The onus must be on the pro gun Lobby

Not open for further replies.


Mar 23, 2006
Sydney Australia
Heres a different perspective

There are an estimated 5 million banned firearms in Australia ?

No wonder crime and violence is increasing down under but lets not blame this on legal gun owners though, In Australia not one handgun used in a homicide between 1997 and 1999 was used by a licensed owner. One gun was registered, but to the victim.” – AIC, Media release

As for all your dummy spits on the GUN BUYBACK

Tighter gun control laws were not framed with the specific expectation that gun related deaths would decline."

-- Anne Standford,
press secretary for Police minister

What the people who advocated the laws argued was that they would reduce gun crime and the latest crime statistics from my state show a 26 per cent decrease in ’shoot with intent’ incidents and a 36 per cent decrease in assaults
with a handgun.

"The chances of being shot dead by a stranger are incredibly remote. The really important thing is to stop people in families using firearms to resolve disputes. Buyback won't do it, nor was it designed to do it."

-- Dr Adam Graycar
Australian Institute of Criminology

So.In total there are still between two and five million banned firearms in the country.

-- John Tingle, NSW Shooters Party on Allan Jones AM radio, 2UE

Shooters also just replaced guns they handed in on the buyback with more powerful models or made a quid or two

As an example I know of a person that handed in an old Stirling model 20 (.22 rimfire) with a broken trigger and a Ruger model 10/22 (.22 rim-fire)with a broken rear sight and received $300 for the two auto-loaders, far more than any dealer would have paid for them. This person is putting the money towards two military surplus .303 Enfield bolt action rifles at $150 each.

I Can hear the gun lobby nra parots here scoffing, “Guns don’t kill people. People do.” This ditty is familiar to all of us. Yes, and bombs and chemical weapons don’t kill people either, but they’re not sold over the counter to just about anyone without a criminal record who can prove that he or she can use them safely.
or on the black market

You can go into a western suburbs pub and within 2 hours have any type of gun you want."

Minister for Police and Emergency Services
-- The Hon Bill McGrath MLA

Was the buyback useful?

Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon). In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a firearm.

By destroying one-seventh of its estimated stock of firearms (the equivalent figure in the USA would be 30 million), Australia has significantly altered the composition of its civilian arsenal.

"Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."

-- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Jun 1999

does owning a Gun decrease the Gun Kill" ?

Of the 12,000 guns used to kill people in the US every year, only 160 are used in legitimate self-defense. Guns in the home are used seven times more often for murder than for self-defense. A handgun makes it horrifyingly easy for people to express hate, on purpose or on impulse, by killing people.
There are many paradoxes in life. A persistent and troubling one is that the older and wiser societies become the less capable they appear to be of resolving complex social problems. Handy (1995, p 22) reminds us that where life fails it can succeed. Where life failed on April 28 1996 in Port Arthur it can succeed if it learns from that experience and endeavours to put in place mechanisms that reduce the chances of such a disaster happening again. Research is needed to explore possible connections between gun availability and brutal killings. In the short term the onus should be upon those seeking to justify less restrictive gun laws to make out their case

Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.

the pro Gun people use the UK as an example of Gun controls not working


A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.

The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.

That upsets the NRA. It doesnt suit their spin

Maybe our Gun Owners are more responsible

In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.

I will leave you on another positive note

Well at least we dont give Guns to 5 Year olds

Would any of the other Pro Gun people posting here?
There I have asked a question. I bet I do not receive any replies.

And We in Australia still have a lesser problem than a country like South Africa

A study of 10 mortuaries in South Africa shows that firearms kill more people than cars.!!!!!!!!!

The Gun Law Con website
Radio 2UE
Rick starr

"You meet the most abusive people in the AussieSeek Syn Byn at

Never argue with an idiot. He will bring you down to his level and win by experience."

Surely if there is a place on this board for a NRA clone , then the alternative viewpoint from Brady GCA- has as much right to be heard?

Or are your attitudes toward Freedom of Speech only relevant if you agree with the speaker

Good to have you here, but it's very hard to address your points when it's unclear which comments are your personal comments, and which are quoted from various articles.

If you're interested in initiating a debate, it may be more effective to bring things up point-by-point, and clearly indicate which quoted statements you agree or disagree with.

Well at least we dont give Guns to 5 Year olds

Would any of the other Pro Gun people posting here?
There I have asked a question. I bet I do not receive any replies.

Assuming that this question is in your voice, and not quoted from some article, I'll give a reply.

Most folks on this board probably would not advocate giving a five-year old a rifle to use unsupervised. However the majority of members of this board would probably approve of letting a well-behaved five year old use a rifle to shoot targets with adult supervision. In fact, many members of the board have frequently done so.

There are many members of this board who recall going hunting with a .22 rifle, unsupervised, before even the age of 10, back in the 1950s and 1960s and earlier. This was actually quite common in many parts of the U.S. until relatively recently.

What has changed so as to make this unacceptable? Of the 10 year olds who had their own gun, rode through the middle of town on a bicycle with their rifle to get to the woods to hunt, how many attacked their classmates with those rifles? Practically none.

There are many, many far larger social issues at play in violent behavior in the U.S., Australia, and other countries.

Again, welcome aboard, and I encourage you to continue posting, ideally bringing up individual points rather than a lengthy post of many points, in order to address these issues.

A suggestion, aussieseek, if you are trying to make a point, use things like the quote tags, and find the "period" and "Shift" key on your keyboard. Your comments are indistinguishable from your quoted sources.

Here is an example, you said:
There I have asked a question. I bet I do not receive any replies.

Here is a reply: "You are wrong."

There, simple really.
I’ll present the reasons why I do not support gun prohibition. First, you state that the onus is upon those skeptical of gun control to establish why the government should permit civilian firearm ownership. You provide no political or logical reason for this burden, only quoting some empirical claims. If you’re argument for this burden is simply that the gun control position has commanding empirical support and, therefore, justifies an ‘onus,’ you’re mistaken. Not only is the empirical justification for gun control dubious (see infra), but also its fails to demonstrate why those skeptical of gun control’s reasoning or efficacy carry the burden of proof.

This supposed burden of proof upon those opposing prohibition is unfounded. Free societies are free because they do not arbitrarily restrict citizens’ liberties. A compelling reason is always required to support a prohibition. A justification is especially important in this situation because tens of millions of Americans, and probably millions of Australians, use firearms for sport and pleasure; to arbitrarily deny millions of citizens the hobbies and activities they choose to pursue is contrary to basic principles of freedom and autonomy. Therefore, I believe that the onus is upon those who wish to deny gun ownership to the millions who see it as an important, if not fundamental, aspect of their lives.

There is no reasonable justification for gun prohibition. The most simplistic arguments against firearms are claims that firearms are somehow ‘evil.’ Such a position confuses the moral term evil; evil presupposes some moral choice, which is impossible for an inanimate object. A firearm can be put to evil uses, but no inanimate object is inherently evil. Therefore, an argument for banning firearms must explain why the uses to which firearms are put would make their prohibition a wise policy.

Firearms are undoubtedly sometimes put to ill use; however, almost any imagined commodity has at one time been used for nefarious ends. Some level of misuse must be shown to establish that society is better off with a prohibition. The circumstances surrounding firearms are more complex than simply analyzing the misuses of firearms. Some commodities may have no legitimate purposes. For example, cocaine has no obvious legitimate purpose; or, to cite one of your analogies, civilian uses of high explosive bombs serve no legitimate purpose. However, firearms are unlike bombs because they do serve many lawful and moral purposes. Even gun control advocates hold that firearms are sometimes used for self-defense; clearly that is why the police regularly carry firearms. Guns are also used by the tens of millions who engage in lawful sporting events, including Olympic sports. Collectors and historical re-enactors also morally use firearms. Therefore, any possible misuse of firearms must be weighed in light of their legitimate purposes.

Next, what level of misuse would justify prohibiting firearms? Just some misuse, of less weight than legitimate uses, would not justify a prohibition. Otherwise, many other products must also be prohibited. Cars, swimming pools, alcohol, prescription narcotics, rock climbing, skydiving, and innumerable other activities and products regularly injure and kill. However, their prohibition is not justified, or even seriously advocated. To justify a prohibition, the harmful effects must clearly outweigh any legitimate uses.

The empirical evidence concerning gun control does not support prohibition. Not only does the evidence fail to support the claim that guns cause more harm than good, but it also fails to show how gun control will address those harmful effects. Criminology studies have shown that crime is a complex problem and that firearms play a small part in causing violence. The most objective and comprehensive examination of the empirical studies concerning firearms and gun control is Gary Kleck’s book Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. For example, by looking at all the studies measuring the prevalence of defensive gun uses in the U.S., all but one flawed study showed huge annual uses of firearms for self-defense: “defensive gun uses by crime victims are three to four times more common than crimes committed with guns…” (p. 184). This fact alone raises serious doubts about whether it is wise to prohibit firearms. For a prohibition to be wise, not only must it account for those millions unable to use a firearm to defend themselves, but also show how it would effectively reduce the three-times less common occurrence of criminal firearm usage. This is not even considering the other lawful firearm uses that a prohibition would end and, therefore, requiring more justification.

The justification you propose is that a prohibition would prevent average gun owners from using firearms in a fit of rage. Therefore, even if criminals are unaffected by a prohibition, it is still valuable in preventing these crimes caused when law-abiding-citizen go mad. This theory is often advanced, but it has been overwhelmingly disproven by research. Don B. Kates, a prominent researcher in this field, wrote: “It simply isn’t true that previously law-abiding citizens commit most murders or many murders or virtually any murders; and so disarming them could not eliminate most any many or virtually any murders. Homicide studies show that murderers are not ordinary citizens, but extreme aberrants of whom it is unrealistic to assume that they will have any more compunction about flouting gun laws than about murder.” Don B. Kates, Armed: A New Perspective on Gun Control, p. 72.

You also cite cross national crime statistics, but this information is irrelevant. Crime is a very complex issue and nations, especially ones in different hemispheres, have numerous cultural, economic, historical, geographical, political, etc. differences. To simply compare raw crime data is to ignore the manifest differences between countries and the enormous complexities inherent in the study of violent crime. For an excellent analysis of this issue, see David B. Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies.

Even if one doubts the research showing that gun control is ineffective and gun ownership provides a huge net benefit for society, that research at least proves that the efficacy of gun control is uncertain at best. For example, the Center for Disease Control, anything but a pro-gun organization, recently analyzed the available research on gun control. It studied eleven different basic types of gun control. Based upon the existing research, it concluded that for every type of gun control there exists “insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness. The National Academy of Science came to the same conclusion.

A free society must justify its exercise of the coercive powers of government. This notion lies at the heart of the rule of law and the basic political theories underlying western societies, from Aristotle to Locke to the present. If gun control advocates want to use the government to disarm millions of citizens, thus depriving them of the ability to use firearms for self-defense and other moral purposes, a justification is necessary. A free society cannot eliminate hundreds of lawful activities, enjoyed by tens of millions of citizens, just because some want to- those in favor of outlawing a commodity owned by tens of millions and owned by citizens since the beginning of this nation, and yours, must present a compelling case. If you are correct and firearms are of no value and cause much harm, in time research should prove you right; but right now all reliable evidence points the other way. Until you can prove your case, there is no reason for society to take the drastic and controversial action of prohibiting firearms. And for the U.S., there is also the whole issue of the Second Amendment and natural law.

Sorry for the length and any speeling or grammatical errors,

I think alot of it just speaks for itself too:

Tighter gun control laws were not framed with the specific expectation that gun related deaths would decline."

-- Anne Standford,
press secretary for Police minister
Thats just spooky sounding.

A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.
Whoopie I get beaten into a coma or knifed instead.

Two years ago in the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.
"Scotland's homicide rate for 2004-05 was the highest in almost a decade, according to newly released figure.
As in previous years, the use of a sharp instrument was the most common method of killing in 2004-05, accounting for 72 victims."

A 2005 UN report listed Scotland as the most violent developed country in the world with people 3x more likely to be assaulted than Americans. The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.Violent crime has doubled in Scotland over the past 20 years and levels, per head of population, are now comparable with cities such as Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg and Tbilisi.

Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."
Once again I get to be assaulted with a bat or knife instead of a gun. I'm more likely to be assaulted by someone with a lethal weapon, its just less likely to be a gun. Thats of really no consolation to me.
I did a comparative study a few months ago. On a per capita ratio, gun crimes in Australia were actually slightly higher than gun crimes in the US. I find it very disturbing that AussieSeek neglected to post the research done here in the us about the number of crimes PREVENTED by lawful gun owners. I want to say 2.5 million crimes were PREVENTED, but that figure eludes me right now and I'm feeling somewhat lazy to dig up the research again.

Of course, Armed robberies increased 20 percent.... The Sheeple have been disarmed, so now all aussies get the chance to be beaten, stabbed, shot, whacked with a stick, with no way of defending themselves, BRAVO!. I think we need to put ads in all the US Newspapers.....

CRIMINALS, a free Ride in Australia awaits. See your local Police for free Airfare. Even better, CRIMINALS, See Great Britain! and rob it!
"A study of 10 mortuaries in South Africa shows that firearms kill more people than cars.!!!!!!!!!"

Thats South Africa. Here in the US, cars kill 16 times more people than all gun deaths.

"Of the 12,000 guns used to kill people in the US every year, only 160 are used in legitimate self-defense. Guns in the home are used seven times more often for murder than for self-defense. A handgun makes it horrifyingly easy for people to express hate, on purpose or on impulse, by killing people."

In the US, guns are used for self defense a couple million times per year. The thing is, typicaly, when a good person pulls a gun on a criminal, they don't need to fire. By the way, where did you get that 7 times more often used for murder statistic? I've never heard of it before and doubt its truthfulness.

You seem really hung up on firearm related offenses going down as a result of gun bans. I don't know of a single instance where sweeping gun bans resulted in anything other than higher murder rates. The fact is, when you render good people defenseless, you expose them to killers, and thats why murder rates go up. I don't much care about stats of crimes merely involving firearms, if a gun ban increases murder rates, the ban is wrong.

Consider this. In Israel, most law abiding adults are packing heat. Yes, they have their terrorism problems, but petty crime is almost non existant. When the bulk of good people have the ability and desire to defend themselves, crime rates are phenominaly low. In some cases, like in the US, people can legaly carry handguns, but the bulk of people choose not to. In states where more people have and carry guns, crime rates are lower. In states where fewer people carry guns, crime rates are higher, but people carrying guns are certainly safer.

A rather amusing piece of information which further proves my point about crime in the US is the amuzing grades that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gives to each state. The less gun rights a state gives its citizens, the better the grade they get. In almost every case, the worse the grade the Brady bunch gives a state, the less crime it has.

One last thing. How can a Government "buy back" guns that were never their's to begin with?
The Onus is on the anti crowd

Aussie should also consider the fact that we here in the US have a little thing called The Constitition. Lefties that oppose the right to gun ownership do believe that other rights such as abortion, speech, press, etc. are Constitutionally protected and should go unchecked. This is enough to establish that antis do think the Constitution is valid and should be followed (at least when it benefits them). So then I would say that the onus should be on the anti crowd to establish why they feel the 2nd should be forsaken when they expect their rights to be protected.
Even if all of Aussieseek's statistics were accurate, correct, and honest (which they aren't), the simple fact remains that gun control is a human rights violation. Free men may own weapons, slaves/serfs/subjects may not.

Access to weapons is one of the hallmarks of a free society. This universal truth is well established in the political philosophies upon which the US is founded, and which most western liberal democracies (including Australia) have subsequently emulated. It is my inviolable right, as a citizen of a free country, to have access to weapons.

I won't presume to tell Australians whether or not their freedom matters to them. Australians must decide for themselves whether or not they wish to remain free people.

But I can answer for myself and for the US. Freedom matters to us. We will not sell our freedoms away in exchange for bogus statistics and empty promises. We will not allow an incompetent police force blame our God-given rights for their own catastrophic failures.

Our right to own weapons, and to be treated as free men, is sacred to us. We will not give that up.
The 3 Anti Gun Posters Tom,straightshooter and cardigan

Thank You for all your Postings.I put it up here at THR thanks to BR for allowing it to promote discouse and
to give you an insight into one of three hostile gun posters on the aussieseek Messageboards site.
They have caused much angst as it easy to affect public opinion here in Australia and laws are always up for review

Gulp !!!!

( Theres Tom,straightshooter and cardigan). That was Cardigan
So its not mine.

All of us are better than one of us and your collective thoughts surt make sense and is appreciated.

You are welcome to go to
or direct to the SYN BYN messageboards at

If you post mention THR so there is back traffic to THR.
Yesterday there were 5,900 Visits so its not a sleepy
By the way new posters there are called feral brats for a while ( its a computer Program)
please dont get your bee in a bonnet about that.

Its sad. I know One of the anti gun posters is American and moved to Australia to escape Guns.

Now he is jaded and finding that people are people
everywhere. He could have also left for the cars!
Because I was born in America...

I don't need anybody's skewed statistics to make the case that I should not own a gun. I reject them anyway. I was born in America and I have the birthright to own a gun. All you anti-gun fascists may forcefully stuff your lies and half-truths up your collective rosebuds. I'm keeping my current guns and will buy more as time goes by.
The stuff presented by Aussieseek in his first posting consists mainly of anti legal gun ownership propaganda prepared and presented by a political organisation over here called the Greens (a quaint name for an organisation that is, in fact, communist to the core - they are often referred to as the Watermelon party - green on the outside and red on the inside).

The author of this rubbish is one Lee Rhiannon, the sole Green member of parliament in the NSW government. This person was a colleague of one Rebecca Peters (many amercians will know this person) who between them set up the Coalition for Gun Control Australia, a notorious organisation which may have had some involvement in the lead up to the Port Arthur Massacre.

Anything produced by Lee Rhiannon is either an outright lie or a gross misrepresentation or deliberate distortion of the truth.

Why this sort of rubbish has to be posted on this forum is beyond me. All I can think of is that it is designed to stir up as much trouble here as it does on the heavily controlled forums in Australia.
Gun Policy unlikely to change in Australia

The Greens are not Communist.Theyre a horror party distinctly different. Maybe worse
Cortez invents posts misinformation and reflects a label to demonise them

And So he should

The Talk back joke going around is "Oh the Greens, Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside

It reminds me of the pre Mandella times in South Afgrica when with the Suppression of Communism Act everybody was a ‘communist’ who disliked the Nationalist Apartheid South African Government’s policies and said so.

Of course they werent,but it was a convenient label

In any case. If you want to see how bad things some would wish for

Have a read of this.

They'll never gain power and the present status quo
with guns is unlikely to change in Australia

The major parties are not planning to tighten
any Gun Laws
Aussie, I am not a stupid man, but I can't make heads nor tails of your posts. You seem to be quoting from some sources but you make no attempt to define who those sources are, nor do you clarify your opinions of them.

You don't use quotes, your keyboard is obviously broken and there is no connecting point other that what seems to be your desire for us to check out your web site. Which I for one will not do because I suspect that it is as disorganized as your posts here.
Its useful for email and the game results

naw its fine.Got some help from the kids.As I was saying the other day to my 5 year old. Stop!!!
Long rambling answers are unprofessional, dull and confusing.
Aussie Seek,
What gun control does do. And I seems pretty obvious to me is: Take away the rights of the citizens to hold their government accountable

What are you gonna do when they make other things illegal? Vote about it??
Think the 5 million Jews in Germany and surrounding areas voted to be gassed?

What happens when your green party decides something else needs to be illegal?
Internet forum boards that don't tow the party line? Or Speaking out against Diversity, or disliking a a certain politician?

Will you then vote then (and their MUP, Stazi, SS etc.) out of power?

That is the ugly side of gun control. It's the epiphany you get as your being led to slaughter at the hands of your own government (you know the one that traded you that nice big screen TV for you guns ten years ago.)

You see.. Democracy is when 4 Frat boys and a coed decide whether or not they're going to have sex. Liberty is when 4 Frat boys 1 coed and Sig Sauer vote "No".

Sorry for the Rant.

To Answer out right
NO I didn't give a gun to a ten yr. old!
He, like myself, recieved his first at 9.
I have no true Idea when Father recieved his,however as it was his job as the youngest to put meat on table,he wasn't to very old,physically, but that is a load to place on a youngster. I don't believe any of us have caused any death or destruction,yet.
Tho we may be prevailed upon by IANSA to defend our rights and liberties.
Aussieseek, like many others, I have a hard time making heads or tails out of your posts. If you are not sure how quoting works here or find it cumbersome I suggest you use either normal quote marks or asterisks.

There is one question I would like to ask you. You seem to differentiate between "gun crime" and "other crime". Why? Is being robbed under a threat of having your skull caved in by a heavy blunt object somehow better than the same thing with the threat of being shot? Is a victim of "gun violence" somehow more dead than a victim of "axe violence" or "knife violence"?
It doesn't matter if crime goes up or down... liberals will always demand more gun control.

How do they do this?


Liberal: "It says here that crime is going up! We all know that guns cause crime. Therefore we need more gun control!"

Liberal: "It says here that crime is going down! This means our existing gun control laws are working! And more gun control will make crime go down even further. Therefore we need more gun control!"

Neat, huh? :banghead:
AussieSeek is the name used by the controller of the AussieSeek Forum in Australia. This is a strange forum in which Aussieseek permits long rambling anti-gun postings from three people, TOM (an AMerican female of Brady Centre persuasion), straightshooter (don't know where he comes form) and cardigan (who reads like Tom under another name).

Any attempt by pro-gun supporteres to refute this rubbish is usually banned by Aussieseek himself, under the guise of "abuse" or "spamming". I was banned several times from his stupid forum for reasons I could never ascertain, until finally I received a "reprieve" wherein Aussieseek stated that he had found out that I was NOT the originator of 3000 spam messages plus a pile of obscene messages and that I would be graciously permitted to rejoin his forum.

I told him, in polite fashion, to shove it. Many of you americans who have attempted to post progun messages on his forum have also been banned. He sounds pure, hurt innocence, whenever you take him to task but he has the reputation of being devious and a stranger to the truth.

Previous posters have had a couple of things to say about Aussieseek eg:

“BS Keitha!
You ran a crooked board before, but no where near as bad as now.
Don't you remember Sirenna, Zassy, and all your other canned advocates?
I have 3 years of experience with your machinations, and the closer your antigun friends got to total defeat, the crazier you became.
You might want to try some honest debate, but no one here will buy your crap!
Tsiya/swampsniper/roberthonike, and others, you know who I am”

“I am aware of the site aussieseek and the antics of it's schizophrenic owner.

I find it so biased that it that I will not sully my browser with it.

As 1911JMB has already pointed out, there is no reasoning with a fool.

Nor can one debate with someone who is either too dishonest or too unstable to even comprehend the meaning of the word.

There are a few other Australian public forums that offer a more level playing field though.

You might want to peruse Yahoo! Australia's Public Debate site.

There are a few pro gun posters there but most seem young and inexperienced in the art of debate so the antis there are having a field day with them.

The Admin seems to be fair and even handed in it's approach, so if you, - (or any other Forumites here), - think that you can contribute to the debate on gun rights in Australia, this one is almost certain to prove a more ethical place than aussieseek.

Warrigal said that”

Re the Greens - contrary to what Aussieseek says they ARE, in fact, an offshoot of the communist party. Want proof? Go to the Communist Party of Australia website, have a look at their manifesto and policies and then do the same for the Greens - they are virtually identical. Make up your own minds.

In my view anything that was associated with Rebecca Peters has to be toxic in the extreme. She is the person who speaks for IANSA and is now based in the USA - better you than us. Had any gun massacres lately?

FOR BARTHOLOMEW ROBERTS: Aussie seek is the guy who tried to blacken my name when I first came onto this forum. He is very manipulative and I presume he will try to denigrate me again with you and this forum. However, in spite of anything he says to the contrary, I believe, as do others here in Oz, that he is really anti-gun ownership and will do anything he can to discredit legal gun owners.

Believe anything he says at your own peril.
Not open for further replies.