Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 12:47pm:

NO BR. You are the one making erroneous claims as to our rights. YOU need to support your claims. YOU need to show the legislation that proves your point, not I.
YOU are the one telling the lies. I KNOW I am correct, through personal experience. YOU only have an opinion. Stop being such a slimebag and stand up and SHOW ME . I'd love to hear something from you other than supposition and opinion.

I do not need to prove anything, Emma.   You and your compatriots do, as you are making the claim.  I require PROOF, Emma, not claims.

Get back to us when you have the proof.  Otherwise, stop spreading porkie-pies.   

Regardless of what side of any argument you are on everyone that makes a statement, in order to be considered as fact, need to be prepared to support their claims with some sort of validation outside of just saying it's so.

If you have a link, to support your case, by all means publish it.

If you know you've read it or even experienced it first hand, but can't exactly say where or prove how, then say so, & the court of public opinion will either accept it or reject it based upon your track record of credibility.

If your track record is piss-poor, well you best find some corroborating evidence of your claims, otherwise your arguments wont be taken seriously.....& so they shouldn't......they will fall flat on their face.

On the other hand, some may still doubt you, but if your credibility track record is trustworthy, & you aren't one for making outlandish unsubstantiated claims, then most will probably take you seriously, with credibility intact, & believed.

Either way, if you are going to make statements of supposed facts, it's best to produce links or other substantiating evidence to buttress your claims if called upon to do so, if for no other reason than to bolster your own good credibility whether you think it's needed or not.

➤ ➤  In the end beware of those continually demanding evidence from others, for it's usually a smokescreen, a dodge,  for covering up the fact that they actually lack evidence for their positions themselves, or even worse, to coverup for their own  falsehoods (the L word). 

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

I wonder Baron would you have liked all the Muslims in Bosnia to have their own personal firearms when the Serbs tried to exterminate them?   

What about you Emma, you think all women should be able to kill their rapist boyfriends/husbands/sons, before they start raping?   

What about you Mort, you think that everybody should be able kill anybody with impunity as long as they claim, "he looked funny at me!"???   

What a bunch of tools you all are.   I suspect you'd be the first ones the criminals would kill.   

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 10:58am:


I've read it and no where does it state that you cannot have a weapon for self-defence, Baron.   It lists in Schedule One a series of weapon types that you cannot own BUT that does not include ALL weapons, now does it, Baron?  You are fixated on guns.   

Hello Foul Breath, I see you have decided to troll on by. It seems you have come by to misrepresent anything I have ever posted here. That is all the response you deserve and my stalker is just someone to ignore!

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 12:28pm:


Based on what you've said there, Baron, I'd say the truer position is that you cannot own those weapons for the purpose of self defence. But, if the situation came up -- I'd say you'd be quite entitled to so use them.

Let's explore another analogy -- you don't have (say) a bowling ball for the purposes of self defence. However, should the need arise, you're quite allowed to defend yourself with it and strike* your attacker. Same for your beloved firearms.

*