Internet Filter.

[Vzzzbx]

Actually, no, you're right, the internet filter is at least four times as dumb as the firearm buyback scheme.

[unfnknblvbl]

isn't it harder to get firearms now than before 97?

Yeah, but the people that want to get them for illegitimate purposes are still getting them.

[BruceCamblzChin]

You mean crims? But they only ever seem to shoot other crims though. Crim on crim doesn't bother me, I would imagine its an occupational hazard with out trying to sound funny.

IMO you could never put a full stop to people having a psychotic episode and shooting strangers, ala Port Arthur or US school shootings, but surely making it more difficult for 'normal' people to get hold of firearms is a good thing even if it only stops ONE person from losing it and shooting people.

edit:

Would I be correct in saying that the only people who can lawfully have a firearm are:

-hunting enthusiasts (for deer, duck and whatnot in the relevant seasons or general paddock-bashing)
-farmers for protection of livestock/crops
-range shooters (I dont know but I beliveve their weapons are locked up AT the range, not kept at their residence)
-coppers

Unlawfully we would have lifetime/hardcore criminals and perhaps a few fellas who fall in to the above categories but have buried weapons that were made illegal in 97?

Correct if wrong.

[Cletus]

Rudd - I do not like this weasely showboat cunt at all. I find the vague attempts at defending him even more distasteful. Something in this man makes me feel hateful toward him, which I'll freely post at this moment because I can.

You see, that's how many of us felt about Howard x 1000000

And I can honestly say I felt the same all through his first term. Somewhere along the way I took a clear look at the alternatives and Howard looked much prettier. See, it's because I exercise free will. I can choose to support a party or not. I might see Rudd in a better light a few years from now but it'll be because he's earned the respect or as with Howard, the alternative seems much worse. I didn't vote for Liberal until they were already in power. And right now I can say that this is the first policy I've seen a government initiate that has the potential to affect every person on this board negatively. Not one or ten or half the members - everyone.

And I find one thing in all of it amusing. I'd assume that a high proportion of those that voted for Rudd (outside of "working families" ) are young educated internet users. The people likely to be most affected.

[BruceCamblzChin]

Yep, wouldnt be a leap of faith to argue that the vast majority of Uni students, as young internet users, would have voted Rudd for example.

[Vzzzbx]

And I find one thing in all of it amusing. I'd assume that a high proportion of those that voted for Rudd (outside of "working families" ) are young educated internet users. The people likely to be most affected.

The people who know why Howard had to go.

[Mightycooper]

All the firearms buy back did was restrict legitamite firearms user from obtaining specific firearms which were used in specific types of competitions etc. Firearms related crimes have not dropped. Most firearms related crimes are committed with illegal firearms.

[Mightycooper]

Im a liberal voter and agree with blotts and other liberal voters here (not that i know much about politics) but 1 thing Howard did wrong was the gun buy back, he stopped my chance of having a semi auto

THANK FUCKING CHRIST FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whats wrong Pops dont you like the idea of me having a semi auto

[Blotto]

I think i'd fear you holding onto a paddle pop stick....

when ya coming back up to Hahndorf.... I'll come watch ya shoot....

[stanard]

And I find one thing in all of it amusing. I'd assume that a high proportion of those that voted for Rudd (outside of "working families" ) are young educated internet users. The people likely to be most affected.

Same can be said for "Howard's Battlers" who were most affected thanks to stupidly insane house prices, Work Choices and skyrocketing everything else!

[BruceCamblzChin]

Firearms related crimes have not dropped. Most firearms related crimes are committed with illegal firearms.

Not trying to be a smart arse but do you got stats for that? I have invested some time in this thread now and would like to have a clear view of this ish.

In your opinion (IYO?) what would reduce firearms related crimes?

[t0mby]

Im a liberal voter and agree with blotts and other liberal voters here (not that i know much about politics) but 1 thing Howard did wrong was the gun buy back, he stopped my chance of having a semi auto

THANK FUCKING CHRIST FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whats wrong Pops dont you like the idea of me having a semi auto

He's more interested in your semi.

[BruceCamblzChin]

Ohhh. Gross.

[Blotto]

THANK FUCKING CHRIST FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whats wrong Pops dont you like the idea of me having a semi auto

He's more interested in your semi.

[Mightycooper]

Firearms related crimes have not dropped. Most firearms related crimes are committed with illegal firearms.

Not trying to be a smart arse but do you got stats for that? I have invested some time in this thread now and would like to have a clear view of this ish.

In your opinion (IYO?) what would reduce firearms related crimes?

Firearm related deaths from 1991

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Study article

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 65717.html

They have dropped the slightest amount since the buy back but not significantly as anticipated by the government.

[BruceCamblzChin]

nice one man. I shall view them and then I will be well informed.

[Mightycooper]

To answer your second question. I really don't know what would reduce firearms related crimes. I don't think they will ever really go down. The illegal firearms out there need to be disposed of but there is no practical way that it could happen. You will never get rid of them all. And of course there are some bad eggs who are licensed and use firearms for crimes, but they are in the minority of licensed owners and are condemned by those trying to do the right thing.

[Hercy]

Firearm related deaths from 1991

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Study article

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 65717.html

They have dropped the slightest amount since the buy back but not significantly as anticipated by the government.

I don't know, if you look at the ABS website for statistics up to 2007, then you can see that firearm-related homicides have halved since the buyback (ignoring 1996 which was clearly skewed by Port Arthur) while total homicides have only fallen about 15-20%.

[selfish]

it's off-topic, i know, but i blame obama for the sub-prime housing crisis, just so you know

[itch]

You're kidding right?

[BruceCamblzChin]

Damn you Obama Bin Laden!!!!

[GameHED]

http://nocleanfeed.com/action.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
^
Pass to friends, contacts, everyone you think would be interested in not having a no-opt-out censored internet in australia, or who just don't want their tax $ wasted on something that won't work or something they don't believe in.

About the guns thing: I can think of one instance where 'normal' people might be justified in having them: perhaps there may be looters in a natural disaster and it happens on a large scale where the police just can't be everywhere at once. The idea of guns being evil comes from the UN whose goal is to eventually disarm every nation so they can rule the world by being a global government of one rule, one set of laws, who has the right to dictate how your country should be run. (like sauron using the One Ring in LOTR to gather up power into a central source for himself) It's not an idea that our leaders themselves come up with. All the issues that are non-issues to normal people (like this filtering idea, and the the global warming thing, and the terror war which can last indefinitely so that it gives an excuse to build the global empire up) become issues that are talked about in public only because it benefits a global government which will one day take control over everyone on the planet.

That's why the push for less power for people/individuals and move towards transferring of that power to big government or at least centralising it in some way so it is easier to control you, is put in motion. ("New world order" as I mentioned in the other post with Bush senior giving the speech)

You'll see a lot more of this "raping of 'old world order' rights" in the future until the whole planet is a huge prison controlled by a supernatural entity. We all assume our leaders care about what the people of their own nation actually want, rather than them serving some other purpose from an outside source who seeks to gain from the changes being introduced. No point getting angry at them, because they are just the puppets. All other nations will eventually have the same laws brought in eventually. Whether by force or consent (due to persuasion).
The nazis succeeded disarming the population and they were easily taken control of and helpless. This weakening of individual rights is similar but instead of just one area of the planet, it will happen on a global scale eventually. They need to stage events to convince you it's a good idea. On tv they already want to condition people that only the bad guy uses a gun and if you use it you are a murderer trying to commit a criminal act. Yes the gun can be dangerous to your (the user's) health, but so is alcohol if we don't ban it so that no drink drivers can kill people when they get into a car. Why don't we ban alcohol or cars?

This is why I think either way, whichever person you support, we are doomed just in a different way. You get to choose which type of doom you get to go towards. As long as they can get 50% of the doom going forward they are happy. Never believe anything the government promises you. They fully intend to break the promise in the hope you are not watching or there is no media attention on the issue so they can sneak in new laws to oppress you in some way. Just do it slowly and carefully. The original plan was that you could opt-out, now it is changed to "no opt-out". You want freedom, you got to be ready for when they try to sneak shit in when you are most sleepy.

The Old Republic is already dead, Jedi are being mind-tricked by the Sith Lord. All that has to happen is convincing the public it's a good idea to give up their control and hand it over through a series of events that wil make them more-easily persuaded before they put their arms in the air and say 'you win - this event changed my mind on the matter' in defeat (all the staged events have worked) or from being tired of hearing about the problem that they are just happy to have them shut up about it so they give up. (doesn't stop the government constantly pushing the idea though: so long as people pay taxes so the money is wasted on services they don't want, the beast is well fed to continue )

At the end of the day, less power for you = more power for them to monopolise:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 183052_ITM

In Global Gun Grab, Grigg reveals the real intent behind the UN's call for "general and complete disarmament." That intent, he convincingly demonstrates, has much more to do with acquiring a monopoly of power than with eliminating all armaments. Whether the armament in question is a weapon of mass destruction or a Colt Python revolver, the UN seeks a globalized police apparatus that will enable it to impose its will on all the nations and peoples of the Earth. That apparatus will control the world's armaments. And those armaments, Grigg persuasively argues, will be used, not to enforce world peace, but to impose world tyranny.

It will be a false *peace imo. They can say they are protecting the kiddies all they like, but all that is going to happen is that they are going to grow up brainwashed in a world with no freedom to do anything or think for themselves. There will be no variety in ideas, or diversity. Books and the internet will be forbidden kinda like that movie "Equilibrium". Everyone will be forced to take a drug (big pharma is already filthy rich) to make to mod behavior. Science fiction "Credits" will be the currency so that it is easier to just directly tax you by deleting your money electronically; even if the money isn't real or backed by anything of real value. Doom.

*although there are alot of well-meaning liberals who will be tricked into it, because they truly believe in the idea of a gun free world, it is the the evil intent, the real purpose of the takeover of power is what they should be thinking of and not the officially stated reasons for the taking over of power (which is just the cover for something more nefarious) which is what they should be watching out for. As I said, I want kiddies to be safe from the adult content, but there is nothing stopping people from getting the filter themselves as individuals, so why is the government wasting your money on something you don't need? It must be for other reasons? And it all leads to gradual world domination through control over your mind. It is all very sublte and they plot these things in secret so don't bother hearing about it in mainstream press or on tv. They want you to be like those trapped people in the Matrix, in a dream state selling you the fake version which feels good vs letting you in on the real one. To liberals who are scared of guns, you can't realistically say that the weapons themselves are evil because without the atomic bomb, people would not have been scared to keep fighting if they weren't prepared to kill themselves/their own children and their own land to do it. Similarly on a microcosmic scale, a weapon provides a deterrent from crime just as a big tough security guard that checks your bags at every retail store does by being threatening in some way. An old man with a gun who can't physically run fast or protect anything feels more secure with a ranged weapon than a melee one. Technology itself isn't evil, it's just the evil intent of the user that makes them it look bad. I always get pissed off in a movie when I see an anti-gun message that makes the weapon itself bad instead of the bad guy. Keep your politics out of my action movies thanks. One day when all the power is monopolised, and everyone's rights are gone, you'll start to understand. The thing is the more power that is centralised into fewer hands, the greater the temptation of those few to outright abuse it at the expense of the many who can't fight back. I think it's safer to just spread it out so people don't get massacred and instead support themselves.

[Twiztid Elf]

The Greens are against the internet filter. That *should* be enough to block this in the Senate.

[BruceCamblzChin]

This is the first time ever for me saying "Yay Greenies!"

[Pointy Cat]

The Greens are against the internet filter. That *should* be enough to block this in the Senate.

Only if the Liberal party opposes it in the Senate too. They've said they think the Internet filter is a bad idea, so there's hope, but I'm wary. I'm sure some in the Liberal party think it's a great idea.