AussieCapitalist wrote:Blows my mind how grown men and women think they can dictate to other people what they can and can not do with their own currency. Shows how arrogant and narcissistic they are. We were told who people marry is nobodies business and harms nobody so the laws were changed. So why should peoples preferred action bother other people? Do not buy an automatic if the action is not for you but do not tell other people who want one that they cant. I never tell people to not buy a prius even though I never would. Buy one if it makes you happy.
TassieTiger wrote:It’s probably not plausible - but it would really be interesting to nominate “our” top 10 law changes / wish list and then poll the priority’s on that list...I wonder what the top 3-5 would be...I’m guessing, appearance laws and moderators would be top 2, but after that, everybody’s needs and wants would splinter somewhat...
womble wrote:Nope. Nationalised standards probably means we all get SA.
Moderators got rejected recently Qld
Semi-auto rim fire got rejected recently Tas.
Weakest link in the totem pole is easilly appearance laws. Even ssaa push for some clarity there.
I’d say a good start would be the protect what we have left. Put all differences aside and unite whenever the anti’s try and take a little bite.
Because that’s what they do. Just little bites at a time. Remove one round from a magazine. Silly little things. But every year the front line gets pushed back a little more.
womble wrote:Nope. Nationalised standards probably means we all get SA.
Moderators got rejected recently Qld
Semi-auto rim fire got rejected recently Tas.
Weakest link in the totem pole is easilly appearance laws. Even ssaa push for some clarity there.
I’d say a good start would be the protect what we have left. Put all differences aside and unite whenever the anti’s try and take a little bite.
Because that’s what they do. Just little bites at a time. Remove one round from a magazine. Silly little things. But every year the front line gets pushed back a little more.
AussieCapitalist wrote:The first thing that needs to go is the registry. It costs a mint and achieves nothing. Other countries have had them and got rid of them because it is a waste of money. Seeing as criminals do not obtain their firearms legally it does nothing but waste hundreds of millions of dollars.
bigrich wrote:well , there's a lot of good constructive opinions and ideas on this post , all we need now is a advocate group or organization to try to get changes made through the politicians . that's the sticking point. auntie pauline has already stated in the past a review of semi auto 22's and i think pump shotguns was on her agenda . trying to get support from other politicians to amend the laws will just about be impossible without preasure from groups like shooters union , national firearms council and ssaa . i like the idea of a national standard law, so long as it's not like WA's laws . sound suppressors make perfect sense from a OH and S point of veiw at the very least. appearance laws are PC crap gone mad . it's the function of a fiream that's important to law, not it's look . if i paint my 30-30 winchester matt black , red dot it, skeleton butt stock and mount a fake grenade launcher under the barrel , it won't change it's function , well the red dot might make it quicker for snap shooting however GCA might run in terror at the mere sight of it .....
myself , i've joined shooters union on top of already being ssaa member, and i'm looking into the NSC . voter numbers and money are the things that motivate politicians unfortunately
well that's my modest veiws anyway
AussieCapitalist wrote:Blows my mind how grown men and women think they can dictate to other people what they can and can not do with their own currency. Shows how arrogant and narcissistic they are.
womble wrote:How are you going to convince the other 99.999999999 % of the public that your zero inch policy is the way to go.
If you were to poll the general public today you’d have 90% or higher supporting tougher gun laws. Because they’ve come to that conclusion from watching gun crime on the nightly news.
How are you going to relate your policy to them. Because like it or not you need them.
There is no side stepping tough gun laws in Australia. Period.
The global research is beyond dispute. There is a direct correlation to gun violence and permissive legislation. The more restrictive the legislation, the lower the numbers. It’s entirely irrefutable. There are no anomalies.
You cannot fight the system we have here because evidently it has worked. The numbers have spoken.
We need to take ownership of the system from within. Then we can put forward sensible and logical amendments that can not be perceived as weakening the system.
It is riddled with faults, inconsistencies and ignorance at times bordering malice
. We need a voice at that table.
There are genuine and reasonable arguments to be made that can affect change at no expense or harm done to the integrity of the system.
Pathways can be made within the existing infrastructure. But if you just denounce it you’ve allready lost.
Sergeant Hartman wrote:AussieCapitalist wrote:Blows my mind how grown men and women think they can dictate to other people what they can and can not do with their own currency. Shows how arrogant and narcissistic they are.
Yeah man i agree, i wanted to buy some radio active material to make a bomb and asio was knocking on my door... and i as a taxpayer pay their wages, they were so rude put me handcuffs and shoved me in their divyvan
womble wrote:Honduras was a pretty poor example Ziege. Holds the current title for highest homicide rates per capital in the world, with 80% of homicides committed by firearm.
137.5 murders per 100,000.
Permissive firearm regulations.
Care to play again ?