Gamerancher wrote:The Shooters party lost all credibility and influence in NSW with the Game Council debacle and their push for shooting in National Parks.
My local "Member" was SFFP but has quit and now standing as an independent along with two others who have done the same. He never did a thing with regards firearm policy except present a petition the SSAA put together a couple of years ago and they basically had to twist his arm to do it.
He and the other two have supported Labour/Greens in their voting so basically, just Labour stooges.
Gamerancher wrote:The Shooters party lost all credibility and influence in NSW with the Game Council debacle and their push for shooting in National Parks.
My local "Member" was SFFP but has quit and now standing as an independent along with two others who have done the same. He never did a thing with regards firearm policy except present a petition the SSAA put together a couple of years ago and they basically had to twist his arm to do it.
He and the other two have supported Labour/Greens in their voting so basically, just Labour stooges.
Billo wrote:
This, I saw Borsak at a recent Gun show and I had to bite my tongue, he is a Jack ass who has destroyed what took decades to build.
Phil Donato will romp in his seat and the same for Helen.
Perrottet will be booted from office with a Legacy of DEBT.
geoff wrote:
Anyone can publish a policy on a website.
The new Australian gun laws..
Mr Speaker,
Australians have always had reasonable access to firearms, and law abiding citizens have always had an understandable expectation that individual ownership would continue as indeed would the facility for them to pursue their sporting pastime.
This reasonable expectation has lost ground daily and Australian firearm owners quite rightfully believe the day is coming when the civilian population will be disarmed and only those who break the law will possess firearms.
The uniform gun laws were ill conceived and rushed through without thought or consultation. Any proposed need has no basis in fact and is an affront to anyone who is even slightly informed of the facts and figures.
Dr Adam Graycar, from the Australian Institute of Criminology, has stated that banning semi-automatic firearms will do nothing to prevent the majority of Australia's gun deaths.
While I would certainly not advocate illegitimate ownership of such firearms, we cannot escape the fact that even just in the case of centre fire semi-automatic rifles, the majority of which are military style, there are in excess of a million such firearms in Australia and yet this style accounts for less than 2% of Australian firearm deaths.
Despite the free access to millions of firearms in Australia, the available data shows the number of murders committed with firearms since 1979 has been in a steady downward trend despite the rise in murders generally over the same period.
It should also be acknowledged that this period of general decline covered the peak years of importation for the so called military style semi-automatic firearms.
In fact, this period shows an average of 92 murders or 20-30% of the total murders committed each year are carried out with firearms -many more people are murdered by other means.
Since 1990, there has been a rapid increase in murders committed with sharp instruments, and these alone far out number murders with firearms for the same period, once again, despite the vast availability of firearms.
Even when looking at suicides, where there is an alarming increase in incidence, you will find a steady downward trend in the use of firearms.
Available information shows that since 1979, suicides have increased nearly 45%, but use of a firearm to commit suicide has gone down by over 25%.
Since 1979, suicide with a firearm has dropped from nearly 30% of all suicides to about 17%.
Removing completely inoperable guns from our war museums, and paying compensation in excessive amounts is probably one of the more foolish examples of this government's agenda.
The act of removing rusty non-working machine guns from museums is contributing to erasing our history and will not save a single life.
A person in Darwin was paid nearly half a million dollars for 20 millimetre cannons from fighter planes.
Considering the current removal of firearms from private ownership was largely targeted at centre fire semi-automatics, and less than 2%, or 10 firearms related deaths a year are attributable to this style of firearm, is the 500 million dollar buy back coupled with the unaccountable costs, justifiable in the context of the variety of weapons used to commit murder and the many causes of accidental deaths?
Perhaps as many as 50,000 Australians die each year through the effects of diseases caused by alcohol and tobacco - What impact would the 500 million dollars have had in reducing these horrendous figures?
Each year, countless thousands die in road accidents and in all manner of other activities, yet are we to believe these and the deaths from alcohol and tobacco are somehow more acceptable because so many people drink and smoke and drive?
There are millions of firearms and millions of firearm owners but despite the vast numbers and the amount of use, in context the number of deaths is relatively low and the government's approach cannot be justified.
Bear in mind removing fireams from law abiding citizens will most likely only impact accidents, and in this case, there are only about 15 fatalities each year.
A 1000 people die each year from accidental falls and 250 drown.
There was no Gun Debate as such, there was no consultation or concern for the facts, merely misinformation shoved down the throats of an understandably emotional public.
This has been a political exercise pure and simple with no reduction in the amount of firearms in society.
In fact quite the contrary has occurred as the figures show that for every firearm turned in, approximately 1.7 modern firearms have been purchased with the compensation.
There is also of course the issue of the number of firearms that have literally gone underground.
The returns do not begin to account for the estimated number of firearms. In particular, hundreds of thousands of military style semi-automatics would seem to be missing. It is time that we acknowledged that crime is caused by economic desperation and helplessness, unemployment, loss of hope, family breakdown, substance abuse, and cultural conflicts, not by firearm ownership.
The Swiss experience is perhaps the best example, as in that country there are more firearms and fewer deaths than in Australia and the majority of firearms in Switzerland are military weapons - millions of them.
It is only when we as One Nation together address these issues, that crime will reduce.
Violence and crime is not proportional to the availability of firearms, it is directly linked to the security and decency of our society and governments that pretend otherwise are looking to hide the true causes of the situation and escape the responsibility for addressing the real issues and therefore perpetrating a lie on their people.
Saving lives or reducing crime was obviously not behind the government's attacks on private ownership of firearms. Indeed they are themselves guilty of the crime of using an emotive period for political purposes
Have no doubt, the buy back has failed. There are now more firearms out there than before and many are modern and potentially more deadly than the firearms they replaced.
It seems most Australians have not handed in their firearms, and be assured, absolutely no criminals have complied.
What does the government intend to do with the millions of Australians who have not complied?
Will Australia become a police state, with homes systematically raided and property confiscated ?
Will the government harass, fine and jail otherwise innocent law abiding Australians.
History has shown only the worst kind of government disarms its people.
Mr Speaker,
I stand by my belief that,
Australians have the right to defend themselves and their families in their own homes.
Shooting is a legitimate sport and pastime and participants should be treated accordingly.
Disarming law abiding Australians is not in the national interest and will do nothing to reduce crime.
An honest government would take heed, so we can be sure this one is not listening, but simply put, it should be remembered that during the last election campaign, the current government used the slogan, "Enough is Enough".
Be assured, the firearm owners of Australia are tired of unwarranted and unjustified interference, they are tired of being used as political scapegoats and the victims of United Nations treaties.
You can be assured, Australia's firearm owners have adopted the Liberal/National Coalition slogan, because that's exactly how they feel, "Enough is Enough".
http://gwb.com.au/onenation/speeches/sept97b.html
Lazarus wrote:Voting for single issue niche parties, like SFFP, One Notion etc is akin to not voting at all.
I'm not saying we should give up, just that all the energy, work and funding devoted to these parties would be better used to lobby the only people likely to actually have any real power to change things for the better.
Lazarus wrote:Voting for single issue niche parties, like SFFP, One Notion etc is akin to not voting at all.
Yes, they all have positions on other issues, but their small membership base (by comparison) and their small vote share reflects the popularity of their main issue.
For example, as of 2021, only 3.41% of the Australian population own firearms, so to ~96% of the country, the issue is functionally irrelevant at best.
I'm not saying we should give up, just that all the energy, work and funding devoted to these parties would be better used to lobby the only people likely to actually have any real power to change things for the better.
geoff wrote:You're dreaming of you think One Nation is really going to be much substance. They are political leeches with no real values except the culture war division - they will just do whatever is expedient for them at the time. They're just LNP stooges desperate for relevance and they'll Stoke any hate fire they can to get it. If gun owners are the next big public target, don't expect them to take your side if it doesn't help them.
Anyone can publish a policy on a website.
womble wrote:geoff wrote:You're dreaming of you think One Nation is really going to be much substance. They are political leeches with no real values except the culture war division - they will just do whatever is expedient for them at the time. They're just LNP stooges desperate for relevance and they'll Stoke any hate fire they can to get it. If gun owners are the next big public target, don't expect them to take your side if it doesn't help them.
Anyone can publish a policy on a website.
All true. But they’re still more pro gun than either majors.
And our 3.4 of population percent matters to them. They need it. Nothing and no one is beneath them, they have no standards.
Not a shred of virtue or moral compass
And also no qualms defending lafos even if the majority public went full witch hunt.
geoff wrote:womble wrote:geoff wrote:You're dreaming of you think One Nation is really going to be much substance. They are political leeches with no real values except the culture war division - they will just do whatever is expedient for them at the time. They're just LNP stooges desperate for relevance and they'll Stoke any hate fire they can to get it. If gun owners are the next big public target, don't expect them to take your side if it doesn't help them.
Anyone can publish a policy on a website.
All true. But they’re still more pro gun than either majors.
And our 3.4 of population percent matters to them. They need it. Nothing and no one is beneath them, they have no standards.
Not a shred of virtue or moral compass
And also no qualms defending lafos even if the majority public went full witch hunt.
I'm just not willing to side with some of the most repugnant hatemonger racists that parliament has seen in decades simply because they also think guns are cool (and never do anything about it).
I simply don't care about a speech in 1997. Whoop de doo she just said something, and that's all 26 years ago. And someone else thinks that matters now despite not backing it up with anything meaningful since? A speech isn't worth a giraffe full of snow.
One nation are just the Out Loud White Supremacy faction of the LNP (who mostly keep theirs to an inaudible level). Useful idiots for conservative hacks in Parliament.
womble wrote:geoff wrote:You're dreaming of you think One Nation is really going to be much substance. They are political leeches with no real values except the culture war division - they will just do whatever is expedient for them at the time. They're just LNP stooges desperate for relevance and they'll Stoke any hate fire they can to get it. If gun owners are the next big public target, don't expect them to take your side if it doesn't help them.
Anyone can publish a policy on a website.
All true. But they’re still more pro gun than either majors.
And our 3.4 of population percent matters to them. They need it. Nothing and no one is beneath them, they have no standards.
Not a shred of virtue or moral compass
And also no qualms defending lafos even if the majority public went full witch hunt.
geoff wrote:
I'm just not willing to side with some of the most repugnant hatemonger racists that parliament has seen in decades simply because they also think guns are cool (and never do anything about it).
I simply don't care about a speech in 1997. Whoop de doo she just said something, and that's all 26 years ago. And someone else thinks that matters now despite not backing it up with anything meaningful since? A speech isn't worth a giraffe full of snow.
One nation are just the Out Loud White Supremacy faction of the LNP (who mostly keep theirs to an inaudible level). Useful idiots for conservative hacks in Parliament.
womble wrote:I don’t think what happened in Sydney will be good for ON tbh.
The vast majority of christians don’t condone violence and that was a very ugly scene with a group of 15 or so being ganged up on by a much larger group of violent middle eastern thugs. No doubt they would have inflicted serious harm without police presence.
Dose’nt bode well for conservatives when middle eastern gangs can take over a suburb in a violent rampage.
It is what it is. No way to spin it. Newscorp is trying to bury it.
I think the blowback from that will sink ON in this election.
And Christian/ conservative aside it just drives home to anyone with an iota of brain matter who ON really are and what they stand for. Just opportunists masking the same old agenda with a new host. The irony is they’d deport their new supporters if they gained any real power.
The protestors were of a minority demographic. An assault on a minority in pursuit of civil rights is an assault on democracy and freedom for all. It’s the switch you flip that leads straight into fascism.
All democracies are vulnerable to that and hyper wary of it.
And your Australian electorate is 40% immigrant. So that’s an instant 40% of population wondering if they’re next in line for persecution.
f***ing hell Barron. I thought you were smart.
That incident plus a similar one in Melbourne previous seeing a liberal senator on the side of neo nazis pretty much guarantees the last bastion of libtards are going of the coast and straight into the drink in this nsw election.
You’d almost believe both incidents were staged inside jobs for labor. The timing is very suspect.
And that in itself is concerning. They wont have any opposition at state and federal levels that can challenge or contest.
Perhaps likely the teals will become far more prominent in the political landscape to fill that vacuum.
womble wrote:As a nation we can’t really give concessions for one suburb to have a right to discriminate.
Even if as you suggest the local majority hold a particular bias to one group
You have to look past your own bias and view it objectively. We can’t deny a gay child an education because the Arab children just don’t like him or her or it.
What happens when the arabs decide they don’t want girls going to school, or Jews.
What may be a local majority consensus is still a fringe minority relative to mainstream.
Even if you did somehow get a majority vote for it the government can’t mandate it because it goes against our constitution. We are a secular state.
Besides that it’s an affront to equal opportunity, And the freedom to define one’s own destiny. Freedom of choice. From a religious perspective we also have constitutional protections in that. Nobody can be forced to subscribe to any particular set of beliefs.
This isn’t Iran or Afghanistan. This country was founded on the rule of law.
Human rights are recognised and protected nationwide through a range of laws at the federal and state and territory levels, the Australian Constitution, and the common law.
ON are selling a pipe dream to bigots that they can’t deliver. And only to keep themselves in lifestyles of privilege with all the perks.
It’s not possible within the framework of our democracy.
You’re being conned.