NSW State Election Campaign discussion (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Chemical Ali
- Start date
goodoo
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 16
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
To quote a line out of context and use that to label them as loons seems very shallow.
I just looked up their immigration policy and here it is in full
It sounds sensible to me to limit population to within current environmental and resource limits. Isn't that what the greens want with sustainable population, and protection of our resources.
Lolsmith
kill all boomers
They're saying that they are going to halt any and all immigration in the immediate future to maybe reach some sort of arbitrary population figure.
Basically they're saying they hate immigrants but would hide behind false reasoning to legitimise it.
Basically they're saying they hate immigrants but would hide behind false reasoning to legitimise it.
Rothbard
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,118
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
The Liberal Democratic Party supports the right to own firearms.
Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person. It says nothing about what might be done with a gun and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.
However, as with any right, there are associated responsibilities. Failure to meet these may warrant criminal penalties.
The right to own firearms is fundamental. Consequently, while it may be restricted in the case of particular individuals, within limits, it may not be removed on a collective basis. In particular, it is not a privilege to be granted or denied by governments.
In terms of genuine crime control, most gun laws are ineffective. Making gun ownership illegal does not stop gun ownership, it merely affects those gun owners who are law-abiding and least likely to use their guns in crime.
Disarming the law-abiding is irrational when the lawless cannot be disarmed.
Australians have a right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and property. Many have relied on guns in their homes to sleep more comfortably for over two hundred years. Indeed, firearms may be the only means by which people such as women, the elderly and infirm can hope to defend themselves against rapists, robbers and murderers.
There is some evidence to show that, where gun ownership is high, crime involving actual or threatened violence is reduced. Conversely, when gun ownership is reduced, violent crime rarely changes and has been known to increase. Australia’s experience since 1996 and the UK since 1997 are clear confirmation of the latter point.
The police do not provide security in the home, business or street. They arrive after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the area, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.
Only armed, law-abiding citizens can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make the community safer.
Ownership of firearms is also the only practical means by which the people can retain any semblance of ensuring that governments remain their servants and not vice versa. Although the ballot box and peaceful protest will always be the preferred means of removing unsatisfactory governments, history is full of examples where those options were denied.
As Thomas Jefferson put it, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” … Or as another US President, Woodrow Wilson, put it, “Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance.”
Firearms are also legitimate sporting implements, used in a wide range of regional, national and international competitions including the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. Indeed, shooting is one of the original sports of the modern Olympic Games, commencing in 1896.
It is not legitimate to curtail the sporting activities of one group of Australians while encouraging others, simply on the grounds that their implements have the potential to be used for harmful purposes. Many sporting implements have similar potential, as do a vast array of everyday items. Firearms can contribute to positive environmental outcomes in the hands of hunters. Hunters using firearms can be remarkably effective at reducing populations of pest animals such as foxes, pigs, goats, wild dogs and feral cats. These animals have been responsible for enormous destruction of Australian native fauna, with some small marsupial species probably extinct as a result, and pose a threat to agriculture in some areas. Similarly, hunters contribute to positive environmental outcomes by helping to develop and preserve wetlands which concurrently accommodate species that may be hunted such as ducks, while also providing a haven for protected species.
The responsibility of those who own firearms is to only use them for non-coercive purposes or to protect themselves or others from coercion.
Those who use firearms for coercive purposes, whether actual or threatened, may have their right to own them limited or removed.
Specific firearm policies:
* Sport, hunting and self-defence are all legitimate reasons for firearm ownership.
* Firearm ownership should be subject to possession of a licence. However, all adults over 18 years of age have a right to a licence unless it has been removed because of a history or genuine prospect of coercion.
* Those who wish to carry a concealed firearm for self-defence are entitled to be issued with a permit to do so unless they have a history or genuine prospect of coercion.
* All genuine sporting uses of firearms are legitimate.
* There should be no registration of long-arms.
* There should be no special prohibitions on semi-automatic firearms.
* Individuals and organisations have a right to establish facilities that involve the use of firearms. This includes shooting ranges and hunting reserves.
Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person. It says nothing about what might be done with a gun and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.
However, as with any right, there are associated responsibilities. Failure to meet these may warrant criminal penalties.
The right to own firearms is fundamental. Consequently, while it may be restricted in the case of particular individuals, within limits, it may not be removed on a collective basis. In particular, it is not a privilege to be granted or denied by governments.
In terms of genuine crime control, most gun laws are ineffective. Making gun ownership illegal does not stop gun ownership, it merely affects those gun owners who are law-abiding and least likely to use their guns in crime.
Disarming the law-abiding is irrational when the lawless cannot be disarmed.
Australians have a right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and property. Many have relied on guns in their homes to sleep more comfortably for over two hundred years. Indeed, firearms may be the only means by which people such as women, the elderly and infirm can hope to defend themselves against rapists, robbers and murderers.
There is some evidence to show that, where gun ownership is high, crime involving actual or threatened violence is reduced. Conversely, when gun ownership is reduced, violent crime rarely changes and has been known to increase. Australia’s experience since 1996 and the UK since 1997 are clear confirmation of the latter point.
The police do not provide security in the home, business or street. They arrive after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the area, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.
Only armed, law-abiding citizens can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make the community safer.
Ownership of firearms is also the only practical means by which the people can retain any semblance of ensuring that governments remain their servants and not vice versa. Although the ballot box and peaceful protest will always be the preferred means of removing unsatisfactory governments, history is full of examples where those options were denied.
As Thomas Jefferson put it, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?” … Or as another US President, Woodrow Wilson, put it, “Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance.”
Firearms are also legitimate sporting implements, used in a wide range of regional, national and international competitions including the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. Indeed, shooting is one of the original sports of the modern Olympic Games, commencing in 1896.
It is not legitimate to curtail the sporting activities of one group of Australians while encouraging others, simply on the grounds that their implements have the potential to be used for harmful purposes. Many sporting implements have similar potential, as do a vast array of everyday items. Firearms can contribute to positive environmental outcomes in the hands of hunters. Hunters using firearms can be remarkably effective at reducing populations of pest animals such as foxes, pigs, goats, wild dogs and feral cats. These animals have been responsible for enormous destruction of Australian native fauna, with some small marsupial species probably extinct as a result, and pose a threat to agriculture in some areas. Similarly, hunters contribute to positive environmental outcomes by helping to develop and preserve wetlands which concurrently accommodate species that may be hunted such as ducks, while also providing a haven for protected species.
The responsibility of those who own firearms is to only use them for non-coercive purposes or to protect themselves or others from coercion.
Those who use firearms for coercive purposes, whether actual or threatened, may have their right to own them limited or removed.
Specific firearm policies:
* Sport, hunting and self-defence are all legitimate reasons for firearm ownership.
* Firearm ownership should be subject to possession of a licence. However, all adults over 18 years of age have a right to a licence unless it has been removed because of a history or genuine prospect of coercion.
* Those who wish to carry a concealed firearm for self-defence are entitled to be issued with a permit to do so unless they have a history or genuine prospect of coercion.
* All genuine sporting uses of firearms are legitimate.
* There should be no registration of long-arms.
* There should be no special prohibitions on semi-automatic firearms.
* Individuals and organisations have a right to establish facilities that involve the use of firearms. This includes shooting ranges and hunting reserves.
goodoo
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 16
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
After reading your comment I have been looking at their policies to find this pillaging and rapping. The policies I found are all about protecting natural diversity and our rights of access to public land. They look better than the greens policies of locking up our bush and doing nothing to protect our native species except banning public access.
http://www.shootersandfishers.org.a...he-environment-version-3rd-february-2011-.pdf
Chemical Ali
지금은 소녀시대
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,728
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
can you explain how logging in national parks would help? lol.
Lolsmith
kill all boomers
lol @ the black dudes being violent criminals
Chemical Ali
지금은 소녀시대
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,728
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
The NSW Greens actually have a comprehensive policy about conserving biodiversity, it's certainly not just "lock it up", have a read:
http://nsw.greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/policydownloads/Biodiversity.pdf
the shooters & fishers policy boils down to advocating logging, fishing, horses and hunting dogs in conservation areas, and stopping the NPWS (like the people who actually run the national parks) from interfering with their recreational activities
goodoo
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 16
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
I took that policy as saying our environment should be put first. Humans are a very damaging species and very high human populations are unsustainable, so we should decide on the sustainable population of our country and not exceed it. I would have thought the greens would be all for this and find it strange they dont want to put a limit on our population.
I would like to see any policy you have seen which is racist or against immigrants. I think that a higher % of shooters are immigrants or the children of immigrants, at least among my friends who shoot that is true.
goodoo
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 16
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
I just read the greens policy and it just seem to me to what we have now. I have heard that the area of national parks in NSW has recently doubled while the funds for the management of that area has hardly increased. Their policies are to spend more money in a system that is already failed. The state is already broke, where is the money for green policies coming from.
The Shooters and Fishers are promoting a new approach. If this approach used scientific studies to decide which areas need what it will give a better result than the current one.
goodoo
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 16
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
The most recent national parks in NSW are in the Red Gum forests along the Murray. Selective logging there has prevented large fires, kept the forest open which prevented mass tree deaths due to the drought and for grasses and other species and protected habitat trees with hollows. Supurb parrot and Koala numbers have increased a lot due to this management. Now it is national park the redgums will become extremely thick, old habitat trees will die due to more competition from thicker tree stands. Eventually a fire will burn the whole forest wiping out all habitat trees and Koalas in one day. Before white settlment this area was mostly grasslands due to aboriginal burning, with very sparse redgums as redgums are not fire tolerent. Logging kept it in a more natural state and allowed increased biodiversity.
goodoo
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 16
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
The LDP do have some good policies, but area bit extreme for me.
They would be better than Labur though.
Rothbard
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,118
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Yeah I guess individual freedom is a bit 'xtreem' hey
Chemical Ali
지금은 소녀시대
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,728
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
As you correctly point out, the red gums were never there until Europeans changed the land use practices along the Murray. But there's nothing in the S&F policy to distinguish between this and ACTUAL old growth forest, which is irreplaceable.
Chemical Ali
지금은 소녀시대
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,728
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A