- Joined
- 26 January 2009
- Posts
- 322
- Reactions
- 0
Quite right. And I refuse to sacrifice my freedom not to be shot at. There is no legitimate reason to own a gun in the city. None. If you want to belong to a gun club, fine. Keep your weapons in that club. At all times. The ONLY purpose of a weapon in the city is to commit harm to some one or some thing. Pretending that you have a "right" to own and use things which are dangerous to others and 100% useless for any worthwhile task is madness.
this one quote from you shows how ignorant you are on the issue of firearms, as is nearly always the case with people who form the 'anti' agenda...
there is NO SUCH THING AS A SEMI AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN!!! in fact even the term 'semi automatic' is not an accurate description of a style of firearm. your "friend from texas" either possess's a self loading firearm (one depression of the trigger causes the firing of one round of ammunition), or a machine gun (one depression causes the firearm to repeadedly discharge until the trigger is released).
bandicoot76;726714E said:pretty simple really but i guess your "revelation" caused other people ignorant of firearms to go 'tsk tsk isnt that terrible, what nutcase would need or want a semi-atomatic machinegun'....
bandicoot76 said:again your ignorance and insulting stereo-typing bullsh*t taint the contributions you make on this thread,
Brilliant!
I've just learnt something about guns. All seems the same really but maybe I just don't understand. Which I have no doubt you'll let me know about.
Sorry if I haven't paid attention to the details, sport. I saw the gun, it looked like a machine gun (which I assumed was a semi-auto), I called it as a I saw it. The point remains.
Brilliant!
I've just learnt something about guns. All seems the same really but maybe I just don't understand. Which I have no doubt you'll let me know about.
Sorry if I haven't paid attention to the details, sport. I saw the gun, it looked like a machine gun (which I assumed was a semi-auto), I called it as a I saw it. The point remains.
i wasnt challenging your point, only correcting a technicality and getting annoyed at what i (wrongly as it turns out) saw as a deliberate distortion of the facts for a 'scare value' effect... it is a tactic widely used by the 'anti' movement but i see now that in your case i was mistaken so i duly apolagise.
Yeah, I did. I thought, do I want to live in a country where that sort of weapon is available to the general piblic? The answer was no.
i totally agree with you on this point and i (along with a vast majority of sporting shooters) see no need for these type of military firearms to be available to the public...
Wow. Well done on taking things out of context. How about you quote my entire statement?
Parsing does you no favours. And is probably beneath you.
anytime i hear firearm owners lumped under the derogatory "redneck" or looney etc etc banner no matter the context i find it insulting and adds no intelligent input to the debate... no retraction nor apolagy for that one!
all in all i find your input to the discussion pretty balanced mate... just hold back with the redneck type insults and i have no dramas at all!
i totally agree with you on this point and i (along with a vast majority of sporting shooters) see no need for these type of military firearms to be available to the public...
there are three things that i can guarentee will occur in this scenario:
1) the people that you fear may cause you harm in the community will still be there, their intent to cause you harm will remain intact, their potential to enact that harm may (or may not) be curbed by firearm access but they sure as hell will find a way to make it happen (think sarin gas in tokyo subway, or fuel arson attack on the theatre in sth america, bombs from fuel/fertilizer in oklahoma... mass csualties no guns..)
2)the criminal element in society will not only remain armed but will now be ever more adventurous as they can now prey on an unarmed community.... the crime rate will increase rapidly... count on it!
3) the precedent is set for government to sieze private property without recompense... it would bankrupt the govt to pay correct value for all the private guns in circulation. heres a quick calculation off the top of my head...
most firearm owners average 3 guns each, most firearms cost around $1000.00, the quoted figure of firearm owners in Aus is 764,518 (that is a VERY conservative number... i have seen figures showing 1million plus)
so... that is 3 x $1000 x 764,518 = $2,293,554,000 to remove ONLY the legally held firearms, what benefit for that cost?
but thats not even the main point i was making, the PRECEDANT of seizing and confiscating private property with no recompense for "the common good" is the real worry here, whats next after guns? bows & arrows? big dogs? fast cars? high carb/fat/sugar/salt food? pointy sticks? once you pass that point its a VERY slippery slope!
but in the meantime i'll be taking my rifle out to shoot a couple of bunnies for the pot whenever i damn well please and all you 'anti's' can p*ss well away off!
How brave of you.You just like to kill, it's nothing to do with food.
MrBurns that comment there just sums it up..... you dont like guns and because "you" dont like them they should be banned.
You should run for politics
That's just being silly and seems to me a disappointing response to McLovin's post which came across to me as peace-making and reasonable.i find it rather frustrating trying to have a balanced discussion/debate while being bombarded with insulting derogatory insults and emotive rhetoric rather than facts on this thread so this will be my last effort at putting my ideas across.
ok... lets play make believe and say the 'anti' folks on this thread get their way and for "safety's sake" get a TOTAL ban on all privately owned firearms, all registered firearms are confiscated and destroyed...
hell lets take it one step further and say that due to their knowedge of firearms posing a potentioal threat to the community that all previously liscened firearm owners be rounded up and sent to internment facilities to be detained and individually analized to determine their mental stability and potential risk to the community..
That's just being silly and seems to me a disappointing response to McLovin's post which came across to me as peace-making and reasonable.
You criticise others for 'emotive rhetoric' and then you propose a scenario as above. Hardly a way to win people to your point of view.
MrBurns that comment there just sums it up..... you dont like guns and because "you" dont like them they should be banned.
You should run for politics
I have to agree with you on this, and just hope most of the animals that people kill for fun exist in extraordinary numbers so the killing for fun can be at least partially justified.I just don't like the twisted mentality that enjoys blowing a gentle creature apart with a weapon...........for enjoyment :screwy:
I just don't like the twisted mentality that enjoys blowing a gentle creature apart with a weapon...........for enjoyment :screwy:
again another reason why this thread has no substance, I agree there are sick people in this world that do stupid things (but that's with everything) but you directing that statement to a majority of people who treat animals with respect, hunt with high ethical standards, hunt for a purpose (feral animal control or meat consumption) and enjoy the benefits of the outdoors, not to mention the environmental and economic benefits which are enormous.
I take my family out shooting rabbits/pigs other species For both the pot and vermin control and because we enjoy it, show the kids where meat actually comes from, get out in the fresh air and show them how a simple life can be your saying I'm twisted mentally?
MrBurns like I said you should run for politics
and enjoy the benefits of the outdoors, not to mention the environmental and economic benefits which are enormous.
What extraordinary logic.I think everyone should either hunt or kill an animal they eat at least once in their life, if you cant kill an animal then you probably shouldn't eat meat.
I think most of us understand that the leg of lamb comes from a young sheep being killed for food. Hardly need to butcher it ourselves to get that!I grew up in a rural area and shooting kangaroos or slaughtering your own sheep, chickens etc. It makes you appreciate where food comes from and learn respect for nature and animals.
What extraordinary logic.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?