Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

725 Excellent

About ELVIS123456

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. Oh, by the way, they are banned at all NRA certified ranges and clubs.
  2. I wonder why no one was howling when they were made legal (twice) under the Obama clown. Yep - true. True Democrat hypocrisy too. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/06/national-rifle-association/nra-claim-obama-approved-bump-stocks/
  3. Why is it that liberals believe that reason and truth only comes from liberal sources, and that anything from a conservative source is false. So, besides banning guns, what does CNN recommend?? Dont answer - I know - I gotta get back to my motto (see below).
  4. Following on from my previous post, here is a very good analysis of what would actually happen if the Govt tried to ban and confiscate guns in America. Liberals love to fantasize about confiscating every gun in America. It may be their most beautiful dream. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment; Washington makes gun ownership illegal; almost all the guns come pouring in or are destroyed; a few hapless Jim Bobs who won’t get in line get shot up by the cops and then the government is free to do anything it wants and if people don’t like it, well, what are they going to do about it without guns?Let me suggest a less happy, but probably more accurate version of how an attempt at gun confiscation would likely go. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment followed by Washington making gun ownership illegal. So far, so good, right? Then the vast majority of police departments across the country refuse to do more than accept weapons that are turned in and, of course, very few citizens actually hand over their weapons. At this point, D.C. would have no choice other than to accept that gun confiscation is impossible, which would be the most likely outcome.Or, alternately, D.C. could hire goon squads in local communities to go house to house to confiscate weapons. Yes, people would be killed in conflicts with the police and goon squads that come to take their guns. Liberals would cheer. They would not be cheering when police chiefs, officers, and goon squad members who carry out these orders are assassinated at their homes by armed people from their own communities.Since many Americans would assume, probably correctly, that gun confiscation would be a prelude to government violence against civilians, the assassins would be openly cheered as patriots by tens of millions of Americans. Messages supporting them would show up on social media; talk show hosts would call them heroes and others would encourage them to go further. This would enrage liberals who would demand more use of force against not just the assassins, but the people supporting them. These comments would likely harden positions on both sides, and if the attempts at gun confiscation continued (and they probably wouldn’t), things would get even more violent. Police chiefs, politicians, and anti-gun activists would probably be assassinated and millions would cheer on their killers. The government response would become ever more violent. There would be calls to get the military involved except the people making those calls would soon find our troops just as split as the rest of the country. A majority would likely refuse to go into action against their fellow citizens and some might even openly join them. By that point, the potential for a genuine civil war would be quite real.The response to this from liberals would probably be something like, “Well, that certainly didn’t happen in Australia.” Very true, but what most liberals believe Australia did and what it actually did are very different.Australia made it extremely difficult to buy a new gun as it instituted a completely voluntary gun buyback. This means that in 1996, there were 17.5 guns per person and in 2016, the number was only down to 13.7 per person. So Australia’s big accomplishment was to decrease the number of guns in its nation by 22 percent. How much of a difference would that make in America where there are 101 guns for every 100 citizens and open borders that would allow illegal weapons to stream in if there were ever a large-scale demand for them?To get rid of guns on a scale widespread enough to matter in the United States, you’d need to go house to house and search because most people would claim their weapons were stolen or lost. Doing that with millions of up-to-that-point law-abiding citizens would be considered tyrannical and it would produce a violent backlash that hasn’t been seen in this country since the Civil War. If you want to turn ordinary American citizens into “freedom fighters” against an abusive government, try to take their guns and it will work about as well as anything else you can imagine."https://pjmedia.com/trending/liberal...ead-civil-war/
  5. In answer to all the negative responses and personal insults in response to my post about the reality of the gun control issue in USA, I would like to state a few facts. I know arguing with some people (especially liberals) using facts is usually a waste of time, but here goes anyway: FACT - I have never said I agree with people in America owning assault rifles and guns - it is their right. FACT - America's unusually high levels of gun violence are a result of over 200 years of rights that have made firearms far more available in America (than any other western civilisation). FACT - It is illegal to drive drunk in USA, but FAR more people are killed by drunk drivers than by nutters in mass shootings. FACT - Making it illegal to own guns in USA will not stop mass shootings, but it will cause massive social problems and widespread violence.. FACT - Chicago has extremely strong gun control laws, and yet has the highest number of people killed by guns PA. FACT - It is not that simple an issue to solve in USA. FACT - some people dont know how to compromise, and adamantly believe anyone who doesn't agree with their solution to any problem, does not want the problem to be solved - they are wrong. So, if you accept that the problem is complex and difficult, but does need to be solved, then maybe it needs to be done a different way. Try these two suggestions - after reading my posts again and think about what I meant when I said "slowly slowly catchy monkey': EXAMPLES 1. Make it mandatory that from 1 Jan 20XX anyone buying a 'prescribed gun/rifle' must be a registered member of NRA/Gun Club and be certified to a level that means they know how to safely store and use such a weapon, and must keep that certification through regular attendance and training courses. Before you get upsets Libs, remember not one mass killing has been done by such a person - nil NRA are mass murderers Then after a few more years, introduce some more controls - in full and complete cooperation with the NRA and National Gun Club associations - it will be in their best interests as one day there may be moves to withdraw the 2nd amendment and enough Libs/Dems in Govt to make it happen. 2. Armed Guards in Schools. The United States of America is paralyzed with political indecision over something the State of Israel figured out more than 40 years ago: all schools should have mandated security features and active shooter protocols.The horrific scene in Parkland, and the upsetting videos broadcast from the school during the shooting, should be the final straw. The kids should not have been hiding and screaming, they should have been in the midst of a pre-determined security protocol.In 1974, Israel endured the Ma’alot Massacre in which “Palestinian” terrorists took 115 people hostage at Netiv Meir Elementary School. Twenty-two children and three others were killed and 68 injured. Israel now requires schools with 100 or more students to have a guard posted. The civilian police force handles the entire security system of all schools from kindergarten through college. The Ministry of Education funds shelters and fences, reinforces school buses, and hires and trains guards. Guards don’t just stand around. They check everyone entering, and engage threats. And yeah, they’ve got guns.The lawful purposes for carrying guns are very clear: protect school personnel and students, create a sense of security, deter the ill-intentioned, and provide self-defense. Common sense. Except to the illogical dullards who claim that “adding guns to schools won’t fix anything” and are fixated on the NRA and the ridiculous notions that gun laws magically stop criminals and crazy people from obtaining one of the 300 million guns in our country.https://townhall.com/columnists/lawr...ocols-n2449726
  6. It did not work in Australia at all. What worked was 200 years of strongly controlled gun access being ramped up in the 1990s, such that the small numbers of guns kept by very few people was outlawed and it was mandatory to hand back all guns or be jailed - very very few exceptions. There are still killings with guns, but the tighter access to guns and the severe penalties involved for anyone selling a gun that is used in a crime, haslargely worked. USA has had gun ownership for over 200 years and there at at least 300 million guns in circulation - some say upwards of 500 million. The right to bear arms is in their Constitution. A very large percentage of Americans strongly oppose any change to the constitution. You are comparing apples and bananas. Having said that, I do think Obama's proposal to make it harder to be able to get guns for those declared mentally unsound, was a good idea. But those in favour of gun ownership remaining a legal right saw this as the beginning of the wedge, and opposed it. IMO the solution is to slowly slowly catchy monkey. Loudly trying to throw a net over the monkey aint gonna work. Hey - watch this space - maybe Trump will make some progress on this issue when things have quietened down and through the 'back channels'. After all, it was a right wing politician in Australia that had the clout and influence to make the changes, while appeasing the vested interests (gun clubs, hunters, etc.).
  7. PM me your address - I got a few old spoons lying around.
  8. Years ago (before mass shootings started) authorities could detain and assess people deemed to be a danger to others/themselves - fail the tests and they are locked away - there were lots of mental institutions. Well meaning liberals changed the laws and under their 'human right's laws this practice was banned. Now authorities must tread very very carefully, and basically now have to to prove someone is going to kill people - which is almost impossible. Every attempt to bring back 'detain and asses' laws has been blocked by human rights activists. Liberals want guns banned. Conservatives want nutters locked up. I go for the lock 'em up approach - it worked before. Sure, there were mistakes made in the past, but the mistakes this modern approach is making is costing lives.
  9. Guns dont kill people - people using guns do. Cars dont kill people - people driving cars do. Trucks dont kill people - people driving trucks do. Cigarettes dont kill people - people smoking cigarettes do. The problem is people. Not guns, cars, trucks, cigarettes, etc etc etc. The issue is to manage the people, not to hate the guns. Making guns illegal will not solve the mass shooting problem in USA. Controlling who has access to guns will help - a lot. Not one mass shooting killer is an NRA member, that I am aware of, and 99.9% of legal gun owners do not commit mass shootings. Most mass shooting killers had 'mental issues' that people knew about. Bring back legal detaining and mental health assessment of anyone suspected of being a danger to others/themselves - that will help. Making guns illegal will not help. Having armed guards in schools will help. They have armed guards in banks, why not in schools.
  10. Tax changes for expats

    The statement above "The rules are pretty clear, i.e. if you are out of the country for more than 183 days in any "financial year" you are a non resident, unless you can prove otherwise...." is correct in some, but not in all situations. This is the wording from the relevant ATO site: The primary test of tax residency is called the 'resides test'. If you reside in Australia, you are considered an Australian resident for tax purposes and don't need to apply any of the other residency tests. If you don't satisfy the resides test, you'll still be considered an Australian resident if you satisfy one of three statutory tests: The domicile test: You're an Australian resident if your domicile (broadly, the place that is your permanent home) is in Australia, unless we are satisfied that your permanent place of abode is outside Australia. The 183-day test: If you're actually present in Australia for more than half the income year, whether continuously or with breaks, you may be said to have a constructive residence in Australia, unless it can be established that your usual place of abode is outside Australia and you have no intention of taking up residence here. The superannuation test: This test ensures that Australian government employees working at Australian posts overseas are treated as Australian residents. Who this section is meant to advise is the people who 'want' to be a non-resident for tax purposes. If you are not a 'resident', then you can still be a resident for tax IF you satisfy one of the three tests - including being in Aust for net 183 or more days in any year - "unless your usual place of abode is outside Australia and you have no intention of taking up residence here." This section is for people who are not resident in Aust and do not want to be a tax resident - if you are not in Aust for net 183 or more days then you are definitely a non-resident for tax. You can be outside Aust for up to 2 years at a time, and still be considered a tax resident. After 2 years absence it becomes more problematic, but it is still possible to remain a resident for tax. https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/International-tax-for-individuals/Work-out-your-tax-residency/Residency-tests/ In my plans, I wish to remain a resident for tax purposes for many reasons, and being able to return for any serious medical issues using Medicare is just one of them. Being a tax resident (and liable for the medicare levy if applicable) greatly assists in my plans. Hopefully 'they' wont close the loophole that allows non-residents to gain tax advantages through the use of franked dividend shares, for those undertaking that course of action, but it would be wise to have a Plan B if they do take that route. Likewise, those of us with other plans need Plan Bs and Cs if they decide to stop expats receiving the OAP when overseas and stop them getting Medicare immediately when they return.
  11. You know I meant third world countries in SEAsia like Thailand, and in Africa, St America, Middle East, etc. But if you cant see the difference between them and post WW2 changes, then I am wasting my time arguing with democracy fanatics. Gotta go to golf - same time another day? I am sure you will be still here.
  12. Republicans pushed Rosenstein to explain whether a dossier with unverified allegations against Trump, some of them salacious, was used as the sole justification to open the Russia investigation and obtain surveillance warrants under former FBI Director James Comey, who was fired by Trump in May. A senior Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, had connections to Fusion GPS, the opposition-research company that created the dossier, which was largely financed by Clinton’s campaign. Court papers made public on Tuesday confirmed that Ohr’s wife was paid by Fusion GPS for work tied to Trump. In a federal court affidavit, Glenn Simpson, the firm’s founder, confirmed that he met with Ohr last year, at Ohr’s request, in November after the election. Ohr was demoted last week. Rosenstein declined to comment on matters involving the dossier. Jordan told reporters after the hearing that “it’s time for subpoenas from our committee” because “basic facts seemed to elude the deputy attorney general.” Asked whether a second special counsel is needed, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters Tuesday, “If we are going to investigate things, let’s look at something where there’s some real evidence.” She said Trump “has great concern about some of the conduct that’s taken place.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-10/trump-blocks-release-of-democratic-rebuttal-to-gop-probe-memo It has been 'interesting' debating with Liberals about reality, but my time is up - gotta start getting ready for golf. Cant say when I will next have the time to continue the 'discussion' - but I am sure you will all be here same day same time same views.
  13. Dont be so pragmatic and reasonable. That will only attract the social justice warriors I have been battling today. Education is exactly the issue. Thais overall are not as educated and informed as the people need to be for a successful democracy - that is a fact.
  14. LOL So let me get this right (again): 1. Russians leaked the criminal illegal activities of the DNC and Clintons; 2. Russians influenced social media discussions about Trump and Clinton. So - all those thousands of mid-west Americans who turned up to all the Trump rallies (crickets at Hillary's) were Russians? Or were influenced by the Russians? No wait - I think I know what you mean. The russians affected the vote by leaking information about the illegal and corrupt activities of the DNC and the Clintons. How dare they let the american people know what they are not allowed to know about the corruption in the swamp. LOL !! Newsflash liberals - the american people already knew the washington swamp was infested with anti-american unpatriotic self-serving (delete) and that the MSM was biased against the republicans and hated Trump. Trump resonated with the american people who had had a gutfull of PC globalist crap that was taking their jobs and giving it to cheap overseas labor so the well to do in NW and CA could buy cheaper products and services and the businesses would make more profits. Perhaps the DNC and HRC would have won if they recognised that fact, instead of calling them deplorable - but unlikely. Trump is innocent as someone has said. DNC and HRC are the guilty ones. Where is the investigations into what happened with them?
  15. what has happened to all the military dictatorships we used to have in Africa? They were taken over by enforced democracies that resulted in even worse outcomes for the people. None of which we hear about since the media isnt interested in failed democracies - only bad evil military/monarchies. So Myanmar it is. OK - lets start and finish there. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/world/asia/myanmar-democracy-rohingya.html It took me all of 2 minutes to find a source you wouldn't immediately dismiss as biased. Your own NY Times it is. You are wrong. Democracy in Myanmar is failing. Perhaps that means I am right? Perhaps not. True - perhaps I am not. BUT - religious like fanatical ideological belief that Democracy is good and anything else is bad - is wrong. The junta are in transition to Democracy - they know they cant stay forever. They may even put forward candidates for the election. I hope they do as I believe a 3rd Party would be good for Thailand. The previous attempts at Democracy always devolved into a power struggle between reds and yellows - a brown party might offer some balance. Hey - before you tear that idea down - why not let the people decide if they want to elect a military rule. Isnt that true democracy? Wasn't Washington, Grant, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, etc. all senior military men before they become POTUS?