badlatitude

This is An Example of Why We Don't Trust Gun Nutterz

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Because you have accepted violence, lethal violence, as a means of "self defense". This is a particularly American notion.

We're the only country with armed forces?

What a strange world you live in. Here's a clue: violence is violence, even if it's committed by someone who works for a government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 3:13 PM, badlatitude said:

I moved the SCAR and Ballista to Oregon when California attached rules governing them.

And that's why we don't trust gun grabberz who say they'd hand in their guns if they became illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2017 at 10:28 AM, LenP said:

In reading through the millionth gun thread, I am wondering what exactly makes one a gun nutter/wanker/whatever.

Gun owners in PA

BJ
Jocal
KIS
Guy
Tom
JBSF
Cal20
Badlat
Me
and I am sure a bunch I am missing

Some on this list are routinely accused of being fanatics, gun wankers, etc, the rest are all considered reasonable progressive individuals, and many on the list are the ones labeling the others as unreasonable gun nuts or worse. The only commonality I can find between the ones accused of being unreasonable nuts is opposition to a new AWB. Is that all it is?

An example in CA at the moment. In a thread about dinks, random said this:

On 11/27/2017 at 5:09 AM, random said:

There are two main things to consider,

  1. what type of shoreline will you be visiting?
  2. are there any crocodiles?


Which led to this:

On 11/28/2017 at 9:04 AM, RKoch said:
On 11/28/2017 at 8:11 AM, Steam Flyer said:

 

100% agree

I'm glad they have made a comeback but I'm not happy about the way many of my fellow humans interact with them.

Advice to anybody intending to shoot an alligator: 1- don't....... call the wildlife service. In NC they will come  very quickly on these kinds of calls, if the thing is a danger. 2- if you really need to shoot it and the situation mandates not waiting for NCWS, use the highest powered rifle you can get. Do not use a pistol. And remember that it's illegal anyway, just hope the judge agrees with you about the urgency.

http://www.ncwildlife.org/News/wildlife-commission-provides-tips-to-coexist-with-alligators

FB- Doug

 

I can attest from personal experience that rounds from an AR-15 just bounce off gators at 50 yds.  Prob need a .30-06 or bigger. 

...

So I told them that I killed a gator with a .22. It was illegal, but it was also a starving gator in my pond that needed to die. Now random's over there wondering why I brought it up and saying I shouldn't have guns. No question at all about whether RKoch gathered that experience legally nor where the "bounces" went. I shoot downward from a hill at a gator in my pond and I'm the irresponsible one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

An example in CA at the moment. In a thread about dinks, random said this:


Which led to this:

So I told them that I killed a gator with a .22. It was illegal, but it was also a starving gator in my pond that needed to die. Now random's over there wondering why I brought it up and saying I shouldn't have guns. No question at all about whether RKoch gathered that experience legally nor where the "bounces" went. I shoot downward from a hill at a gator in my pond and I'm the irresponsible one.

Don't take it personally. Random is an irrational jerk.

I apologize for bringing up GUNZ in CA

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Don't take it personally. Random is an irrational jerk.

I apologize for bringing up GUNZ in CA

-DSK

I thought your advice was good and was part of a thread detour that random started.

There are exceptions to every rule and I didn't really need to kill that gator. I could have waited for someone with a license.

The thing is, a couple of us had tried for several hours to locate the darn thing that day. We knew it was there. Somewhere. The pond is 1/3 of an acre, 8' deep at most, and has clear water. I don't know how it hid. But as sundown approached, I saw it coming from the far end, heading for the perfect ambush spot under the hill. The chances of a professional getting the opportunity to shoot almost straight down at this gator from less than 20' away seemed far worse than my chances at that moment.

measurement.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I thought your advice was good and was part of a thread detour that random started.

There are exceptions to every rule and I didn't really need to kill that gator. I could have waited for someone with a license.

The thing is, a couple of us had tried for several hours to locate the darn thing that day. We knew it was there. Somewhere. The pond is 1/3 of an acre, 8' deep at most, and has clear water. I don't know how it hid. But as sundown approached, I saw it coming from the far end, heading for the perfect ambush spot under the hill. The chances of a professional getting the opportunity to shoot almost straight down at this gator from less than 20' away seemed far worse than my chances at that moment.

measurement.jpg

That is one scrawny gator.  This is what they are supposed to look like.

dsc_0956ac46r107.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2017 at 6:34 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

We're the only country with armed forces?

What a strange world you live in. Here's a clue: violence is violence, even if it's committed by someone who works for a government.

You touch on a basic of civilization, and get a FAIL. Even within savage tribes, justice becomes a group matter. Within civilizations, such violence quickly becomes a matter for the state.This monopoly of state violence protects us from RTC, you know, common, Tom Ray type street justice.  Boothy was scary in this same regard.

 

For some reason, Heller build on poorly quoted English Law. "Not guilty" for self defense was unheard of until 1828.

Quote

 II THE COMMON LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF OTHERS Darrel Miller

http://lcp.law.duke.edu/article/self-defense-defense-of-others-and-the-state-miller-vol80-iss2/

As Coke reported,

 “although a man kills another in his defence [sic]. . . without any intent, yet it is felony . . . for the great regard which the law has to a man’s life . . . .”35

The necessity of self-preservation alone did not justify homicide in the eyes of the law, and the formal requirement of forfeiture for selfdefense wasn’t abrogated until 1828.36 

 See The Offences Against the Person Act of 1828, 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, § 10 (stating that

 “no [p]unishment or [f]orfeiture shall be incurred by any [p]erson who shall kill another by [misfortune, or in his own [d]efence, or in any other [m]anner without [f]elony.”);

Those who killed in self-defense had to submit a request for pardon to the king or to his ministers.37

The Statute of Gloucester (1278),38 for example, provided that those accused of homicide who claimed self-defense had to remain in jail, plead the defense to the king’s justices, and upon report of the justices to the sovereign, “the King shall take [the accused] to his Grace, if it please him.”39

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2017 at 4:31 PM, Bent Sailor said:

National gun control works. You want a counter argument to that - get cracking on showing how your nation can cut that homicide down to a quarter it's current rate without decreasing your firearms stockpile.

How much did you gun homicide rate go down since PtA?

How much did your overall homicide rate go down in that same period?

crimestats.jpg?w=598

Here, I'll save you the trouble.  Your gun homicide rate DID go down - no denying it, yet your overall homicide rate remained unchanged.  Which means that all those gun murders were replaced with a murder by other means.  Those same amount of people are still dead.

So yes, you were successful as saving some people being shot by a gun.  But you had almost no effect on the number of overall murders.  Murderers just found other ways to kill them instead.  All those people who didn't die by a gun, was killed anyway.  So if your only goal was to reduce gun murders, congrats - you were successful.  If your goal (as it should have been instead) was to reduce overall murder and death - you failed miserably.  

If you continue to cling to your failed narrative that "But gun murders are down" while ignoring that the murder rates barely budged - it proves definitively that you care more about getting rid of guns than you care about actually saving lives.  

Please congratulate for me and remind those families who lost a son or daughter to a non-gun murder that its OK, because you got ride of the gunz.  That their death has little value or meaning as long as they weren't a gun murder stat.  WFD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

How much did you gun homicide rate go down since PtA?

Quite a bit, as you acknowledge.

 

Quote

How much did your overall homicide rate go down in that same period?

Since 1996, our rate has dropped (proportionally) faster than that of the US. That isn't going to change no matter how you try hiding that fact.

Nice try though - it's been some time since someone tried misrepresenting a graph. A table of our homicide rate would have shown that our homicide rate had changed. It fell. Meaning your line about firearm homicide being completely replaced by other means is false.

I honestly don't know why you choose to follow Tom down into gun nut dementia; but you haven't had his experience trying to spin bullshit into something resembling a valid argument... and it shows. Come back when you have something valid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

"Not guilty" for self defense was unheard of until 1828.

1604:

Quote

the house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and violence as for his repose.

If you're going to talk about the Castle Doctrine, perhaps you should learn where it came from, and when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Saorsa said:

That is one scrawny gator.  This is what they are supposed to look like.

dsc_0956ac46r107.jpg

Yes, that's what we usually see, just not in the pond. Little ones get in the pond every Spring but big ones never do. Unless they are injured and starving, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another high school shooting 3 dead 12 wounded.

 

"Two students were killed when a gunman opened fire at a northern New Mexico high school Thursday morning, law enforcement officials said.

The suspected gunman was also killed, a spokesman for the New Mexico State Police told Fox News. It's unclear how the gunman died or what the motive for the attack may have been.

Aztec High School, which is located in the Four Corners region and near the Navajo Nation, was evacuated after a period of being in lockdown. Authorities said they cleared the buildings at the school, and students were boarding buses to another location where they could be reunited with their parents.

A law enforcement official and a Navajo Nation spokesman said more than a dozen others were injured during the incident, however, it wasn't immediately clear how they were hurt.

"It's tragic when our children are harmed in violent ways especially on school campuses. We express our condolences to those families who have been harmed," Russell Begaye, president of the Navajo Nation, said in a press release."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/07/several-wounded-after-shooting-at-new-mexico-school-reports-say.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Just another high school shooting 3 dead 12 wounded.

If only someone would show us what to do. You know, someone who owns a bunch of assault weapons handing them over to the state because that's where they belong, not because someone told him to do it. I doubt it will happen.

How many assault weapons do you own again, by the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If only someone would show us what to do.

Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes, we know you're sometimes a fan of your laws, even if unwilling to speak about practical applications like a woman outdoors with a handgun.

But this wouldn't go over well in America:

Quote

Personal protection is not a genuine reason for acquiring, possessing or using a firearm.

And your Category C license would definitely exclude Jocal and would probably exclude me from ownership of our battlefield .22's.

Quote

Semi-automatic rimfire rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than 10 rounds

Also, you're going to have a bit of trouble selling those inspections over here.

Quote

The licensing process must include a provision for an initial inspection of storage facilities and for subsequent mutually arranged inspections. All such inspections will be subject to the recognition of the individual’s right to privacy.

See, over here, we have this fourth amendment. Government agents in our homes are respectful of our privacy if they have a warrant showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. If they're checking to see whether or not we're exercising another protected right? Not so much.

Besides, before following your enlightened ways of allowing government inspectors into our homes to check on our exercise of rights, we're going to need some shining examples to follow. People who are so committed to the idea that we must DO SOMETHING (meaning, as usual, ban battlefield .22's) that they actually give up their own battlefield weapons. As if it's the right thing to do or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If only someone would show us what to do. You know, someone who owns a bunch of assault weapons handing them over to the state because that's where they belong, not because someone told him to do it. I doubt it will happen.

How many assault weapons do you own again, by the way?

If you don't know what to do, maybe someone should take away your guns until you figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

If you don't know what to do, maybe someone should take away your guns until you figure it out.

If you do know what to do, maybe you should do it.

DO SOMETHING means ban scary battlefield weapons over and over and over again, so it probably means that this time too, right?

DO SOMETHING, badlat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If you do know what to do, maybe you should do it.

DO SOMETHING means ban scary battlefield weapons over and over and over again, so it probably means that this time too, right?

DO SOMETHING, badlat.

Tom, you're as weak-kneed as your weak ideas. Sooner than later all this catches up to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yes, we know you're sometimes a fan of your laws...

That's because they work.

 

40 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

And your Category C license would definitely exclude Jocal and would probably exclude me from ownership of our battlefield .22's.

I imagine if I were trying to preserve your preferred access to guns, this would be a problem. As I am not, it isn't.

 

40 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

See, over here, we have this fourth amendment. Government agents in our homes are respectful of our privacy if they have a warrant showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. If they're checking to see whether or not we're exercising another protected right? Not so much.

Indeed, which is why a national change in firearms laws would require a change to the national right to firearms. I see nothing "god granted" about firearms. It is an anachronistic quirk of your laws that the government can restrict hammers, but cannot restrict firearms. A solution to your gun problem would entail removing that oddity

 

40 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Besides, before following your enlightened ways of allowing government inspectors into our homes to check on our exercise of rights, we're going to need some shining examples to follow. People who are so committed to the idea that we must DO SOMETHING (meaning, as usual, ban battlefield .22's) that they actually give up their own battlefield weapons. As if it's the right thing to do or something.

Plenty of Aussies did exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If only someone would show us what to do. You know, someone who owns a bunch of assault weapons handing them over to the state because that's where they belong, not because someone told him to do it. I doubt it will happen.

How many assault weapons do you own again, by the way?

Geez Tom. Three dead, twelve wounded. You are being shown what to do by the courts. per the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
Quote

See, over here, we have this fourth amendment. Government agents in our homes are respectful of our privacy if they have a warrant showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. If they're checking to see whether or not we're exercising another protected right? Not so much.

Indeed, which is why a national change in firearms laws would require a change to the national right to firearms. I see nothing "god granted" about firearms. It is an anachronistic quirk of your laws that the government can restrict hammers, but cannot restrict firearms. A solution to your gun problem would entail removing that oddity

I'm not just talking about the right to own the guns. I'm talking about another amendment. We have a bunch of them besides the second.

The problem with the inspections you have is a fourth amendment problem and would continue to be one if the second were repealed and we agreed that we have no right to own a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm not just talking about the right to own the guns. I'm talking about another amendment. We have a bunch of them besides the second.

The problem with the inspections you have is a fourth amendment problem and would continue to be one if the second were repealed and we agreed that we have no right to own a gun.

You seem to be responding to someone that didn't expressly quote the following as context for their post:

1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

See, over here, we have this fourth amendment. Government agents in our homes are respectful of our privacy if they have a warrant showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. If they're checking to see whether or not we're exercising another protected right? Not so much.

The government agents would not be coming to inspect your exercise of the fourth amendment. You were pretty clearly talking about the second amendment, given the government agents would be inspecting ownership/storage of firearms, which is why I addressed that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

See, over here, we have this fourth amendment. Government agents in our homes are respectful of our privacy if they have a warrant showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. If they're checking to see whether or not we're exercising another protected right? Not so much.

The government agents would not be coming to inspect your exercise of the fourth amendment. You were pretty clearly talking about the second amendment, given the government agents would be inspecting ownership/storage of firearms, which is why I addressed that.

I was pretty clearly talking about both, which is why "fourth amendment" appears so soon in my post.

In the absence of the 2nd, it would read like this:

See, over here, we have this fourth amendment. Government agents in our homes are respectful of our privacy if they have a warrant showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. If they're checking to see whether or not we own a firearm or do any other legal, but not necessarily constitutionally protected, thing Not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If you do know what to do, maybe you should do it.

DO SOMETHING means ban scary battlefield weapons over and over and over again, so it probably means that this time too, right?

DO SOMETHING, badlat.

Tom, you're as weak-kneed as your weak ideas. Sooner than later all this catches up to you. 

We both seem to share the weak idea of continuing to own our assault weapons. Why act like nutterz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

We both seem to share the weak idea of continuing to own our assault weapons. Why act like nutterz?

Tom, You don't even know what type of weapon was used. What if it was a .22?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Tom, You don't even know what type of weapon was used. What if it was a .22?

Then it would probably be more like my assault weapon than yours, but still the political reaction would be the same: ban assault weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Then it would probably be more like my assault weapon than yours, but still the political reaction would be the same: ban assault weapons.

It's coming Tom, let the opinion roar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I was pretty clearly talking about both, which is why "fourth amendment" appears so soon in my post.

And yet government agents would not be "checking to see whether or not we're exercising your fourth amendment right". I responded to the argument you made. Not the one you might wished to. 

 

30 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

In the absence of the 2nd, it would read like this:

See, over here, we have this fourth amendment. Government agents in our homes are respectful of our privacy if they have a warrant showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. If they're checking to see whether or not we own a firearm or do any other legal, but not necessarily constitutionally protected, thing Not so much.

And yet that's not what you said. You clearly and inarguably were discussing government agents "checking to see whether or not we're exercising another protected right". I responded to what you wrote, not what you might have written if you thought it through. You should find the person that was arguing with your unstated argument of government agents "checking to see whether or not we own a firearm or do any other legal, but not necessarily constitutionally protected, thing" and take it up with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Just another high school shooting 3 dead 12 wounded.

 

"Two students were killed when a gunman opened fire at a northern New Mexico high school Thursday morning, law enforcement officials said.

The suspected gunman was also killed, a spokesman for the New Mexico State Police told Fox News. It's unclear how the gunman died or what the motive for the attack may have been.

Aztec High School, which is located in the Four Corners region and near the Navajo Nation, was evacuated after a period of being in lockdown. Authorities said they cleared the buildings at the school, and students were boarding buses to another location where they could be reunited with their parents.

A law enforcement official and a Navajo Nation spokesman said more than a dozen others were injured during the incident, however, it wasn't immediately clear how they were hurt.

"It's tragic when our children are harmed in violent ways especially on school campuses. We express our condolences to those families who have been harmed," Russell Begaye, president of the Navajo Nation, said in a press release."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/07/several-wounded-after-shooting-at-new-mexico-school-reports-say.html

'Looks like you should start listening to me and Razr for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And yet government agents would not be "checking to see whether or not we're exercising your fourth amendment right". I responded to the argument you made. Not the one you might wished to. 

 

And yet that's not what you said. You clearly and inarguably were discussing government agents "checking to see whether or not we're exercising another protected right". I responded to what you wrote, not what you might have written if you thought it through. You should find the person that was arguing with your unstated argument of government agents "checking to see whether or not we own a firearm or do any other legal, but not necessarily constitutionally protected, thing" and take it up with them.

Sigh.  Its no surprise you don't get it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sigh.  Its no surprise you don't get it.  

I get it. Tom Ray thought I meant to introduce the laws without a corresponding change to the "right to bear arms". When I corrected his misunderstanding / misrepresentation, instead of simply acknowledging that as a part of my position and moving on, he decided to play a game of semantic one-upmanship hoping he didn't have to concede to his mistake. Unfortunately he didn't leave enough wiggle room for that. 

I personally have no problem with a limitation of inspections by government agents being only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion. In practice, that's how it works here. Police have far more important things occupying their time than checking your guns are locked up unless/until given reasonable cause to suspect otherwise. As such, I don't see it being an implementation issue over in the states either. 

As I have now expressed a reasonable point of view, that would be your cue to stop pretending to be reasonable, accuse me of being willing to watch my wife be raped, and leave with "Fuck you, Second Amendment" congratulating yourself on "winning" another round. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I personally have no problem with a limitation of inspections by government agents being only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion. In practice, that's how it works here. Police have far more important things occupying their time than checking your guns are locked up unless/until given reasonable cause to suspect otherwise. As such, I don't see it being an implementation issue over in the states either. 

Prior to implementation, there would have to be enactment.

Enactment of the laws you suggested would be unconstitutional here, and I'm not just saying because we have a second amendment. Your laws may (or may not) really be enforced the way you say, but that's irrelevant. They'd still be unconstitutional if enacted here unless we repealed or significantly changed not one, but two of our bill of rights amendments.

Fuck you, fourth amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Enactment of the laws you suggested would be unconstitutional here, and I'm not just saying because we have a second amendment. Your laws may (or may not) really be enforced the way you say, but that's irrelevant. They'd still be unconstitutional if enacted here unless we repealed or significantly changed not one, but two of our bill of rights amendments.

Indeed, which is why I was OK with there being an explicit acknowledgement on the inspections being only on reasonable suspicion of breaking the law. As you already know having read (& acknowledged details of) the post in which I describe how the laws are enforced. Fourth Amendment is more than fine with my view, even if you pretend you didn't read the parts of it that render your opposition personal rather than legal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The near-weekly massacre of innocents at schools, concerts, churches etc. has become the new normal in the USA. No longer shocking or thought-provoking. "How many? OK, only 10, we'll give it 20 seconds on the news."

The reason sane, responsible Australian gun owners willingly gave up their weapons was to make it much harder for insane killers to get hold of a weapon. Also most of them probably realised that they didn't really need one, being sane responsible persons living in a safe comfortable suburb, not a war zone.

Cops, cash guards, farmers, licensed vermin shooters, competitive shooting club members have guns under strict controls. Nobody outside the military and SWAT has a magazine bigger than 5 rounds.

The criminals have plenty of guns, but they pretty much stick to shooting each other, which is sort of OK.

None of this would have been possible if we'd had an archaic Constitutional amendment and the same massive arms industry/NRA lobbying power as America.

Disarming civilian America is impossible and will never happen.

And somewhere in the USA, sometime in the next week or two, another crazed loser with a couple of high-capacity rapid-fire weapons will mow down a bunch of ordinary people and their kids, because he can.........

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Happy said:

 

The reason sane, responsible Australian gun owners willingly gave up their weapons was to make it much harder for insane killers to get hold of a weapon. Also most of them probably realised that they didn't really need one, being sane responsible persons living in a safe comfortable suburb, not a war zone.

Cops, cash guards, farmers, licensed vermin shooters, competitive shooting club members have guns under strict controls. Nobody outside the military and SWAT has a magazine bigger than 5 rounds.

The criminals have plenty of guns, but they pretty much stick to shooting each other, which is sort of OK.

 

 

Another Aussie gun grabber using fear emotions and bullshit to sell his gun grabbing, these gun grabbers are devoid of facts they speak fluent bullshit.

If we gave up our firearms explain why there are 1,973,533 licensed firearm owners with 5,798,980 registered firearms in Australia, we have nearly doubled the number of licensed firearm owners and registered guns since 1996 while our population has increased from 18 to 24 million people, more guns have resulted in less gun crime in Australia which is an inconvenient truth for the gun grabbers- page 63 for numbers. https://www.acic.gov.au/sites/g/files/net1491/f/2016/10/crimtrac_ar_2015-16_final_071016.pdf

 

The English still allow semi auto rimfire rifles with no magazine limits for some reason they don't crap their pants in fear with semi auto rimfire rifles with large magazines. New Zealand allow semi auto rimfire and centrefire with sound moderators (silencers for the dim wits) they haven't had a mass shooting since 1997,sound moderators are easier to buy in NZ compared to the US yet for some reason criminals don't use them in NZ. From 1980-1995   27 of our 813 firearm homicides were done with the semi auto rifles we restricted in 1996, just over 1% of all firearm deaths from 1980-1995 were done with these semi auto rifles so how much safer are we by banning a type of gun that was used in just over 1% of all gun deaths from 1980-1995?-  http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument

 

The worst mass shooting in Australia before Port Arthur was done with a single shot bolt action .22, a type of gun the gun grabbers are usually cool with people owning, this type of gun is very common in Australia- https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19710907&id=GsNUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=u5ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5209,1264510&hl=en

 

As for the bullshit on nobody having magazines bigger than 5 rounds did you pluck that from your ass? Rimfire rifles with non detachable magazines are not restricted with magazine capacity, detachable magazines are limited to 15 rounds. Centrefire rifles with non detachable magazines are not restricted for capacity detachable magazines limited to 10 rounds. Those with Category D license are not restricted with magazine capacity- http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0011/209477/FACT_SHEET_Firearm_Magazines_October_2012.pdf

 

Yes the criminals do have plenty of guns, the Lindt siege terrorist used a shotgun outlawed in 1996 and the person who killed the Policeman Brett Forte used a full auto that has been banned for over 60 years.

 

Those who praise Aussie gun laws are cool with people being allowed pump action rifles like the Remington 7600-7615 with a 10 round magazine yet think anyone who is allowed to have a pump action shotgun will become a mass murdering terrorist. The Aussie gun grabbers are cool with people having a Ruger Charger which is legal on a pistol license yet think allowing people to have the exact same gun in rifle form the Ruger 10/22 will turn them into mass murdering terrorists.

 

The Gun Grabbers will never cite New Zealand gun laws because they allow all the scary black semi autos with sound  moderators which cause them to crap their pants in fear, NZ has a lower firearm homicide rate compared to Australia and no mass shootings since 1997.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Happy said:

And somewhere in the USA, sometime in the next week or two, another crazed loser with a couple of high-capacity rapid-fire weapons will mow down a bunch of ordinary people and their kids, because he can.........

Or possibly, as shown above, a couple of losers with unknown guns will shoot two victims, get shot themselves by those victims, and accidentally shoot a woman, with no one being killed. Hey, four shot makes it a "mass shooting" and is useful to pad the numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Hey, four shot makes it a "mass shooting" and is useful to pad the numbers.

Bullshit. Crybaby hyperbole. Four shot in one incident is a bloodbath, mate. My friend Larry described the floor of the Cafe Racer to me. (He saved lived there with a well-thrown barstool.)

I don't think you can cite your post. And you can't excuse four people being shot as excusable or tolerable, within the pattern in our USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I don't think you can cite your post. A

You have a lot more thoughts about me than about things political and that one is as accurate as most.

On 12/7/2017 at 9:04 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Then there are "mass shootings" like this one, third on the list:
 

Quote

 

A 23-year-old man and 37-year-old woman were leaving the store located at 2318 Euclid when two suspects pulled out guns and announced a robbery.

The man pulled out his own weapon and exchanged shots with both suspects. Both victims sustained gunshots wounds and were conveyed to the hospital in stable condition.

A 24-year-old woman was inside the store when she was struck by a stray bullet.  She was transported to a local hospital and listed as stable.

One of the suspects, later identified as a 17-year-old boy, fled the scene but later showed up to an area hospital suffering from a gunshot wound. 

 

It's a "mass" shooting because the stray round hit the woman in the store and because the perp was perforated by his intended victim, which was helpful in catching him later.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You have a lot more thoughts about me than about things political and that one is as accurate as most.

After five years if exchanges, you are pretty transparent, IMO.  Your concern about how to properly count mass shootings is a TR rabbit hole. Enjoy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I correct in my understanding that Tommy Gun doesn't regard 4 people shot as a mass shooting?

If so, how many qualifies?

5?

10?

25?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Am I correct in my understanding that Tommy Gun doesn't regard 4 people shot as a mass shooting?

If so, how many qualifies?

5?

10?

25?

 

Were they shot with a fucking .22?Were they shot with a frigging .22?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 6:18 PM, badlatitude said:

It's coming Tom, let the opinion roar. 

And roar it will.

2017 was not kind to TR. Kolbe was hard on him and his AW's, constitutionally speaking. He kinda unravelled into sustained rambling, about 22's. 2018 might reveal further deterioration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Am I correct in my understanding that Tommy Gun doesn't regard 4 people shot as a mass shooting?

Of course not, but a guy whose mentality only supports name calling can't be expected to grasp what I said on the subject.

What I said was:

On 12/7/2017 at 9:04 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Gee, I wonder why this one doesn't have its own thread? Doesn't every mass shooting deserve a thread for thoughts, prayers, and mindless calls to DO SOMETHING?

I called it a mass shooting and said it deserves a thread. It doesn't have one because, like almost every "mass shooting" on those lists, it's not convenient for the purposes of advocating gungrabbing.

The convenient ones get a thread before the bodies reach room temp. And then that thread gets a reference to the vast majority, meaning the inconvenient ones.

Prove me wrong. Go start a thread on the mass shooting to which I linked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2017 at 12:23 AM, Happy said:

The near-weekly massacre of innocents at schools, concerts, churches etc. has become the new normal in the USA. No longer shocking or thought-provoking. "How many? OK, only 10, we'll give it 20 seconds on the news."

The reason sane, responsible Australian gun owners willingly gave up their weapons was to make it much harder for insane killers to get hold of a weapon. Also most of them probably realised that they didn't really need one, being sane responsible persons living in a safe comfortable suburb, not a war zone.

Cops, cash guards, farmers, licensed vermin shooters, competitive shooting club members have guns under strict controls. Nobody outside the military and SWAT has a magazine bigger than 5 rounds.

The criminals have plenty of guns, but they pretty much stick to shooting each other, which is sort of OK.

None of this would have been possible if we'd had an archaic Constitutional amendment and the same massive arms industry/NRA lobbying power as America.

Disarming civilian America is impossible and will never happen.

And somewhere in the USA, sometime in the next week or two, another crazed loser with a couple of high-capacity rapid-fire weapons will mow down a bunch of ordinary people and their kids, because he can.........

 

 

Well said. That's about it. But peer forward a century or so. It's not acceptable, therefore not  sustainable. I think the USA will deal with this after much damage from Pooplius and his regressive elk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Of course not, but a guy whose mentality only supports name calling can't be expected to grasp what I said on the subject.

What I said was:

I called it a mass shooting and said it deserves a thread. It doesn't have one because, like almost every "mass shooting" on those lists, it's not convenient for the purposes of advocating gungrabbing.

The convenient ones get a thread before the bodies reach room temp. And then that thread gets a reference to the vast majority, meaning the inconvenient ones.

Prove me wrong. Go start a thread on the mass shooting to which I linked.

The shooting doesn't have it's own thread  because there are so many similar shootings. Tom would like us to sleep through this one, while discussing his own silliness, and while promoting his own acceptance of the senseless carnage. He peddles the outcome of lethal violence on our boards, with great dedication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Prove me wrong. Go start a thread on the mass shooting to which I linked.

That presupposes that one is able to keep track of them.

We'd need an entire new Forum - Mass Shooting Anarchy.

Brought to you by the NRA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You nag others to give up their guns.

That's not true. This thread shows it:

On 11/14/2017 at 10:45 PM, badlatitude said:

I'm on record for registration and confiscation of all weapons upon death. I think it's the only thing that will work.


We're not discussing WHETHER it's right for badlat to have his assault weapons confiscated. He agrees that it is.

We're discussing WHEN it's right for badlat to have his assault weapons confiscated. I don't see how his death makes it right. If it's right then, it's right today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

That presupposes that one is able to keep track of them.

We'd need an entire new Forum - Mass Shooting Anarchy.

Brought to you by the NRA

We already have a Mass Shooting Tracker thread, brought to you by Mitch, but it doesn't appear to have been very convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 10:45 PM, badlatitude said:

I'm on record for registration and confiscation of all weapons upon death. I think it's the only thing that will work.

Would "all weapons" include my air rifles? Hawaiian sling? Slingshot? It's a black and scary one. But I haven't shot it in long enough that the bands rotted off.

assault-slingshot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Would "all weapons" include my air rifles? Hawaiian sling? Slingshot? It's a black and scary one. But I haven't shot it in long enough that the bands rotted off.

assault-slingshot.jpg

If they can't play nice with guns, how can they play nice with other weapons? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Would "all weapons" include my air rifles? Hawaiian sling? Slingshot? It's a black and scary one. But I haven't shot it in long enough that the bands rotted off.

assault-slingshot.jpg

^^^ As featured in the database Tom doesn't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's not true. (Tom denies nagging others to give up their guns) This thread shows it:

You nag others to give up their guns, and you nag others about whatever thorn is in your panties, on a daily basis. You nagged us with stop and frisk. You nagged us with tools. You nagged us with unicorn farts. You come here to annoy, by nagging us about .22's...for one full year, as of this week.

Quote


We're not discussing WHETHER it's right for badlat to have his assault weapons confiscated. He agrees that it is.

We're discussing WHEN it's right for badlat to have his assault weapons confiscated. I don't see how his death makes it right. If it's right then, it's right today.

My Dear Pooplius, when was it right for George Washington to confiscate guns? With a little study I think I could make chronicled colonial confiscation interesting around here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You nag other to give up their guns, and you nag others about whatever thorn is in your panties, on a daily basis.

My Dear Pooplius, when was it right for George Washington to confiscate guns? With a little study I think I could make chronicled colonial confiscation interesting around here

If you ever do get the time to research that I'm sure it will present TR with a headache of a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

If you ever do get the time to research that I'm sure it will present TR with a headache of a problem.

1. Mark my words, somewhere, Patrick J. Charles will link to sources showing three levels of confiscation. What he presents to the courts, every time, will search engine directly to something the internet will display.

2. It could be done in ten minutes, I think.

3. Pooplius has had to abandon major talking points before. He does so without admission or correction.

3. e.g. Right now, Pooplius is having trouble reconciling The People's rights with the collective rights approach inherent in United States vs Miller. (He can be quoted including gun rights for The People, extensively, and fighting age males, sometimes). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

1. Mark my words, somewhere, Patrick J. Charles will link to sources showing three levels of confiscation. What he presents to the courts, every time, will search engine directly to something the internet will display.

2. It could be done in ten minutes, I think.

3. Pooplius has had to abandon major talking points before. He does so without admission or correction.

3. e.g. Right now, Pooplius is having trouble reconciling The People's rights with the collective rights approach inherent in United States vs Miller. (He can be quoted including gun rights for The People, extensively, and fighting age males, sometimes). 

 

Before it's over, Tom will have to abandon most of his talking points along with his weapons.I know he has dreams of being the face of resistance, but once he is surrounded, it will be in like a lion, out like a lamb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

If they can't play nice with guns, how can they play nice with other weapons? 

Background checks and licenses to buy kitchen knives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You nag others to give up their guns

And you claim to believe that there is no individual right to own one. Yet you own at least 1 firearm. The word, Joe, is hypocrite.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. All of your examples with the exception of one in America, in which four people were stabbed and no one died, are out of United States territory.

A large proportion of our mass shootings result in no deaths. That's still a mass stabbing if we're to be consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

A large proportion of our mass shootings result in no deaths. That's still a mass stabbing if we're to be consistent.

Unfortunately, enough of our mass shootings do result in mass death and is why we are at the point we are at now. The mass stabbings are not anywhere proportional to mass shootings if they approach that level I fear that will become a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Unfortunately, enough of our mass shootings do result in mass death and is why we are at the point we are at now.

I don't see how the point we're at is different from where we'll be on the day after your death.

If giving up your guns is the right thing to do then, why not today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I don't see how the point we're at is different from where we'll be on the day after your death.

If giving up your guns is the right thing to do then, why not today?

Don't rush it, Tom, if your so anxious to see guns confiscated why aren't you surrendering yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

If giving up your guns is the right thing to do then, why not today?

Why not indeed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Don't rush it, Tom, if your so anxious to see guns confiscated why aren't you surrendering yours?

Have you forgotten that you're the one who advocates confiscation, not me?

So you're the hypocrite who won't live your own words, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 8:26 PM, Bent Sailor said:
On 12/7/2017 at 8:01 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Sigh.  Its no surprise you don't get it.  

I get it. Tom Ray thought I meant to introduce the laws without a corresponding change to the "right to bear arms". When I corrected his misunderstanding / misrepresentation, instead of simply acknowledging that as a part of my position and moving on, he decided to play a game of semantic one-upmanship hoping he didn't have to concede to his mistake. Unfortunately he didn't leave enough wiggle room for that. 

I personally have no problem with a limitation of inspections by government agents being only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion. In practice, that's how it works here. Police have far more important things occupying their time than checking your guns are locked up unless/until given reasonable cause to suspect otherwise. As such, I don't see it being an implementation issue over in the states either. 

As I have now expressed a reasonable point of view, that would be your cue to stop pretending to be reasonable, accuse me of being willing to watch my wife be raped, and leave with "Fuck you, Second Amendment" congratulating yourself on "winning" another round. :rolleyes: 

No, you're STILL missing the point.  But I'm glad you do finally admit that you are playing a game of semantics if you feel Tom is playing a semantic one-upsmanship on you.  

Couple of things... The point is that in "Merica", we operate on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and we do not give away our rights to the police to conduct searches or "inspections" of our homes or personal property without a warrant.  Its just the way we are wired.  

We distrust gov't but more importantly we distrust the potential for gov't abuse at some later future date.  I agree with you that most po-leece would likely be too busy to conduct randumb weapons home inspections.... right up until the day they aren't.  We are not willing to give up a right on the assumption that its a low probability the police might actually exercise their ability to abuse it.  We have numerous historical precedents where they HAVE abused it.  

And Tom's point about the 4th Amendment is that the po-leece DO NOT have a right to come search your house or show up to do an inspection without both a warrant and probable cause.  What you are suggesting is that in AUS the po-leece CAN come "inspect" your home to check up on your property.  Sorry, that dog won't hunt here.  If you (the state) have probable cause that I'm doing something wrong with my guns, then get a warrant and then you can come search to your heart's desire.  No warrant, no opening the screen door.  

Sorry, but trusting a right - ANY RIGHT - to the probability that the police are just too busy or too disinterested to bother you is no way to live.  That applies to my privacy, my right to own gunz, my right to practice my religion or no religion, my right to speak or do pressy stuff, etc.  

The difference is that in AUS, you have neither the history nor the true Constitutional framework. to operate that way.  My understanding is Aussies do not have a constitutional right to freedom of speech or lots of other things us 'Mericuns' take for granted.  Yes, technically and legally you operate similar - but that could end tomorrow overnight if your PM and Parliament were so inclined.  One needs only look at your firearm confiscation program in 96 to see that is absolutely true.  And it makes no difference if it was a popular move by the gov't either.  If I recall, slavery was once "popular" in the US even after our Constitution was amended.  Being popular didn't make it right.  If slavery again gained popularity, it would still be unconstitutional here.  If your gov't decided tomorrow that "privacy" in your homes was needed to be curtailed or limited for "national security" reasons, they could do that.  And you couldn't stop them.

Just remember, our Bill of rights was not written to prevent one of the Founding Fathers or George Washington from going Rogue.  It was designed to prevent a descent into another Monarchy like King George.  Or King Trump.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No, you're STILL missing the point.  But I'm glad you do finally admit that you are playing a game of semantics if you feel Tom is playing a semantic one-upsmanship on you.

No, you are missing the point. Let me help you with that:

On 08/12/2017 at 2:26 PM, Bent Sailor said:

I get it. Tom Ray thought I meant to introduce the laws without a corresponding change to the "right to bear arms". When I corrected his misunderstanding / misrepresentation, instead of simply acknowledging that as a part of my position and moving on, he (Tom Ray) decided to play a game of semantic one-upmanship hoping he didn't have to concede to his mistake. Unfortunately he didn't leave enough wiggle room for that. 

I simply stated a position that had nothing to do with semantic one-upmanship. Tom tried to do that when he realised he would have to acknowledge he was mistaken (or deliberately dishonest) about my position. I am not interested in play a game of semantics with him, and said as much.

 

 

1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Couple of things... The point is that in "Merica", we operate on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and we do not give away our rights to the police to conduct searches or "inspections" of our homes or personal property without a warrant.  Its just the way we are wired.

Which is why I said:

On 08/12/2017 at 2:26 PM, Bent Sailor said:

I personally have no problem with a limitation of inspections by government agents being only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion. In practice, that's how it works here. Police have far more important things occupying their time than checking your guns are locked up unless/until given reasonable cause to suspect otherwise. As such, I don't see it being an implementation issue over in the states either.

 

As the rest of your blather is based on not reading my post, ascertaining my position, or in any way addressing it, it seems that this is still relevant:

On 08/12/2017 at 2:26 PM, Bent Sailor said:

 As I have now expressed a reasonable point of view, that would be your cue to stop pretending to be reasonable, accuse me of being willing to watch my wife be raped, and leave with "Fuck you, Second Amendment" congratulating yourself on "winning" another round. :rolleyes: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Have you forgotten that you're the one who advocates confiscation, not me?

So you're the hypocrite who won't live your own words, not me.

I can say pretty authoritatively that you support confiscation for me.  So fuck you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I personally have no problem with a limitation of inspections by government agents being only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion. In practice, that's how it works here. Police have far more important things occupying their time than checking your guns are locked up unless/until given reasonable cause to suspect otherwise. As such, I don't see it being an implementation issue over in the states either.

Is your concept of "reasonable suspicion" based on the need for the Po-leece to obtain a warrant from a judge before they conduct this "gov't inspection"?  Or is it just the cop has a suspicion something is going on and they can go knock on the door and demand to be let in?  Do gun home inspections in AUS require a warrant ahead of time?

If the answer to the last is NO (they do not require warrants) and you don't see that a warrant-less police inspection of a home, irregardless of how much "reasonable suspicion" they may have is not an implementation issue here in the US, then there is no explaining it to you anymore.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Have you forgotten that you're the one who advocates confiscation, not me?

So you're the hypocrite who won't live your own words, not me.

I can say pretty authoritatively that you support confiscation for me.  So fuck you, 2nd Amendment!!!

FIFY.  Hellz yeah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Is your concept of "reasonable suspicion" based on the need for the Po-leece to obtain a warrant from a judge before they conduct this "gov't inspection"?  Or is it just the cop has a suspicion something is going on and they can go knock on the door and demand to be let in? 

It entails all the legal consequences of your Fourth Amendment rights. To me "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are synonyms, as I'm not a lawyer speaking to a judge.

 

Quote

Do gun home inspections in AUS require a warrant ahead of time?

No, they do not. They don't even need a warrantless "probable cause". However, in practice, that is not how that privilege is used. Police aren't bashing down doors using "We want to inspect your gun safe" as a legal means. If they are are bashing down your door - it's for another reason, which you'd probably find completely legal under your system as well. Which is why I stated that a legal implementation to accomodate the difference in the states should not be a problem.

 

Quote

If the answer to the last is YES and you don't see that a warrant-less police inspection of a home, irregardless of how much "reasonable suspicion" they may have is not an implementation issue here in the US, then there is no explaining it to you anymore.   

I imagine if I had ever said that I see a warrant-less police inspection of a home, irregardless of how much "reasonable suspicion" they may have would be fine in the US - you might have a point. However, as you continue to make up my position for me, I can see that explaining it to you here is no more useful than when you accused me of thinking it fine to stand by and watch my wife be raped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 10:26 PM, Bent Sailor said:

I get it. Tom Ray thought I meant to introduce the laws without a corresponding change to the "right to bear arms". When I corrected his misunderstanding / misrepresentation, instead of simply acknowledging that as a part of my position and moving on, he decided to play a game of semantic one-upmanship hoping he didn't have to concede to his mistake. Unfortunately he didn't leave enough wiggle room for that. 

I personally have no problem with a limitation of inspections by government agents being only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion. In practice, that's how it works here. 

No, I said twice that I thought your suggestion would require a change to the fourth amendment as well.

You didn't want to address the fact that we'd need to change our fourth amendment too and tried to make it all about the second amendment only.

On my second attempt, your dishonesty on that point evaporated and you allowed that you'd have no problem with Aussie style non-enforcement.

I then pointed out that enactment would be unconstitutional without altering the fourth amendment.

In summary, Fuck you, fourth amendment. Even if you want to ignore it, we'd have to alter our fourth amendment to enact your laws, whether or not we enforce them in the lax way you say you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, Tom. You're right dear. I clearly didn't say what I said. You never misrepresent a person's posts or views to score points. You most certainly don't have a reputation for doing that. My apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
Quote

Do gun home inspections in AUS require a warrant ahead of time?

No, they do not. They don't even need a warrantless "probable cause". However, in practice, that is not how that privilege is used. Police aren't bashing down doors using "We want to inspect your gun safe" as a legal means. If they are are bashing down your door - it's for another reason, which you'd probably find completely legal under your system as well. Which is why I stated that a legal implementation to accomodate the difference in the states should not be a problem.

 

Quote

If the answer to the last is YES and you don't see that a warrant-less police inspection of a home, irregardless of how much "reasonable suspicion" they may have is not an implementation issue here in the US, then there is no explaining it to you anymore.   

I imagine if I had ever said that I see a warrant-less police inspection of a home, irregardless of how much "reasonable suspicion" they may have would be fine in the US - you might have a point.

No actually YOU made my point for me.  You said this:

Quote

I personally have no problem with a limitation of inspections by government agents being only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion. In practice, that's how it works here. Police have far more important things occupying their time than checking your guns are locked up unless/until given reasonable cause to suspect otherwise. As such, I don't see it being an implementation issue over in the states either.

You admit that your cops do not require a warrant to conduct a home inspection, but that you instead rely on them being too busy or too disinterested to bother to come to your home unless they had a really big suspicion of you.  That's fine, your country, your rules.  However, it does not work that way in the US.  Cops need a warrant to enter a home.  Period.  Therefore, the AUS style implementation of "home inspections" as a pre-requisite for gun ownership IS actually a HUGE implementation issue here in the states.  As I said, we do not rely on the AUS principle of "Well its unlikely to happen, so we don't bother with a protection for your right to privacy".  You are correct that it might work that way now and it it continues, then bully for you.  However, what if the next gov't changes that?  That suddenly someone has a bug up his or her ass to make it a priority to go to people's homes on a weekly basis to check on the gunz?  You may be comfortable with that level of (lack of) protection of your rights.  But I am not and America is  most definitely not OK with that.  

So answer me this..... let's say a cop does come to your house to check on your gunz because she's bored and your house is on her way home.  She has reasonable suspicion that you are a "Bad Hombre".  She knocks on your door while you're having dinner with your family.  Can you refuse her entry into your house to inspect your gunz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

In summary, Fuck you, fourth amendment. Even if you want to ignore it, we'd have to alter our fourth amendment to enact your laws, whether or not we enforce them in the lax way you say you do.

Ding!

Betting on lax enforcement is no way to guarantee someone's rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

No actually YOU made my point for me.  You said this:

Read it again moron:

Quote

I personally have no problem with a limitation of inspections by government agents being only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion. In practice, that's how it works here. Police have far more important things occupying their time than checking your guns are locked up unless/until given reasonable cause to suspect otherwise. As such, I don't see it being an implementation issue over in the states either.

In the final sentence, "it" refers to the need for a warrant and probable cause for said inspections. The conclusion is based on the argument that, in practice, that is how things work here. It is preceded by my explicit comment that I have no problem with that particular requirement on inspections. The only way to still believe I am arguing the fourth amendment should be ignored in an implementation of the laws in question is to deliberately ignore what I said.

Then again, you're the fuck-knuckle that accused me of being fine watching someone rape my wife to get a rise out of me. I don't expect honestly or integrity from you anymore than I do Tom. 

 

 

Quote

So answer me this..... let's say a cop does come to your house to check on your gunz because she's bored and your house is on her way home.  She has reasonable suspicion that you are a "Bad Hombre".  She knocks on your door while you're having dinner with your family.  Can you refuse her entry into your house to inspect your gunz?

Would depend on the state I guess - I don't know all their laws by heart. For Queensland, where I have firearms experience, as she has given no notice and the law requires at least 48hrs of that (not to mention the requirement for an inspection to be at a "reasonable time") - yes, you can refuse her entry unless she has another reason to enter your premises, such as the also-legal-in-the-US reason of suspecting someone's life is in immediate danger. However, just deciding to pop by without notice and at an unreasonable time means she hasn't a leg to stand on. Like with your cops, an officer can try to intimidate you into giving consent to enter the premises and, once given, are covered. We have similar laws protecting people from said police intimidation as you do.

Would you like to rant long and hard about something else you don't know about before your next question, or do you think you've over done that for today? I mean, you haven't said I'm happy to see someone break my children's legs with a hammer yet today, so you still have room to expand on your previous efforts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
Quote

I personally have no problem with a limitation of inspections by government agents being only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion. In practice, that's how it works here. Police have far more important things occupying their time than checking your guns are locked up unless/until given reasonable cause to suspect otherwise. As such, I don't see it being an implementation issue over in the states either.

In the final sentence, "it" refers to the need for a warrant and probable cause for said inspections. The conclusion is based on the argument that, in practice, that is how things work here. It is preceded by my explicit comment that I have no problem with that particular requirement on inspections. The only way to still believe I am arguing the fourth amendment should be ignored in an implementation of the laws in question is to deliberately ignore what I said.

Oh PUH-leese!  You know damn well "it" meant Aus style firearms storage and inspection rules (i.e. no warrant inspections) being implemented in the US.  You said you have no issue with gov't agents being only limited to only needing RS to conduct home inspections.  Then you ended the paragraph with "it" (i.e. RS being the only basis for a home inspection) as not being hard to implement in the US.  You are either a tap dancing liar who got caught or you suck at written engrish <sic>.  There is not a single mention of the 4th amendment in between your first and last sentence of that paragraph - so I find it difficult to believe "it" could refer to the 4th amendment warrant process given you never mention it. 

Unless of course mind-reading was a requirement to decipher your written words and intentions.  If so, please count me out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
Quote

So answer me this..... let's say a cop does come to your house to check on your gunz because she's bored and your house is on her way home.  She has reasonable suspicion that you are a "Bad Hombre".  She knocks on your door while you're having dinner with your family.  Can you refuse her entry into your house to inspect your gunz?

As she has given no notice and the law requires at least 48hrs of that (not to mention the requirement for an inspection to be at a "reasonable time") - yes, you can refuse her entry unless she has another reason to enter your premises, such as the also-legal-in-the-US reason of suspecting someone's life is in immediate danger. However, just deciding to pop by without notice and at an unreasonable time means she hasn't a leg to stand on. Like with your cops, an officer can try to intimidate you into giving consent to enter the premises and, once given, are covered. We have similar laws protecting people from said police intimidation as you do.

So, IOW - as long as she gives 48 hour notice, you cannot refuse her - correct?  Does she have to provide to you what her "reasonable suspicion" is to come inspect?  Or is the 48 hr notice all that is required?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Oh PUH-leese!  You know damn well "it" meant Aus style firearms storage and inspection rules being implemented in the US.  You said you have no issue with gov't agents being only limited to needing RS to conduct home inspections.  Then you ended the paragraph with "it" (i.e. RS being the only basis for a home inspection) as not being hard to implement in the US.  You are either a tap dancing liar who got caught or you suck at written engrish <sic>.  There is not a single mention of the 4th amendment in between your first and last sentence of that paragraph - so I find it difficult to believe "it" could refer to the 4th amendment warrant process given you never mention it. 

 

51 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Is your concept of "reasonable suspicion" based on the need for the Po-leece to obtain a warrant from a judge before they conduct this "gov't inspection"?  Or is it just the cop has a suspicion something is going on and they can go knock on the door and demand to be let in?  Do gun home inspections in AUS require a warrant ahead of time?

It entails all the legal consequences of your Fourth Amendment rights. To me "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" are synonyms, as I'm not a lawyer speaking to a judge.

Why bother asking questions if you won't read the answers? Oh wait, that would mean engaging in the argument actually made rather than some imagined position you can beat up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites