Who Is Telling The Most Lies - And Who Is Going To Get Caught Out First

[Derek Bullock]

Pinhead - As they show:

Subject matter Post: 73 - my first.

Pinhead - Post 80: "Using words like Liberty and enemy etc...that also paints different pictures which can polarise those that don't share your viewpoint."

Pinhead - Post 81: I read some the LDP website..wow..some intersting stuff their...just a lil bit further right than Attile the Hun.

Derek Chimed in and agreed with you - Post 83: Couldn't agree more.

I responded - Post 84: In there I provided a definition of "Liberty", and concluded with " DEREK and PINHEAD believe that liberty is "...just a lil bit further right than Attile the Hun.".

Pinhead - Post 85: "I would not even want to be in the same room as Lingus...talk about ridiculous statements."

Derek - Post 87: " He isn't talking about Liberty. What he is on about, confirmed to me by his policies on his website is Anarchy."

I responded - Post 97: "It's pretty obvious that both DEREK and his mates here believe that people cannot be trusted with liberty. In their minds, liberty equates to anarchy."

Derek - Post 100: Again equates liberty to anarchy. " Peter your definition of "Liberty" comes as just about word perfect from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberty" Then for reasons unknown, tried to confirm that Liberty equates to Anarchy " That same site gives a definition of "Anarchy" as being "a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)" To me thats what you are preaching. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=anarchy Far from it.

I responded - Post 101: I put forward the reference to both Liberty and Democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty which contrasts with the mischievous actions of Derek.

Pinhead - Post 104: After a lapse you visited and asked "..show me where I said that?"

Well - there it is.
You dislike the use of meaningful words such as "Liberty" and "Enemy"
You visited the LDP site and determined that the principles for which we stand - "Liberty" and "Democracy" are "...just a lil bit further right than Attile the Hun."
Derek agrees with you.
You jump in and become more forthright.
So far the the equation is that in at least your two minds - Liberty equates to Anarchy - and I vehemently disagree with that.

Perhaps my comprehension is not so bad.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. The issue as pointed out by some blokes here is not so much what was said, but the way I said it. Probably right too.

An aside - This site really is EXCELLENT. Full of information from all angles. I would rate it as the best I've visited. DR seems a decent sort of bloke, as

I just hope we are not undermined and can gain some representation in order to preserve at least our respective recreations.

That's enuf from me - I need my beauty sleep!
Peter Cunningham

You're nuts.

Thats not what I said at all and while Pinhead can speak for himself I doubt thats what he said either.

If I can try and make it clearer to you ~ Your idea of Liberty, if heaven forbid you ever gain any real power, will lead to Anarchy.

Thats what I am saying.

[PinHead]

some items from the LDP website:

"The LDP also proposes a constitutional change where citizens (using the same criteria discussed above for CIRs) may dismiss Parliament and call for a dissolution of both houses of Parliament (otherwise known as a recall vote). This policy increases the democratic options available to the citizenry and provides another limit on the possibility of bad government."

"
Some areas in which the LDP would immediately reduce or remove regulation are:
1. The taxi industry
2. Retail trading hours
3. Liquor licensing
4. Occupational licensing and certification. Eg auctioneers, hairdressers, bar workers, casino workers.
5. Radio and television broadcast licensing
6. Workers compensation insurance
7. Pub poker and similar gambling "

"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. "

"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."

"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"
"
There should be no registration of long-arms.
There should be no special prohibitions on semi-automatic firearms. "

"The government must not have any right to order a particular activity to occur on a property, such as the allowance of breast feeding or the construction of disabled toilets or access facilities. These are matters of choice by property owners."

"Re-legalisation of recreational marijuana use by adults (subject to prohibition on involvement of minors, etc) and a review of prohibitions on certain other drugs. [Note: a more detailed policy on drugs is under development.] "

"Economic growth has led to all Australians (including the poor) getting richer and more money going to charity. Consequently there is less and less need for our large and expensive welfare system. The LDP supports the replacement of all current welfare programs with a comprehensive negative income tax that provides a basic standard of living and some assistance to the working poor."

It appears to me that you can have a poor person who is not really poor..getting high on some dope then running rampant with a semi auto weapon and pushing for an election to get rid of the Govt...and all legal..awesome outlook that one.

Bunch of nutters that mob.

[Horse]

Bunch of nutters that mob.

I'll second that motion Greg
Sounds like they watched too many Mad Max movies as kids

[LINGUS]

But Derek - that IS what you said - copied from your postings.
Regardless - your concern is that by reducing government and government intrusion into out daily lives, that it will lead to anarchy. I do not agree.
I have previously explained that such fear is generated out of mistrust of people, and shepherding them from cradle to grave. It might be fine for you and Pinhead, but sure as hell not for me.

Prior to the many forms of democracy being introduced, there was servitude - the forced compliance to a master, king - whatever. Anarchy happened only after people had a gut full of being ruled and their lot getting a bit better as the result of the Industrial Revolution.

Unlike you, I trust Australians and that the majority are not so stupid as to become involved in truly Anarchist activities - there is no need to anyway. Thus, the anarchy you associate with the need for increased Liberty and freedom of choice is irrational. I have provided details, but obviously to nil effect.

Pinhead: First thing - when we say (as you post): "There should be no registration of long-arms. There should be no special prohibitions on semi-automatic firearms." You are assuming that we are promoting the things be freely available. Nothing could be further from the truth and I DO agree with you that in isolation it certainly appears that way - NOT SO.

Let me explain - it IS important:
In essence, it's the operator of the tool who is responsible for it's use. Licensing a tool has proved futile as a means to curb any crime, simply because licensing has nil effect on the user of the tool - be it a car, a gun, a knife, a bottle, petrol etc. However - licensing people with various levels of accreditation to have possess most any potentially dangerous tool or goods IS what we are on about. It's a management strategy that filters out the irresponsible from easy access to such things.

Thereafter and once that person has undergone the appropriate 'tests' - there is no real risk of such persons committing crime - hence the policy.

That principle extends then to self defence. It is obnoxious for people to impose laws that stop people from effectively defending themselves.

By "stop" I mean literally the means of appropriate self defence, and the way the law and police act to against any poor sod who has been forced into the situation by some low life. They are harrassed and financially destroyed as they are forced to pay for 'justice' in the sterile environs of a courtroom, where split second decisions are dismebered to the Nth degree over days or weeks. Meanwhile the scumbag gets either a slap on the wrist or gets fed and housed at our expense.

I gather that you hold the opposite view - that as you can't be trusted, then the police will protect you. I believe that is your choice, but I hold a different view, so now we get back to CHOICE. It should be your choice to be defencless, and my choice to be able to resist any threat against me, and act within a process to ensure that people who share my view are subjected to various tests to ensure that the 'ratbag' "redneck" elements don't slip through.

An example of the stupidity: A good friend, now retired from the RAAF flew Fa18 on two tours of duty in the middle east. He was in charge of a multi million dollar, government supplied killing machine, armed with all sorts of things to blow lots of people into little bits. He returned to Australia and suddenly he was not trusted with his custom made handgun. You see - it had a calibre of 2x100ths of an inch larger diameter than stipulated. It had 19 rounds, so I presume could kill 19 people, so was allowed 10 rounds - presumably so that he could kill only 10 people. His barrel was 1/16th of an inch too short, which means it could be concealed - and so on. Apart from reasons like that as to why people like me are upset, my point was to highlight not only the lies inflicted on people, but that a good person is made bad by law - and that is wrong.

I will say here, that I have had considerable experience on this self defence issue, from first hand experiences and in developing the management strategy and processes for management of ALL restricted goods in Australia - State and Civilian.

Regarding dope etc - simply put: Laws define crime - they do not stop it, and neither do punitive laws modify human behaviour.
If that was the case, then we would have neither crime, nor bad behaviour - but we do.

Unless in a police state, laws apply only after an event or descision - then the system of penalty comes to the fore. Nothing has stopped the event.
Those with the greatest vested interest in crime are: Criminals, Police, the 'Justice' and Penal systems, and of course Politicians. Remove crime and they dont' have jobs.

Examine for a moment drug abuse. If laws worked, there would be no drug problem - instead - laws create crime, just as they did in prohibition eras. Some people are predisposed genetically to substance abuse - be it drugs, alcohol - whatever. Others because of general degradation in society - primarily the family structure, and leading on to the lack of purpose and responsibility - are enticed into the drug world.

Sadly, that means that always will lost souls exist at all levels in society. Banning things only creates crime by creating the opportunity for organised crime to be the supplier to those lost souls. Those who peach the loudest and refuse to deal with the issue, merely perpetuate the problem.

It can be managed, but first by accepting that some people will have screwed up lives, by making organised crime impotent and removing the bans that we know only worsen matters. It's a bit like nuclear waste - we all want the benefits, but not in my back yard.

And before you ask - no - I'm not a druggie, nor a smoker of anything, nor alcoholic. I'm looking at things impartially. We would be better off not wasting money on fighting illegal drugs and alcohol abuse, but by directing the funds and resources at defusing organised crime, and helping the people caught up in it all to cope. Do that and our streets will be markedly safer. Continue as we are, and things will worsen, and more laws will be imposed by transient politicians wanting to be seen to be "doing something"

Should that situation continue, a police state is inevitable.
Peter Cunningham

[PinHead]

just continue along in those facist thoughts Lingus..you have only proven what I stated previously...bunch of nutters with delusional thoughts.
End of my comments on your party...I have nothing to do with it nor condone it in any way.

[Dicko]

Dicko (what an unfortunate name) -

Why is that ?

Dicko Well then good sir - please enlighten people as to when is an appropriate time to enter an open discussion?

You can enter any time you please, as said, if the sole purpose is to push your own wheelbarrow it is usually seen for what it is, and treated as such by most other users.

[Boblee]

Thats fantastic Peter you have showed everybody why the blokes pushing the ruse that the LDP is about looking after Shooters/hunting and fishing got kicked out of the Shooters Party.
These extreme LDP views suited them perfectly, in reality to get ahead we need a balance but it will be achieved by supporting fair and reasonable laws coupled with appropriate penalties not by abolishing all laws and having a free for all.
The Corowa snag removal is a good example here, we have a developer who obviously thinks there should be no restrictions so to achieve a clear river he just removes 4 km's of snags (300+) plus rips the guts out of the bank and riparian vegetation including thousands of trees.
When we got him stopped by a combination all hunters including anglers (SWAA)and the Shooters Party he wasn't worried and thought he would just have to pay the fine $110 K but by working together we have accomplished a no wash zone until reparation work is carried out to DPI satisfaction and hopefully by influence through Robert Brown we can hold the project going ahead and have a permanent no wash zone.
While we don't like extra regulations they are necessarry and if there were higher penalties applying to all parties including the contractor this would not have happened and the developer would not be able to use this excuse
http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/bm/local/1006711.html

I have no knowledge of the AFLP except what was distributed through the SSAA Journal which I distributed further to our 350 members (SRHC) but they seem to be a very middle of the road standing for commonsense and practical laws allowing access for all environmental resource users but focussing more on fishers.
This is not a hell of a lot different to the Shooters Party (unless you believe Derek) except they focus more on shooting and land based hunting.
The affiliation for this election is absolutely fantastic and the organisers should be congratulated not villified, as if Dereks mates the Greasy Green/Democrats who have done the same thing get to hold the balance of power Derek will get his wish for more National Parks and lockouts etc.
One of our hunting Club members is taking information of the Corowa Job and several other developments involving many thousands of trees knocked down illegally but also reported by a member (where are the Greens?) to a cabinet meeting today (Vic) regarding VEAC to help show why hunters and fishermen shouldn't have reduced access and actually should be there. Of course this will upset Derek as he wants it locked up.
Just a couple of points for Derek The SSAA or TSP or even ASP have never supported the conspiracy theories of course there are individual members who did as there are people like yourself who would use something like your opening comments to defame and hurt fellow fishermen for their own gain or selfish reasons.
I thought of going through this thread to challenge some of the wild accusations but really this whole topic has been about Derek grandstanding to push his personal choice in the election to the detriment of the majority good.
Of course promoting his mickey mouse website may have had something to do with it.

[reidy]

Wow! This is going all over the place but I agree with Maxg. There was always something dreadfully wrong with the level of skill attributed to Martyn Bryant.

Generally, I have a good laugh at 'conspiracy' stories but there is something very suspect about an untrained person being so accurate - and from the hip!

And Dicko that wasn't you showing up as the 'shadowy' figure near the grassy knoll - I'm pretty sure it was my mother-in-law.

Good day,
Have a look at my previous post.Bryant discharged the majority of his rounds from the shoulder.The hip shots took place in the cafe with his victims already prone.We Tasmanians take great offence when people who have no bloody idea what happen start making rubbish claims re the events of that day.Have a look at the tas. police report or talk to someone who WAS there.
If this is the mentality of the average Qld gun owner then i say ban the bloody lot and stop this bull----.
Reidy

[Boblee]

G'day Reidy
I definitely don't support the conspiracy theories but it is a pity that it couldn't have been tested in court as that would have removed all doubt, however as a shooter all my life I am at a loss to explain how he could accomplish what he did and the accuracy but more importantly in the time provided.
As a trapper of pigs it is necessarry to shoot them and whether there is two or thirty in the trap it is not easily accomplished to just shoot them is easy but to accurately shoot them in the head to prevent damage is definitely not easy even at close range and without obstructions except other pigs.
Of course just because this bloke was not real bright doesn't mean he doesn't have a good skill base or good hand eye co ordination as he apparently played a lot of computor games?
I am sure I couldn't do it but again this could have been sorted with a court case.
It will not matter one iota, the opportunity was there for John Howard to use it and he did and if we had a labour PM it would have happened quicker we will never go back, just get over it, for better or worse it is now LAW.
The final laws had been presented at every police ministers conference for years Bryant was just the catalyst.
This same scenario is happening with other issues including fishing in NP's or types of fishing, it will only take a well presented thesis that is corroberated by peers and then some convenient statistics etc.
As some one who travells fairly well I have seen it happen right round the country and it is almost foolproof.
The current VEAC proposal fits into this category and it is my personal belief it will go through irrespective of 7000 petitions.

[LINGUS]

DICKO - My reference to the 'unfortunate name' was meant to be a a bit of mirth - no dig at you.

BobLee - Certainly there are differences, but you refer to one bloke - DL who "got kicked out". I continue to support the Shooters Party, and it's aims. The second part of your posting said it better than I ever could - not one iota of disagreement from me, and ditto regarding your posting 114 in relation to Bryant.

That's interesting about the Corowa situation. But believe me - Liberty does not extend to buggery. Regulations are always necessary or there would be anarchy, and liberty goes hand in hand with accountability - I've always said that and have so here. I've never hinted at nil regulation, open slather, bugger you jack approach.

Something big is missing here for you and others to think that.
I've tried my best with two proper definitions of what constitutes "Liberty", but get labelled as "redneck" "facist" "nutters" "delusional" from people who I have neither insulted or so labelled. They have no wish to understand - if they did, the labels would not apply. The arrogance is within them. So negative, so petty.

Peter Cunningham

[Boblee]

Peter
I looked at your site a while ago (year?) and they had a test quiz as to political leanings, well I don't think I know anyone who would fit the LDP model.
I agree with pinhead i'm afraid "right of attila the hun" .
Sorry bloke I believe they are way off and anyone who splits our votes is the enemy we need to work together or they (greasies) will walk all over us.
I started fishing before shooting and rarely use a firearm today but still fish fairly extensively especially while travelling and other hunting is mainly pigs with a knife unless selling.
I personally don't like semi auto's but would defend the right to own one for LEGAL purposes as I would any other firearm or for that matter fishing method or tool even though I might not personally want to.

[LINGUS]

BobLee - I also don't agree with some of the LDP policies - particularly the issue of Free Trade - which I think to a degree is inevitable due to the consumer's quest to get things evermore cheaper - it will and is destroying manufacturing in Australia, but that's another issue.

The differences we share - that's you and others here is that my work environment has taught me different lessons. I doubt very much if others here would have been in immediate life threatening situations I have. Those things have shaped me, whereas most likely, nobody here has been in gunfights, nor likely to have ever had to fight for their lives - rather have been working hard and enjoying fishing etc. It's truly terrible stuff to be in immediate threat of doing a perish - words don't do justice. That is why I am so strong on the self defence issue.

I've had to deal with governments, agencies, bureaucrats and the utter waste and indifference that resides within. The hypocrisy is profound. Stated objectives are all too often blatant lies, where $50m will be spent because process says so, and nothing will change their direction, not even 'cheaper-better-faster'. Therefore I have nil respect for the system.

I see the way Johnny Howard (and ilk) capitalise on the efforts of the poor sods who embark on tasks based on his lies - who if injured or killed, are remembered by crocodile tears (cameras rolling) then all get handed over to the "Now we save money" bureaucracies, and they and their families are screwed for every cent possible.

Now, I don't expect you to acknowledge all that - but it's just three things that have shaped me. Despite what you et al might think - they are entirely valid.

I did not want this to become a political issue and haven't discussed it in that manner. It took the "liberty" direction as a means of me explaining the value of Liberty, but that has whooshed over many heads.

I enjoy my life, business and recreations, but see the same things happening again, and again. I will always support freedom and liberty against those who always know what is best for us. I dive, I shoot, I hunt, I fish, I ski - and all those things are continually under assault by the eternal doogooders.

Derek's postings least at least myself to believe that he is a ringin - ie: "enemy"

Regarding semi-autos - I neither like or dislike them. The hunting ethic is not to have semi auto, whereas culling is a job and requires a semi auto. BUT - and it's a big but - handguns are entirely a different story, simply because two hands are necessary to control other than olympic style handguns.

The demons were - Barrel Length, then Magazine Capacity, then Calibre. ALL were destroyed, but not one promise justification forced on us made has borne fruit. The current demon is actuation method on handguns, and the appearance of the handgun. When they are destroyed, nobody will have handguns except criminals and police. Of course we will all be safer.

Are people here getting my drift? Smell the cheese - it's rotten.

Peter Cunningham

[tigermullet]

Good day,
Have a look at my previous post.Bryant discharged the majority of his rounds from the shoulder.The hip shots took place in the cafe with his victims already prone.We Tasmanians take great offence when people who have no bloody idea what happen start making rubbish claims re the events of that day.Have a look at the tas. police report or talk to someone who WAS there.
If this is the mentality of the average Qld gun owner then i say ban the bloody lot and stop this bull----.
Reidy

Hey Reidy, fair suck of the old sav - we can only know what we learn from various reports. Yours included - and it may well be accurate. Much that I have read has remarked upon the supposed accuracy. I thought it was a valid assessment but not being a witness there is no way that I could be sure. Even being there does not lead to certainty - look at how often eye witness accounts have been proved to be inaccurate. Therefore my mind is still open to all possibilities.

I have not owned any type of firearm since the early 70's and was not that keen a shooter before that.

Why should Tasmanians take greater exception to any debate over this dreadful day? I thought that we were all Australians and nothing that I have said was meant or could be taken as an insult to Tasmanians.

I still wish that the facts of the matter had been tested by the courts.

As for my 'mentality'? I'll have to check with my wife - she just might agree with you.

[craftycarp]

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. "

I love this line so now women, the elderly and infirm will now have to protect themselves from rapists,robbers and murderers that have the right to carry guns themselves. ROFL.. I know I know what you are going to say and that is these people will carry guns anyway, well I say not all of them however with this policy they ALL will carry guns.

[disorderly]

some items from the LDP website:


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. "

Given the very poor eyesight of my dear old 87 yr grandma,if she were issued with a firearm for self defence then I would have grave concerns for the safety of the local meter reader,delivery boy and mailman.Not to mention if the local government candidates were doorknocking in the area.
Scary stuff indeed!

Scott