The antis are fishing heavily these days

[Cryptic]

Yep. My point exactly. Newbies wouldn't be able to 'prove' an interest in firearms.
It's pretty easy to tell the difference between a genuine newbie and some anti troll or complete moron.

How many clips can I legally own with my glock.......

[on_one_wheel]

We have a basic approval process for newly registered members to filter out obvious spammers etc. but that's about where its effectiveness ends.

Notionally, some kind of vetting process for genuine involvement in the shooting community would be great, realistically though I don't think an effective screening process of this type could be done without asking for sensitive information and frankly having myself or the moderators be privy to, or responsible for any personal or identifying information of members is something I definitely do not want.

There are also the concerns around the information being stored or passing through the site. That kind of stuff is best managed by security experts like the firearm registries... *whistles conspicuously*

Ok ok I agree it was a siht idea

How about a secret handshake

[Title_II]

The middle finger tickle.

Kinda like when your cousin kisses you and throws in some tongue. Yikes!

[Title_II]

It's a Yank thing. There's also banjos.

Tough crowd.

[Aster]

How about a secret handshake

secret_handshake.gif (247.28 KiB) Viewed 5489 times

[brett1868]

The middle finger tickle.

Kinda like when your cousin kisses you and throws in some tongue. Yikes!

Seems Tasmania may have been originally colonised by "The Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" and over time and lack of options grew to love their brothers and sisters just as much as their cousins.

[Oldbloke]

No doubt about it. Aster and the boys are doing good job. It often calls for good judgement and a common sense approach.

[Oldbloke]

The middle finger tickle.

Kinda like when your cousin kisses you and throws in some tongue. Yikes!

Seems Tasmania may have been originally colonised by "The Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" and over time and lack of options grew to love their brothers and sisters just as much as their cousins.

It seems you often bring up that subject. I'm beginning to worry your a Catholic priest or something.

[BluEsky]

. Breaking News Some Say they are on the site disguised as Onion Sellers! Does the site have a Classified section, they are most likely there!

.

[Baronvonrort]

One of my favourites was the young fella that's "been shooting pistols for years, how do I get hold of some 30 round glock mags?"

/face palm

I don't think that person was anti gun, the model of Glock he mentioned is 6mm too short with the barrel to be legally owned for recreational shooters.

I would be thinking he had illegal ownership of a pistol.

[Wylie27]

Or was from another nation.... don't forget we have international visitors too

[Baronvonrort]

Or was from another nation.... don't forget we have international visitors too

The Glock guy was from Australia, I don't think he posted anything else after that.

[Title_II]

I have a 32 round Glock mag. Never actually used it. I carried it loaded once and looked like an idiot LOL

But I had to buy it because Heck Yeah!

Now it just sits in a closet.

[Baronvonrort]

I have a 32 round Glock mag. Never actually used it. I carried it loaded once and looked like an idiot LOL

But I had to buy it because Heck Yeah!

Now it just sits in a closet.

They hang a long way below the pistol, even if they were allowed I wouldn't waste my money on one I don't need more ornaments in the closet.

[BluEsky]

How many onions can i stockpile?

. Have we found one? Some Say, Onions is Street speak for 9mm rounds?

[happyhunter]

I have a 32 round Glock mag. Never actually used it. I carried it loaded once and looked like an idiot LOL

But I had to buy it because Heck Yeah!

Now it just sits in a closet.

Is the sear pin mod legal in your part of the world? That mag would be handy for that.

[Jandamurra]

Perhaps we should save those up in a forum of their own?

It's probably not a bad thing to remind our members that these wankers are always out to get us, rather than the mods keeping us insulated from it?

It's not a matter of insulating members, it's a matter of maintaining a high standard of content across the forum.

We intend this forum to be a resource, where new or returning visitors can land on any page and find accurate, useful information.

I understand the direction you're coming from, but maintaining an archive of content (even as an example of what not to do) which is erroneous, inflammatory or solely intended to provoke an illicit response, is not the ethos of this forum.

If you wouldn't mind clueing me in on something, were all topics able to be viewed by non-members/ even when not signed in at one stage, or has this been introduced since this forum was established?

I'm also looking for the thread on the Port Arthur Massacre (PAM) . Has it been removed, or have I just not seen it?

[duncan61]

Port Arthur has been discussed on this site but it was a while ago

[BluEsky]

This reliable source has said that the Anti's just can not fish properly









. .

[Jandamurra]

Port Arthur has been discussed on this site but it was a while ago

I posted this last time or thought I did.
I'll have to go ov3er it. Here goes.
I know the PAM hasn't been discussed for some weeks. However, other threads that have been active less recently are still available for members to add to, so what happened to the PAM thread?
I also seem to remember that all this forum was readable to anyone with internet access at one stage.

[Gwion]

Use the search function. The PAM thread is still there.

[Jandamurra]

What does "inflammatory" even mean, as a reason to close a thread to comments or viewing? Surely the only thing that should be banned is incitement to violence.

[SomeoneElse]

I read a lot of threads on this forum (including PAM) many months prior to creating an account. I'm no moderator so take the following for what it is worth.

I take the approach of:
- What goes online stays online.
- Anything you post in the forums can be read by anyone else, signed up or not.
- What you post may be taken out of context by antis to use against us as a group. I err on the side of caution and restraint.
- There may be secret/hidden sub-forums which I don't know about. I haven't received any secret handshakes from long-term members, and that's fine by me.
- Mods have "trimmed" threads when things get out of hand. Usually arguments between forum members that which head into "playing the man, not the ball" territory.

Someone Else.

[Aster]

If you wouldn't mind clueing me in on something, were all topics able to be viewed by non-members/ even when not signed in at one stage, or has this been introduced since this forum was established?

I'm also looking for the thread on the Port Arthur Massacre (PAM). Has it been removed, or have I just not seen it?

All topics are able to be read by the public / non members. It was never the case that content was available to members only.

I don't know which "the" PAM thread you're referring to would be, as there have been multiple ones over time. It may have been removed if the discussion was getting out of hand.

Do a search using the function (top-left) for "port arthur" and whatever is there, is there.

What does "inflammatory" even mean, as a reason to close a thread to comments or viewing? Surely the only thing that should be banned is incitement to violence.

I'm not going to list potentially inappropriate subjects but clearly there are things in addition to incitements of violence that are inappropriate for a reasonable, all ages forum.

As it says under the submit button when posting/replying: "Enough Gun aims to provide a mature environment which promotes legal, responsible firearm practices. The discussion or promotion of illegal activities is prohibited and members may not post abusive, defamatory or otherwise objectionable content"

Let that be your guide.

[Aster]

I take the approach of:
- What goes online stays online.
- Anything you post in the forums can be read by anyone else, signed up or not.
- What you post may be taken out of context by antis to use against us as a group. I err on the side of caution and restraint.
- There may be secret/hidden sub-forums which I don't know about. I haven't received any secret handshakes from long-term members, and that's fine by me.
- Mods have "trimmed" threads when things get out of hand. Usually arguments between forum members that which head into "playing the man, not the ball" territory.

True.

True.

True. Good idea.

There is no secret hand shake area.

We have. That's usually why, yes.

[Jandamurra]

If you wouldn't mind clueing me in on something, were all topics able to be viewed by non-members/ even when not signed in at one stage, or has this been introduced since this forum was established?

I'm also looking for the thread on the Port Arthur Massacre (PAM). Has it been removed, or have I just not seen it?

All topics are able to be read by the public / non members. It was never the case that content was available to members only.

I don't know which "the" PAM thread you're referring to would be, as there have been multiple ones over time. It may have been removed if the discussion was getting out of hand.

Do a search using the function (top-left) for "port arthur" and whatever is there, is there.

What does "inflammatory" even mean, as a reason to close a thread to comments or viewing? Surely the only thing that should be banned is incitement to violence.

I'm not going to list potentially inappropriate subjects but clearly there are things in addition to incitements of violence that are inappropriate for a reasonable, all ages forum.

As it says under the submit button when posting/replying: "Enough Gun aims to provide a mature environment which promotes legal, responsible firearm practices. The discussion or promotion of illegal activities is prohibited and members may not post abusive, defamatory or otherwise objectionable content"

Let that be your guide.

If that's all that inflammatory means then that's OK.
Thanks for the clarification.

[MalleeFarmer]

I haven't seen anything that looked like it could be of ulterior motives.

I remember a "how many guns can I stockpile" question.

I think the best answer came from a regular forum user "why don't you just ask your anti gun mates?"

I do recall that one it was a rather entertaining thread in the end.

[MalleeFarmer]

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6280

[Anon E Mouse]

Seems a bit sarcastic. It isn't "off the reservation" to say that leftists in Australia, the UK, the USA and Canada are not particularly fond of people owning guns. Australia and the UK required a lot of law abiding people to turn in their guns about 20 years ago, and there is a number of politicians in the USA who've said they'd like to have the same happen in the USA.

:welcome:

usually the antis are trying to make us out to be paranoid redneck weirdos.
I think accusing new members of being government or media spies doesn't really help bust that myth.

Trust me ...

images (10).jpg

Ps. If anyone wants to download plans for an effective tinfoil hat that actually works, just pm me and I'll send you the plans when I'm not too busy dating my cousin.