Apparently, Greens leader Christine Milne reckons the new “micro-party” senators are “right wing extremists”.
Here’s one of them. Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm:
Yes, of course Milne would consider such ideas as “extreme”.
Less taxes.
More freedom.
It’s easy to see why the party that wants World Government does not approve.
UPDATE:
Another reason why World Government aspirants do not want such “extremists” having a voice in our nation’s parliament –
UPDATE 2:
Barnaby Is Right 
If I thought that they could get a senate seat in Qld I would have voted for them ahead of PUP instead I gave them single digit number below the line. I have followed them for a long time after I read Ronald Kitchings’ Understanding Personal and Economic Liberty.
Three of the boys were interviewed by Lee Sales on 7:30 Report and came through well. One spoke as well as any entrenched pollie I have seen. I wish them well.
I voted the Shooters & Fishers on the White Ballot Paper & LDP on the Green & I am damn proud of it,,,,
for years these Political hacks have been using preference flows to thier advantage in keeping out small parties from their exclusive little elitist club, now that the tables have turned itz whine whine whine……
Milne, go ring Nine Whine Whine, they will rush a WAAAAMMMbulance out to sooth your distress…. frikken cow.
Would the Gun Haters like some Cheese & Crackers with your Whine?
Sorry, don’t know how else to pass this link on :
China’s Housing Bubble
Ordos: The biggest ghost town in China
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17390729
Agree with most of his policies, but his stance on guns is a little concerning. I do see his logic (sort of) but if as he says guns are mostly owned by criminals who use them to kill other criminals, that I fail to see that as a problem.
It’s about far more than just shooting/murder rates. It is about other crime statistics too — assaults, robberies, home invasions, etc. There is a solid body of evidence from around the world demonstrating that not merely allowing, but indeed, actively encouraging regular law abiding citizens to become familiar with safe firearms handling, storage, and use, and (a further extension) allowing CCW permits, reduces all crime statistics. [Edit: the deterrent factor]
Ask yourself why the mainstream media, and even more prominently, totalitarian world-government inclined political movements such as the Greens, all aim to disarm the general population as far as they possibly can, and pave the way to that end with relentless propaganda — smearing and vilifying all firearms owners as potentially-unhinged, knuckle-dragging rednecks.
DISCLOSURE: I’ve been around firearms since I was a teenager, when my grandfather taught me safe firearms handling, and have been a firearms owner since I was old enough to acquire a licence. The very first item I saved up for and purchased with my very first job out of Year 12, was a shotgun.
Incidentally, I hate killing in all forms — I shoo away mosquitos, or move away myself; take spiders outside, rather than kill them; weep (yes, really) when it has been necessary to cull rogue foxes attacking the poultry. And yet, I still find quiet enjoyment … and Zen-like mental discipline … in trying to control my breathing and body movements in order to direct a piece of lead through the exact centre of a piece of paper some X metres distant.
Your committment to animal rights is be congratulated BI (agree with you on spiders, not so mosquitos) but I digress.
I remain unconvinced. I do not believe giving ordinary citizens easier access to guns is the best way to solve these problems. If our police forces were not obessed with fining people for going 2km/hr over the speed limit, then they might be more effective in actually catching real criminals.
I am certaintly no Greenie, but I have never bought the argument that having citizens having access to firearms prevents Governments impringing on the rights of citizens. Even in a country like the United States, which would have the some of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, the weapons the US government would have at their disposal would be vastly superior to anything the average Joe public could get their hands on.
Guns are used in thousands of mruders every year in the US and it is a weapon capable of killing people in a matter of moments (e.g. Sandy Hook).
Based on the 7.30 report interview last night, David Leyonhjelm believes this is more a state issue anyway so I don’t think this will discussed much at a Federal level.
Appreciate your thoughts on this Richo. Perfectly reasonable.
FWIW, I’ve never been one to support the idea of a generalised “easier access to guns”. On the contrary, I fully support the additional prerequisites for firearms ownership (eg, safety training courses, statutory requirements re safes and home storage, in-transit security, etc) that have been introduced in Australia over the years.
However, that said, it is my view that — once an individual has passed such requirements, and (ideally), demonstrated a proven track record of safe and responsible firearms ownership — then (and only then) additional freedoms (such as the LDP’s policy of CCW permits) should be an option available to them. I accept the many statistics showing that in those rare countries (and counties, in the USA) where CCW is an option, that crime statistics are reduced. The logic is sound, and well-evidenced — if criminals (or those thinking of criminal acts) do not know who might be “carrying”, it has been proven to be a significant disincentive to criminal actions of all kinds.
It is important to understand that the problems with gun violence in the USA are complex, and in large part due to the easy availability of firearms to just about anyone. Along with (most importantly) a social culture (cf. TV, movies, electronic gaming) that for many decades has desensitised the population, through the active promotion of / saturation exposure to extraordinarily graphic violence.
EDIT: An additional thought, re “the weapons the US government would have at their disposal would be vastly superior to anything the average Joe public could get their hands on.”
While true (greater firepower, technology), this is nonetheless a common (and flawed) argument raised against the idea that an armed citizenry serves as a check on government motivations towards totalitarian actions … one typically raised as an excuse to disarm or further restrict private ownership, you will notice. Consider the various Resistance movements in occupied Europe during WW2, as just one simple example. Single citizen uses spade (or home-made single shot pistol) to down occupying soldier armed with rifle; uses rifle to shoot another soldier armed with a machine gun; uses machine gun to … etc etc.
Some pertinent examples Richo:
http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/07/18/senior-citizen-shoots-armed-robbers-at-internet-cafe/
There are many more examples.
This article worth reading too –
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/
P.S. Please bear in mind that in taking this position, I am vehemently anti-violence, anti-killing. A pacifist, if one must be “labelled”.
From Protocol 5 –
Nowadays it is more important to disarm the peoples than to lead them into war: more important to use for our advantage the passions which have burst into flames than to quench their fire: more important to eradicate them. THE PRINCIPLE OBJECT OF OUR DIRECTORATE CONSISTS IN THIS: TO DEBILITATE THE PUBLIC MIND BY CRITICISM; TO LEAD IT AWAY FROM SERIOUS REFLECTIONS CALCULATED TO AROUSE RESISTANCE; TO DISTRACT THE FORCES OF THE MIND TOWARDS A SHAM FIGHT OF EMPTY ELOQUENCE.
“……actively encouraging regular law abiding citizens to become familiar with safe firearms handling, storage, and use…….”
The idea of defending oneself and family is sound. But if guns are locked away then not much chance of doing that anyway as the thugs would be long gone by the time the weapons were taken out of the locker and loaded.
The logic of not disarming people in Australia is sound. It appears that every two bit thug owns a gun whilst almost nobody in the wider population has a weapon. This is more like lambs to the slaughter but thankfully (so far) the crims are only targeting their own kind.
I owned an air rifle at 10 years of age and was given a .22 calibre rifle at 12 years of age. Pretty dumb by current standards but those were the times when such things occurred. After I shot a few (innocent) sparrows with the slug gun my conscience worked as it should and I left the wildlife alone so the .22 was responsibly used even though I was of young age. Given today’s kids I am not sure that this would still be the case.
As a regular traveller to the US I have watched the gun history with interest. One massacre after another was the storyline for at least the last 10 years. The massacre of a heap of primary school kids led to an outcry from Obama who wanted guns restricted. He failed. And then Obama tried to get background checks and a few piss weak other controls in place. He failed again. I asked a few Americans why, given what had occurred for many years, the president could not get the most basic of protections in place for average Americans. The answer: the gun lobby controls capitol hill.
So perhaps we should at the very least be happy with our current imperfect system. At least Australians are notbeing machine gunned down in the streets.
“The idea of defending oneself and family is sound. But if guns are locked away then not much chance of doing that anyway..”
A solid point Mick. That is (in part) why I am open to the idea of CCW permits being available, to those who have demonstrated themselves responsible enough to do so (ie, concealed carry). The deterrent impact would still come into play, even if relatively few citizens took it up. Criminals could never be confident that a home they were planning to invade did not have a householder sitting inside watching tele or reading a book, with a handgun on his/her hip.
I guess my only concern is the type of (yahoo) young folk who are routinely killing themselves on our streets. I wonder if these mental midgets would shoot anybody who looks at them sideways rather than king hit them. It might be a case of exchanging the right to defend oneself for more deaths in the long run.
Given our increasing exposure to all those decadent and desensitising influences that have so degraded American society, the frequency of the incidence of this in Australia is, IMO, (a) overstated, (b) over-dramatised, and (c) somewhat irrelevant to the issue of firearms control. The young folk in particular are getting hammered, and belting into each other with bottles and such (or the nearest hard/sharp object to hand) anyway; we should be asking ourselves why, and addressing the cause, rather than (as per the Greens etc) exaggerating such incidents as an excuse to restrict the law abiding and responsible from defending themselves and their loved ones.
The “WHY” is of course the pertinent question. As an ex teacher of many years standing the answer to this question was bleeding obvious.
There is little exageration. Turn on the news and watch commentary from the doctors at St Vincents and the ambos….some of whom now are routinely attacked for helping those in need.
It should be noted that in the 60s there was not much real need to defend oneself. It was unlikely that one would be targetted by a group of thugs and gang attacked and kicked to death. Today it is. In the 60s the police sorted out the thugs. Today the legal system will prosecute anybody who does a social good in this manner. I grew up on the outskirts of Bankstown and the bad element was run out of town by a local vigilante group. It worked and people walked the streets without fear.
I do not believe that there is “exageration”. Evidence of how things have changed for the worse comes a regular intervals.
Mick, I must agree with you on this. For many years the legal profession have been the prime cause of degeneration of rational law end order. Defending obvious criminals and others to the utmost monetry extent.