gun control again...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
5,579
Location
earth
I am reading today of how south australia (the state) is banning some Lapua sized calibres and large calibres from shooting at ranges. It is also on track in New South Wales.

http://huntandshoot.com.au/articles/hunt...large-calibres/

jsut be thankful you have the relative freedom to have arms in the USA, because in Australia, the greenies decide who can own it... I have a feelign the government is scared of an armed population.
 
Its a shame the way the gun laws have turned in Australia. Is New Zealand doing the same thing?
 
It's all part of the (what I term) "thin ending" of the process.

Every single step seems "reasonable" to those of us who know nothing about the matter.

Our new gun laws (Introduced by the Conservatives, for completeness, with hundreds of pages of legislation rolled out in less than a week) required "genuine reason" to have a licence, and for each particular firearm that you own.

My personal approved reasons are target and recreational hunting/vermin control.

There's not quite any bolt/lever/pump rifle that doesn't fit those things (and pump/auto shotties are verbotten for their fear factor).

All of this seemed "reasonable" to those I work and associate with. They couldn't explain their "genuine reason" to have large SUVs, vintage cars that don't meet any modern road safety standards/emissions, motorbikes that could do 3 times the national maximum speed limit (while not being members of approved racing clubs etc. They also reckoned that they should provide reasons for their personal wants, when h=guns are a public safety issue.

They just don't get it.

However, ranges have to be licenced, and conform to ricochet templates. Local range is licenced only for less than 8mm, ruling out my .44Mag...on that range. Could fire a .22 Cheetah, 6.5x.284, a fair percentage of the Lazzeroni range, but not even a .44 special.

What the Coallition for Gun Control, and their political lackeys are doing is stretching (remember the thin end of the wedge?) the genuine reason part of the rules.

First they reminded ranges that they had to stick to the diameter limits, and arranged for spot audits of same.

Then started picking at the "what reasonable sportsman would need such as these?", throw in a dodgy .50 cal snippet of prairie dogs flying...much the same as they threw in "what reasonable shooter needs more than a single well placed shot?" in the early days.

They'll win.

I've seen people who were geed up by the increasingly stiffer requirements fold and give up their gear. Even having the obligatory 10 year Police inspection of your premesis (sorry, safe storage) gets a bit thin.

When I was considering a move to NZ due to the insanity over here, they were encouraging supressors so that ranges didn't upset neighbours, and better take rogue possum populations.

(IMO, the next move will be our version of the EPA (DECC) to move on ranges, for lead content and noise levels...people LOVE building right up the the fence and [censored]).

I don't think that NZ is quite as gun friendly as it was a decade ago.
 
We are not as strict as Aussie,gun crime is not big here.There was an amnesty about 20 years ago when automatic type weapons were outlawed - the thinking is we don't need weapons primarily designed to kill people here,guns are for sport or for use in pest control.But recently there have been concerns after a couple of cops were gunned down.

Last year in Napier Jan Molenaar shot dead an officer at his door step on a routine cannabis search,there was a 40hr siege.Molenaar finally shot himself,and they found a well stocked arsenal and booby trapped home.Non of the weapons were licensed,so gun laws won't help there.

Also last year a cop was killed by a high powered slug gun.Slug guns used to be legal to anyone over 16,now you need a license for a slug gun...or maybe just the high power jobs.

Living in a rural community guns are just part of a farmers tools of trade,and I always see shells on the floor in cars at work....but seldom a gun,they don't bring them to town.

Our cops are still unarmed,and the feeling is we want to keep it that way...but if more cops are killed they might be.Latest thing is that all patrol cars will have a gun...locked away of course.
 
Originally Posted By: Durango
crinkles,

I don't think your government will enact anything for a while since your rain storm situation lately.

Durango


on the contrary, they tend to pass bills when no one is looking.
 
Yep, have an "emergency sitting" to discuss aid to the flood victims, then fill in the free time with stuff that doesn't get reported.
 
Originally Posted By: crinkles
Originally Posted By: Durango
crinkles,

I don't think your government will enact anything for a while since your rain storm situation lately.

Durango


on the contrary, they tend to pass bills when no one is looking.


crinkles,

They can pass bill before the people can vote on it???? This is messed-up big time!
Govergment at it's best.

Durango
 
I guess it depends on where you live.

The politicians in my state know that it is political suicide to bring up gun control.

The Liberals with a chance of getting elected do not discuss it. The ones that do? You'll see their names when the votes are tallied: "Joseph Blough, Gun Control Pity-Party: .019%"

Right now the big discussion is over whether or not state residents can have out of state CCLs. (like from Utah which only costs like $60 and requires only a few hours of training) It's expected to die in committee.
 
Originally Posted By: Durango
Originally Posted By: crinkles
Originally Posted By: Durango
crinkles,

I don't think your government will enact anything for a while since your rain storm situation lately.

Durango


on the contrary, they tend to pass bills when no one is looking.


crinkles,

They can pass bill before the people can vote on it???? This is messed-up big time!
Govergment at it's best.

Durango


You think it's different in America? Durango, just who do you think votes on these matters?
 
well the people only vote for representatives, after that the representatives (members of the house, or senators depending which level) vote on bills all the time, sometimes they could poll their constituents but generally do as they wish once they are voted in.
 
Originally Posted By: crinkles
well the people only vote for representatives, after that the representatives (members of the house, or senators depending which level) vote on bills all the time, sometimes they could poll their constituents but generally do as they wish once they are voted in.


We have a winner! I wanted Durango to answer the question though. To me it didn't seem like he understood how things were...
 
The NRA and more importantly, the GOA here in the states are the main reason we still have our gun rights. In most states. Then, of course, there is the fact that they know they won't ever be able to go door to door to take them.

They will get shot especially since most in the U.S. know this is a GLOBAL effort to dis-arm EVERYONE world wide with the U.N. pushing it. Many states don't require registration of ANY firearm therefore it's easy to just say they were sold due to bad economic conditions. They won't get them all in 100 years.

That is why they keep going after lead bullets under the guise of saving the environment. The ammunition is their focus these days. Driving up the cost of it through taxation, regulation and environmental hogwash.

No bullets is the same thing as no guns.
 
Bullets can be made out of other materials. Lead is just of one many. I would think that depleted uranium should work just as well.

UN's goal is to serve man, probably as a dish to the Kanamits or maybe to the aliens from V. Can't have the herd revolt. Think of what would happen if cows and pigs armed themselves.
 
This was on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12158148
An interesting view in my mind. But a factual?

"America's love affair with the gun is steeped in the nation's foundational stories, particularly its history as a frontier society without an established military.


"The threat of French, Spanish and Indian hostility on the frontier meant that from the very beginning America was a society that relied very heavily on a population that is armed," Saul Cornell, an American history professor at Fordham University in New York, told the BBC.

"Basically we had a militia as the organisational building block of internal and external defence."

"
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: expat
This was on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12158148
An interesting view in my mind. But a factual?

"America's love affair with the gun is steeped in the nation's foundational stories, particularly its history as a frontier society without an established military.


"The threat of French, Spanish and Indian hostility on the frontier meant that from the very beginning America was a society that relied very heavily on a population that is armed," Saul Cornell, an American history professor at Fordham University in New York, told the BBC.

"Basically we had a militia as the organisational building block of internal and external defence."

"

Now that is the kind of coverage I would expect from a state run "news" arm.
The Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If it was not for arms, the United States of America wouldn't exist, and the Founders full well knew it. It's the only real check on tyrannical government as laws (including the Constitution) are simply ink on a page.
Any government that doesn't trust it's population with arms shouldn't be trusted by that population.
The restriction of arms is always the first and necessary step toward tyranny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top