lil.brat26 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 7:57am:



I can see now your absolutely rational response to the fact this I wrote "the US" instead of "us" and for that I oppologise unreservedly I fully intend to seek forgiveness by writing out 1000 times, "us, not the US".

So once again please forgive my mis-statement I can asure you will never do it again, I promise that I will also make sure I will never overlook any mistakes or mis-statements that you make in the future either, which should be fun for both of us. 

I agree that focusing on the semantics is a much better way to utilise these boards than to look at the overall intent

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 8:56am:



Odd, that's exactly how I see the greens. 

Im for anyone who is willing to leave me the bugger alone, make less laws, not tell me how to live my life and just run the country quietly.

LDP seem to be the best of a bad lot, but only time will tell I suppose.

Why are the extreme right so afraid of the greens?
Is it just the fact that they are preferencing Labor, of which they had no choice, since Abbott made Denialism of scientific consensus on climate change a Liberal Party ideology under his watch.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 10:09am:



Here's me thinking that you had a modicum of reading and comprehension skills. But an extremist interpretation might work too, but you seem to not like it too much when others do it to the liberal party.

Maybe it's not acceptable for you to allow a differeing political opinion with policies that need to evolve, just as liberal, labor or the greens are allowed to do.

I decided not to hit the quote button it was getting too big.

From what I read they don't want the gun laws like the US, but the gun laws we used to have, which were fine if they're were actually enforced.

The speed laws look to be a rationalisation of the absurd application of our current laws, which wouldn't be bad thing, either. Multiple changes in speed over very short distances is one area.

The big crimes little crimes I read different to you, I did not interpret the abrogation of 'minor' crimes, but the habit of governments in their rush to produce a nanny state making everything a crime of sorts.  Stick to deal with actual crims rather than implementing more and more laws, just to make up the numbers

I agree it pretty subjective in it statements, but I also looked at what was the overall intent and found them to be the least offensive.

Considering I refuse to vote, that is a big thing for me to find in a political party. 

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 11:39am:



People only require guns for self defence when there is no other option available to them, and not everyone wants that option, some people believe that the police will help them in their time of need. They'll usually end up dead but that's their decision.

I don't agree about the community with no guns being safe, maybe if you said the community with no crims was perfect safe you might have got me. You might want to check the sydney papers today, 3 drive by shootings in 6 hours does not fill me with confidence about our gun laws.

Once again I read the speed laws statement differently to you, hence my post about them being subjective.

With the liberals, labor and the greens driving headlong into an orwellian nanny state, I'm looking for something different.

phantom

What stops you from stabbing people with a sharp knife, if you believe you would shoot people if you owned a gun?

I owned several weapons from the age of 15 up until '97 (33) and during that time i rekon I got angry at various people a couple of times a week. At no time did I even contemplate shooting them let alone do it.

Just because a person owns a gun does not automatically make them a psychopath mass murderer, no matter what john howard told you. It just makes them a gun owner.

I think too often people take the right to own a gun as the right to use it. You can own a gun and it can just sit in your cupboard forever and never be used. What's dangerous about a gun, really? It only becomes dangerous when put into the hands of an unstable person. And that can happen with or without gun control. Criminals don't care for the law. That's why they're, you know, criminals. Gun control only restricts guns for law-abiding citizen. And it's had no correlation with declining crime rates or violent crime rates. So what's the point? If you look at the figures and they show the Howard's gun laws had no significant effect on crime rates, then shouldn't you conclude there's no need for them and they should be repealed?

In the United States they have the right to bear arms, but gun restrictions still differ from state to state. Washington DC, New York and California have much tougher laws than say Alaska, Vermont, Oklahoma and Kentucky. Yet obviously that hasn't resulted in Vermont becoming a bloodbath of gun violence while LA is peaceful and safe. No, it's the opposite. Now you can argue, what came first?. LA has always had high crime, so that's why they have tough gun laws. You can't argue LA has high crime because they have gun laws. But you can argue that LA still has high crime despite tough gun laws therefore gun control in ineffective.

Btw, the US does not have the most liberal gun laws in the world, so we shouldn't necessarily look at them as an example of what an armed nation looks like. What about Switzerland?