usually a pistol.

There is a vast difference between having a right to something and having possession of it.

//There is a vast difference between having a right to something and having possession of it.//

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA

There we go, Judith's got it sorted: we agree that people can't have guns, but that they can have the right to have guns. It's symbolic.

I guess it does depend on personal interests and
abilities - doesn't it?

Personally, with guns - I'd be terrified to use one.
The noise for a start would scare me. Then I wouldn't
know how to shoot. Also there's the regular cleaning
of weapons and the handling of ammunition and chores
associated with cleaning that I'd find tiresome. Learning
how to shoot straight - and keeping the gun in a safe place
are other considerations that need to be taken into account.
Plus the fact that I could kill another human being - would
be of great concern to me.

I'd prefer learning some form of martial arts instead.
It would help keep me in shape, improve my mood, and give
me an excuse to go for a swim or a sauna/spa afterwards.
(hard work - martial arts).

That's just my opinion.

Foxy,

"Personally, with guns - I'd be terrified to use one.
The noise for a start would scare me."

Easily overcome, just start out with an air gun, no noise to speak of.

Toni,

'Life of Brian' love it, my all time favorite comedy.

As in the past I have advised that those people whole live in wonderland, I think Alice is waiting at the meeting place for you all to get on the bus so you can all go back to Alice's Wonderland.
The rest being aware of the 'real' world around us all, will continue with the very serious discussion on 'The Greens are the new invasive species'.
Actually I much prefer the gun debate than an irrelevant topic/group like the greens.
The 'greens' are in fact a branch of the 'noxious weed' family, and as such, like all weeds they must be eradicated.
Many gardening shows recommend 'round-up'.
Apparently to administer the 'weed killer', once you have mixed it with the appropriate amount of water and put it in a spray bottle, you then approach the offending invasive and unwanted species until you are approx 20 or 30cm from it, starting from the top and continue spraying till you have reached the shoes, uh sorry, ground.
Now this is not my opinion or words but merely repeating what many 'experts' have been saying for a long time.
Just quickly, I'd like someone to start a new topic specifically about a real and relevant issue of the elderly and what kinds of defensive gadgets or weapons they would be allowed to carry, to save their very lives.

Gentlemen,

My apologies if I've offended any of you.

However, you seem to be in denial of the contributions
that so many people (like my parents who came to this country
as refugees) have made. They joined other migrants in the
building of Australia's capital structures that were to serve
the nation for many decades to come. Their economic contribution
was significant at a time when Australia needed it most.

I won't go into the details. The history books can supply
that information.

Some people have the tendency to moralise, to say endless
things to other people about how to behave, how to clean up
their houses. Surely we need to clean up ours first.
The days have long gone when we had the genuine moral
authority from which to preach to others. Let us regain that
ground, take a fearless moral inventory, do the work on
ourselves that we still need to do. Heal our hearts.
Get rid of the negativity - it will free our souls.
There is new life waiting to happen here, as soon as we own
up. Nothing less will heal our nation.

Oooooops - posted this on the wrong discussion.
It should have gone to the "Civil War" one.
My apologies.

Is Mise,

A gun wouldn't do me much use I'm afraid.

I don't have nerves of steel like you do.
I could not be calm and responsible either in
its care or use. And I would be scared of hurting
someone. I'd be more concerned about that then
their hurting me.

I had an incident once - when I was studying at night
and was on my way to class and got held up by another
student who demanded my money from me. I didn't argue.
I said - "sure just leave me enough for a cup of coffee
during my lecture break this evening." He asked me
how much I needed - I told him and gave him the rest of
what I had. And we both walked away.

I saw him on campus a couple of days later carrying a
large Art portfolio. He did not recognise me. He was
a bit zonked out on the night he bailed me up. So I
wasn't surprised that he didn't recognise me during the
day.

Anyway, I did not report it to the police. What would that
have achieved? Besides, had I had a gun - imagine what
would have happened? And to what end? This way I was
just out a few bucks. Big deal.

Well the globalist shock troops were supposed to stir things up. They've got what they wanted. Though perhaps not in the way they expected. Sometimes the only way is to fight though an ambush.

Or walk away.

Foxy,

You were lucky, Jill Meagher wasn't.

ALTRAV,

"I'd like someone to start a new topic specifically about a real and relevant issue of the elderly and what kinds of defensive gadgets or weapons they would be allowed to carry, to save their very lives."

They wouldn't be allowed to carry anything except their walking stick, because all Australians (apart from a privileged few) are not allowed to possess anything for the purpose of legal setf-defence; and unless one is highly skilled in the defensive use of the umbrella or the walking stick then they are not of much use.

The old are expendable, when it comes to Political Correctness, as are the rest of society.

Is Mise,

The following link might be of interest. It tells us
how a court system that already blames rape victims won't
be kind to those who kill their attackers.

Plus - victims of domestic violence would be at greater
risk if there was a gun in the house.

Anyway here's the link:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/23/danaloesch-women-gun-reform-rapists

Foxy,

The link does not work, and as I said, you were lucky and Jill eager wasn't.

That should be Jill Meagher,

Trying to use Jill Meagher's shocking murder to justify your gun fetish is pathetic.

//They wouldn't be allowed to carry anything except their walking stick//

Does a shillelagh count as a walking stick?

Paul,

I was pointing out to Foxy the reality of her position viv-a-vis an attacker, and robbery, however mild it may appear, is an attack.

Toni,

"Does a shillelagh count as a walking stick?"

As you well know, it is a lethal weapon, so I'll take that as a rhetorical question.

Issy. I accept what you say re: Jill Meagher.
None of use, you included, want to see terrible murders take place, and that's not what we are arguing about here.

Why the flippant semantics about whether you support the general public being permitted to carry concealed weapons as a means of self defence. Its been well established many times on OLO that you do.

I believe its not about self defence, but more about your rights as a shooter to carry on your pursuit without interference.

Is Mise,

The link should work now.

I made a typo previously.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/23/dana-loesch-women-gun-reform-rapists

PAUL,

"Why the flippant semantics about whether you support the general public being permitted to carry concealed weapons as a means of self defence. Its been well established many times on OLO that you do".

Never once have I said that.

Issy,

Here is your opportunity to star, two opposing polices on the genuine reasons to own and use a firearm.

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

5 Establish family and home protection as a genuine reason to own and use a firearm and continue to support measures increasing a person’s right to self-defence.
The Shooters Party policy.

The question is which of the two policies do you agree with.

Never once have I (Is Mise) said that.

//I (Is Mise) firmly believe that everyone has the right to the best means of self-defence and that is usually a pistol.

The only reasonable interpretation of that statement is you agree with people carrying concealed firearms (pistols can be concealed) for self defence.

Paul, the answer to the question you pose regarding the right to carry arms, is a no brainer.
As an older person I completely agree with that premise.
As an older person, I am more aware and mature than a younger person who would be more prone to knee jerk reactions, thereby suggesting that there should an age limit to such an idea.
I'm not interested in shooting anyone, but if by doing so I removed a serious threat to everyone, I would be very satisfied that I had done something towards making it safer for everyone.
The baddies would have to think twice before 'doing' anything.
There is always the chance of injury or worse, but, without close protection you will 'definitely' be in trouble.
The good news is, those who do not agree with the idea, do not have to comply with it and are free to be attacked or worse.

ALTRAV,

//As an older person, I am more aware and mature than a younger person who would be more prone to knee jerk reactions, thereby suggesting that there should an age limit to such an idea.//
You narrowly restrict that assumption to yourself, therefore that cannot be extrapolated to cover the whole community.

//I'm not interested in shooting anyone, but if by doing so I removed a serious threat to everyone, I would be very satisfied that I had done something towards making it safer for everyone.//
The problem there is obvious, what constitutes a "serious threat" your interpretation may not be the same as others. Someone who to you might be considered a "serious threat" may be to others considered no threat at all.

//The baddies would have to think twice before 'doing' anything.// But would they, the evidence in countries where guns for self defence is accepted shows the baddies don't think twice, their crime statistics are worse than ours.

//There is always the chance of injury or worse// I'll agree with that, to oneself, to family, to friends, to neighbours, to innocent bystanders, the list goes on.

//without close protection you will 'definitely' be in trouble// Well, unless something has changed significantly that is not true. The vast majority of Australians like you and I manage to reach senior years unscathed, without the necessity of toting a concealed loaded gun. So the 'definitely' is definitely disproved.

//The good news is, those who do not agree with the idea, do not have to comply with it and are free to be attacked or worse.//
Well unfortunately, others carrying loaded guns will not be 'action in isolation' when the shooting starts the bullets do not discriminate between the goodies, the daddies and the innocent.

Paul,

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

That is the policy of uncaring cowards.

"5 Establish family and home protection as a genuine reason to own and use a firearm and continue to support measures increasing a person’s right to self-defence.
The Shooters Party policy."

Agree entirely, but that does not mean

"I (Is Mise) firmly believe that everyone has the right to the best means of self-defence and that is usually a pistol.

The only reasonable interpretation of that statement is you agree with people carrying concealed firearms (pistols can be concealed) for self defence."

The only reasonable interpretation is that I believe that people have such a right, not that I necessarily agree that the right should be respected in all cases.

There is a vast difference between having a right and being able to exercise that right.

For example, we all have the right to end our lives, suicide is no longer a crime, but the Government continues to deny the exercise of that right, especially to the terminally ill etc.

Issy. we are going around in circles with your use of semantics to dodge a bullet.

Okay, "(You) firmly believe that everyone has the right to the best means of self-defence and that is usually a pistol."
If that right was so granted by law in Australia, could you envisage any members of the general public actually being allowed to carry a loaded concealed pistol for self defence purposes? That requires only a simple yes/no answer.

The Government has just past a new law which reads;

Every Australian is granted the right to carry a machete for self defence purposes. However, due to the extremely dangerous nature of machetes any person found guilty of carrying a machete for self defence purposes will face a maximum of five years imprisonment.

Sounds like a Shooters and Hooters Party law.

Tony Abbott believed gays had the right to marry in Australia, it was he didn't believe they should actually marry in Australia.

PAUL,

"Okay, "(You) firmly believe that everyone has the right to the best means of self-defence and that is usually a pistol."
If that right was so granted by law in Australia, could you envisage any members of the general public actually being allowed to carry a loaded concealed pistol for self defence purposes? That requires only a simple yes/no answer."

The right to self-defence already exists in Australian Law the possession of the best or any means is denied by law.

Prior to the John Howard Gun Laws, many members of the general public had Possess, Use and Carry licences and were no problem.
When the laws came in and self-defence was no longer a reason they lost the ability to defend themselves.

One rather rich citizen who was a bit upset at losing his licence bought an armed security company and appointed himself Chief Operator and put himself on 24/7 duty, thus being armed at all times.

Are you so naive, Paul, that you don't think that some people do carry pistols for self-defence, regardless of the law?

Hi issy,

//Are you so naive, Paul, that you don't think that some people do carry pistols for self-defence, regardless of the law?//

Yes I'll agree, Kings Cross business men and leading racing identities. Are they in your gun club?

No, no, no, you didn't answer the question. The question did not concern the existing law of "The right to self-defence already exists". Rather it concerned a change in the law to "that everyone has the right to the best means of self-defence" which is your supported position. Given such a change to your position, would you also support as a fact citizens can then legally be allowed to carry a concealed loaded pistol for self defence? A simple yes or no will do. Nothing required about Little Johnny Howard, or rich citizens who own security companies.

Paul,

Are you stupid or just dense? (a simple 'yes' or 'no' will do).

The right to self-defence already exists, therefore, the right to the best means already exists.

//"Does a shillelagh count as a walking stick?"

As you well know, it is a lethal weapon//

Yeah, but so are lots of things. A chainsaw is a lethal weapon, that doesn't stop it being a chainsaw. A shillelagh is a stick that can be used to assist walking. I therefore maintain that it is a walking stick, m'lud.

Toni,

You may maintain all you like but, under Australian law, a Shillelagh is an offensive weapon, so would be a walking stick if possessed for the purpose of self-defence.

The law has it covered so that no Australian may possess anything for a self-defensive purpose.

"Oaken shillelaghs in various stages of completion
Shillelaghs may be hollowed at the heavy "hitting" end and filled with molten lead to increase the weight beyond the typical two pounds; this sort of shillelagh is known as a 'loaded stick'.[1] They are commonly the length of a walking stick (distance from the floor to one's wrist with elbow slightly bent). Most also have a heavy knob for a handle which can be used for striking as well as parrying and disarming an opponent. Many shillelaghs also have a strap attached, similar to commercially made walking sticks, to place around the holder's wrist...
Methods of shillelagh fighting have evolved over a period of thousands of years, from the spear, staff, axe and sword fighting of the Irish. There is some evidence which suggests that the use of Irish stick weapons may have evolved in a progression from a reliance on long spears and wattles, to shorter spears and wattles, to the shillelagh, alpeen, blackthorn (walking-stick) and short cudgel. By the 19th century Irish shillelagh-fighting had evolved into a practice which involved the use of three basic types of weapons, sticks which were long, medium or short in length."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shillelagh_(club)

Issy,

If one were to be apprehended by police, and in their possession was a loaded pistol, and baring the holding of any special licence permitting, would they be able to plead self defence as a legal reason for having that loaded pistol in their possession. Note there has been no act of self defence only a preparedness in the event of one needing to exercise self defence. Legal opinion required.

//The right to self-defence already exists, therefore, the right to the best means (loaded pistol) already exists.//

What a stupid statement.

//so would be a walking stick if possessed for the purpose of self-defence.//

But not if possessed for the purpose of being a walking stick. You know, the reason you have yours, nudge nudge, wink wink. A walking stick is just a walking stick, even if it's made in the traditional Irish fashion from blackthorn, m'lud.

Toni, I prefer the Russian umbrella myself, not only does it keep the rain off, it is most effective against Shillelagh wielding Scottish bandits! And without any opinion to the contrary, its completely legal. So are AK47's and M16's only as best means of self defence.

My form of self defence would be - letting loose with
a bowel movement if I was being attacked. And unless
he's a psycopath - he'd be turned off by that.
I just couldn't help myself. I'd be so scared - that's
what would be guaranteed to happen. ;-)

Paul,

"If one were to be apprehended by police, and in their possession was a loaded pistol, and baring the holding of any special licence permitting, would they be able to plead self defence as a legal reason for having that loaded pistol in their possession. Note there has been no act of self defence only a preparedness in the event of one needing to exercise self defence. Legal opinion required."

There was no need to post that, your stupidity was already apparent.

Issy, you seem to be a sandwich short of a picnic on this one. Tying yourself in knots as you are. The trouble is you're been reading the Shooters and Hooters Party policy on firearms, and worse still you think it makes sense and is believable, not so!
Its time to disarm all gunnies, starting with the sandwich short of a picnic lads. Agree?

No second prises, Paul.

Paul, I want to answer your question about whether we should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
The answer is an emphatically strong YES!
I have already written about what happened recently in Florida.
Oldies are allowed to carry in Florida.
Are the oldies in Florida more capable and more mature than Aussie oldies?
If there is ONE person allowed to do something, then it is only appropriate that others be also allowed, otherwise it is discrimination.
By all means have checks and balances, but ultimately WE must be allowed to choose.
It is part of our right to freedom of choice.
People can bang on about how dangerous guns are.
This is an old chestnut and we don't need to revisit it here.
There are many things being done which are more dangerous and more obvious than a hand gun.

Paul1405 probably agrees with Stalin's line "Ideas are more dangerous than guns. People aren't allowed to carry guns. Why should we let them think?" Some peoples in history have naively allowed themselves to be disarmed and disenfranchised by their governments. Power is a balance- in this case between the government and the governed. In every course of action there is risk- it's our path to heaven and hell- we have to choose. Petrol can be used to fuel cars or to explode- but a car is designed in a way that minimizes the risk and maximizes the benefit - power requires responsibility. The power of self determination requires discipline and decisiveness. You must live with your mistakes.

//I have already written about what happened recently in Florida.//

Must have missed that bit. Were you referring to Orlando nightclub shooting, the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting or the Jacksonville game tournament shooting? I'll assume it's the game tournament shooting because that's the most recent.

//Are the oldies in Florida more capable and more mature than Aussie oldies?//

I don't know, but it would seem that Florida gun owners in general are not particularly mature. Frankly, I'm not sure that Australians would prove to be so either if we had gun laws like Florida. And I'd really rather not find out the hard way.

//If there is ONE person allowed to do something, then it is only appropriate that others be also allowed, otherwise it is discrimination.//

Sorry, are you really trying to say that it's discriminatory if you're prevented from doing something under Australian law but it's legal under the laws of another country? O.... kay.

Not sure you've fully thought this one through. Did you know that until fairly recently, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12? In some countries, illegal drugs are decriminalised or legalised. Is that something you really want? Australia makes enough bad laws of its own without importing them from other countries.

Hi Toni,

There you go again, denying, my right as a man to have babies! Stop oppressing me. From now on I want you to call me Loretta.

Hi CM

//Paul1405 probably agrees with Stalin's line "Ideas are more dangerous than guns."// In Stalinist Russia that probably was true, well at least for Stalin."

"The pen is mightier than the sword" Edward Bulwer-Lytton 1839, If Eddie had much knowledge of guns, he probably would have included them as well (with the swards not the pens).

Canem Malum probably agrees with Hitler's line "It is cruel to keep a goldfish in a bowl." I do, does that make me a Nazi?

Paul, just a quick 'heads up'.
I'm not sure, because I know nothing about computers, but I wonder if anyone else is having trouble with your posts.
Whenever one of your comments come up, and I click on it, I see a rather large group of blue or red letters. (can't remember which)
Nothing like other previous and current commentors.
I don't know if your system has been attacked or mine.
As I said ALL the other posts are fine, so far, nothing has changed, only yours.
I can't afford the risk of infecting my system if it is a virus.
I wonder, has anyone else experienced the same problem or is it only your posts when they connect to my computer?
Anyone?

Canem Malum,

In Stalinist Russia - they tortured their victims, starved
them, and massacred them. Creating panic and chaos. They
produced millions of refugees and homeless. They expanded
and built concentration camps in which millions of innocent
victims perished. They were set on their conquests - and to
deal with their domestic opposition they used - terror.