Seems that WA has torn up the NFA by introducing numerous
new firearm laws without consultation with the other States.

Well this is a non starter and so many people seemed to be interested in Uniform National Firearms Laws.
The impression is that it only works one whay.

Seems that a requirement of the new laws in WA will be a mental health assessment of all firearm users, WA police excepted.

Western Australia becomes first jurisdiction in Australia to impose a limit on the number of firearms an individual can own.

Most people will be limited to 10 firearms under the new laws, although that's reduced to five for hunting licences.

Jeez .................................................................. this sounds like the Voice By Stealth.

tallowood wrote on Sep 24^th, 2024 at 11:03am:

Western Australia becomes first jurisdiction in Australia to impose a limit on the number of firearms an individual can own. Most people will be limited to 10 firearms under the new laws, although that's reduced to five for hunting licences.

A friend in WA has just acquired three flintlock guns because their former owners had exceeded the new limits.

A great danger to public safety has been avoided, one of these deadly weapons is a Brown Bess musket as issued on the First Fleet and in the colony of NSW way back in 1788.

Where are all the pro NFA supporters?

Looks like we’ll have a Semi National Firearms Agreement with WA on the outer

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 4^th, 2024 at 3:05pm:

Where are all the pro NFA supporters? Looks like we’ll have a Semi National Firearms Agreement with WA on the outer

Or it will be known as the National Firearms Disagreement.

Over 24 hours and no response yet from the pro agreement forces.

Where are you?

Don’t let the side down, you don’t have to support the reactionary WA Government.

The WA gun laws were retarded before this.

Hearing that many volunteers who would put animals down from road accidents etc have quit due to these new gun laws.

This leaves far less humane methods to deal with this the gun grabbers will be happy people will use slower cruel methods to put these animals down.

Good to see guns treated as a dangerous weapon that require strong laws and restrictions on there purchase and ownership....Guns are a priveledge not a right and anyone who really needs a gun can still get one if they meet the criteria....Honest people with a genuine reason to own a gun do not need to worry....Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gun before the right to protect the public from gun violence....If you don't like the laws don't come to WA and shove your guns up your arse!!!

:) :) :)

Oh yes. The WA government legislation by calibre. (and manufacturer).

The Nosler .28 is a small game projectile accurate to 500m. And is proscribed.

The Remington .28 and the Winchester .28 are not so proscribed. ::)

https://sportingshooter.com.au/news/wa-bans-high-calibre-firearms-and-ammunition/

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2024 at 8:42am:

Good to see guns treated as a dangerous weapon that require strong laws and restrictions on there purchase and ownership....Guns are a priveledge not a right and anyone who really needs a gun can still get one if they meet the criteria....Honest people with a genuine reason to own a gun do not need to worry....Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gun before the right to protect the public from gun violence....If you don't like the laws don't come to WA and shove your guns up your arse!!! :) :) :)

And precisely what has that ignorant and unseemly rant got to do with the National Firearms Agreement?

From a post on AHN,
“ Despite all the frustration we experience in WA at present, I have now added to my Collectors licence three beautiful flintlocks.

- a Pedersoli Brown Bess and bayonet.
- A Neil Fields Green River 20G Fowler
- A Neil Fields Green River Kentucky Rifle.

The WA Licencing schemozzle meant I have surrendered a couple of rubbishy ones. A club mate of 40 years standing had to give up these lovely Neil Fields works of art. The locks have rollers on the frizzen springs and 'rainproof' pan fences. The Kentucky has an afterwards added dummy pachbox cover, hand engraved and added
by a skilled WA stockmaker.

Another member has been trimming his holdings and I wanted and eventually acquired the Bess for my talks and demonstrations at the club.

The circus for getting them approved to a Collectors licence I have had for 25 years was very educational.‘

The three firearms mentioned are single shot muzzle loading guns and the Brown Bess is a replica of the arms carried on the First Fleet in 1788.
Western Australia will be a safer place when the current batch of ruling Idiots are gone from politics.

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2024 at 8:42am:

Good to see guns treated as a dangerous weapon that require strong laws and restrictions on there purchase and ownership....Guns are a priveledge not a right and anyonewho really needs a gun can still get one if they meet the criteria....Honest people with a genuine reason to own a gun do not need to worry....Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gun before the right to protect the public from gun violence....If you don't like the laws don't come to WA and shove your guns up your arse!!! :) :) :)

Make up your mind.
People do have a right to have a firearm.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 9^th, 2024 at 10:16pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 9th, 2024 at 8:42am: Good to see guns treated as a dangerous weapon that require strong laws and restrictions on there purchase and ownership....Guns are a priveledge not a right and anyone who really needs a gun can still get one if they meet the criteria....Honest people with a genuine reason to own a gun do not need to worry....Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gun before the right to protect the public from gun violence....If you don't like the laws don't come to WA and shove your guns up your arse!!! :) :) :) And precisely what has that ignorant and unseemly rant got to do with the National Firearms Agreement?

SFA....WA makes it's own laws concerning firearms dickhead....The legislation sets out the minimum requirement in the regulation of firearms....Nothing in the agreement prevents juristrictions from addopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations....So what is it you are complaining about dickhead???

:-? :-? :-?

https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 10^th, 2024 at 9:06am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 9th, 2024 at 8:42am: Good to see guns treated as a dangerous weapon that require strong laws and restrictions on there purchase and ownership....Guns are a priveledge not a right and anyonewho really needs a gun can still get one if they meet the criteria....Honest people with a genuine reason to own a gun do not need to worry....Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gun before the right to protect the public from gun violence....If you don't like the laws don't come to WA and shove your guns up your arse!!! :) :) :) Make up your mind. People do have a right to have a firearm.

Only if they meet the criteria and are granted a licence....Owning a firerm is a priveledge not a right in Australia....You really are a dickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)

Tut, tut Phil, so vulgar, the more educated among us use the term ‘’Richard Cranium’’ in lieu of ‘’dickhead’’.

What don’t you and the WA Government not understand about the word ‘’agreement”?

Why did you say that self obsessed arseholes have a right to possess firearms?

You did say “ Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gunbefore the right to . . . .’’ ,did you not?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 10^th, 2024 at 4:34pm:

Tut, tut Phil, so vulgar, the more educated among us use the term ‘’Richard Cranium’’ in lieu of ‘’dickhead’’. What don’t you and the WA Government not understand about the word ‘’agreement”? Why did you say that self obsessed arseholes have a right to possess firearms? You did say “ Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gunbefore the right to . . . .’’ ,did you not?

Opening Statement - Part 2 of the National Firearms Agreement (Link provided)!!!


Quote:

Nothing in the agreement prevents juristictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations

So what is it you are complaining about???

:-? :-? :-?

https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2024 at 4:59pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 10th, 2024 at 4:34pm: Tut, tut Phil, so vulgar, the more educated among us use the term ‘’Richard Cranium’’ in lieu of ‘’dickhead’’. What don’t you and the WA Government not understand about the word ‘’agreement”? Why did you say that self obsessed arseholes have a right to possess firearms? You did say “ Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gunbefore the right to . . . .’’ ,did you not? Opening Statement - Part 2 of the National Firearms Agreement (Link provided)!!! Quote: Nothing in the agreement prevents juristictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations So what is it you are complaining about??? :-? :-? :-? https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf

Where am I complaining?
I’m only pointing out that the NFA is not an agreement.

‘’ Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
agreement
/əˈɡriːm(ə)nt/
noun
harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling.
"the two officers nodded in agreement"
Similar:
a negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action.’’

Can you tell me how forcing a person to get rid of a replica of a 1720 design of musket makes WA a safer State?

Bye the way, arseholes are essential to society, also known as the fundamental orifice, “funda’’ for short, they ensure health and contentment.

You did say “ Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gun before the right to . . . .’’ ,did you not?

How is it that you think arseholes have a right to guns where others do not?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 10^th, 2024 at 6:15pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 10th, 2024 at 4:59pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 10th, 2024 at 4:34pm: Tut, tut Phil, so vulgar, the more educated among us use the term ‘’Richard Cranium’’ in lieu of ‘’dickhead’’. What don’t you and the WA Government not understand about the word ‘’agreement”? Why did you say that self obsessed arseholes have a right to possess firearms? You did say “ Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gunbefore the right to . . . .’’ ,did you not? Opening Statement - Part 2 of the National Firearms Agreement (Link provided)!!! Quote: Nothing in the agreement prevents juristictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations So what is it you are complaining about??? :-? :-? :-? https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf Where am I complaining? I’m only pointing out that the NFA is not an agreement. ‘’ Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more agreement /əˈɡriːm(ə)nt/ noun harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling. "the two officers nodded in agreement" Similar: a negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action.’’ Can you tell me how forcing a person to get rid of a replica of a 1720 design of musket makes WA a safer State? Bye the way, arseholes are essential to society, also known as the fundamental orifice, “funda’’ for short, they ensure health and contentment.

The agreement allowes States the right to change firearms laws....The ageement sets a minimum standard....What is your problem???

::) ::) ::)

Well I’m not complaining about the agreement because there is nothing to complain about, there is no agreement.
That settles that.
Now do tell us why you think arseholes have gun rights?
Or didn’t you mean that?
Is it your inadequate understanding of the English language that is causing you confusion?

Tell us all why you think a restriction on the number of firearms is a good thing and precisely why having one gun over the prescribed number is dangerous to society especially when the gun is a replica of a 1720 design.

We await your wisdom with bated breath.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 10^th, 2024 at 9:52pm:

Well I’m not complaining about the agreement because there is nothing to complain about, there is no agreement. That settles that. Now do tell us why you think arseholes have gun rights? Or didn’t you mean that? Is it your inadequate understanding of the English language that is causing you confusion? Tell us all why you think a restriction on the number of firearms is a good thing and precisely why having one gun over the prescribed number is dangerous to society especially when the gun is a replica of a 1720 design. We await your wisdom with bated breath.

What I said was "Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gun before the right to protect the public from gun violence"....That would be you arsehole....Someone can own up to ten guns if they have a need and meet the criteria....The ageement states - Nothing in the agreement prevents juristictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations....So your argument is complete bullshit as usual....Guns are a privellege not a right in Australia and States have every right to dictate what and how many firearms any individual can own....This is not America dickhead....Your only argument is you do not like the laws not that they have been broken in any way!!!

::) ::) ::)

Big Brother's got us all in his sights.... never been the same here since Howard became The Man Who Shot Liberty's Balance with GST, Workchoices and gun 'laws'.. 

Nothing's too good for him, anyway, it seems..... still living off the fattest in the land.....

You did say “ Only self obsessed arsehole would put their right to own a gunbefore the right to . . . .’’ ,did you not?

Therefore, logically you think that these self obsessed arseholes have gun rights or you lack English proficiency, can’t have it both ways.

You have successfully demonstrated that the National Firearms Agreement is not an agreement but aload of bull.

You said nought about the absurdity of forcing a person to give up a replica of a 1720 designed single shot muzzle loading musket.
How does owning one 1720 musket over the arbitrary limit in any way threaten the safety of Western Australians?

Don’t just repeat that the WA Government can do what it wants, tell us why you think it necessary.

Just read a legal opinion on the WA gun laws and it seems that the health provisions, which include mental health only apply to firearm licence holders and as the WA police do not have to hold a license for their service pistols and other firearms then they are not subject to the mental health provisions.

The new laws have been likened to the gun laws of Nazi Germany.

WA Gun laws have always been wonky and lack sense. The .303 ban before the NFA is a case in point. I think my grandfather and then my father had the only not drilled and filled .303 in WA. A Lee-Metford held on a curio license until my father got dementia(Lewy Body Dementia), now my youngest in QLD has it and my fathers other firearms but it has to be on a Category B and WA no longer has a Curio license.

I had a .303 from my rifle shooting days, in WA. It then went on the Curio license. When I moved back to WA from the NT I sold it.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 11^th, 2024 at 7:07pm:

Just read a legal opinion on the WA gun laws and it seems that the health provisions, which include mental health only apply to firearm licence holders and as the WA police do not have to hold a license for their service pistols and other firearms then they are not subject to the mental health provisions. The new laws have been likened to the gun laws of Nazi Germany.

Who by....You???

Care to post a link to support this argument and let us know exactly who is comparing WA gun laws to Nazi Germany???

:-? :-? :-?

The WA Farmers organisation supports the new laws!!!


Quote:

The move was welcomed by agriculture advocacy organisation WAFarmers. Its CEO, Trevor Whittington, said the organisation welcomed the move and called it a "responsible step forward" that would "hopefully help reduce self-inflicted firearm suicides and God forbid a mass murder". "Firearms like explosives or aircraft in the wrong hands are potential weapons of mass destruction," he said. "Firearms in the hands of people with mental health problems can be the means of their own self destruction, or worse the destruction of their families. "For too long its been too easy for people who have no need for, or are of unsavoury character, or mentally unfit, to get a firearms licence."

:) :) :)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-05/mental-health-checks-for-gun-owners-in-wa/101923596

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2024 at 8:13am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 11th, 2024 at 7:07pm: Just read a legal opinion on the WA gun laws and it seems that the health provisions, which include mental health only apply to firearm licence holders and as the WA police do not have to hold a license for their service pistols and other firearms then they are not subject to the mental health provisions. The new laws have been likened to the gun laws of Nazi Germany. Who by....You??? Care to post a link to support this argument and let us know exactly who is comparing WA gun laws to Nazi Germany??? :-? :-? :-?

Care to highlight the bit about police not being subject to the same laws as other firearms users?
The references to Nazi Germany have come up here and there but don’t worry they were not derogatory to the Nazis.

Care to comment on the bloke who had to give up his 1720 replica musket and how that makes WA a safer place?

Good to see you quoting experts on mental health
“CEO, Trevor Whittington, said the organisation welcomed the move and called it a "responsible step forward" that would "hopefully help reduce self-inflicted firearm suicides and God forbid a mass murder".

"Firearms like explosives or aircraft in the wrong hands are potential weapons of mass destruction," he said.”

Let’s hope that he’s just as good at farming.

He seems to be having problems with English too, it’s a little known fact that all suicides are self inflicted.

Perhaps you could ask him about how reducing the number of 1720 flintlock muskets will stop a mass murder or, Heaven forbid, mass destruction.

1620 muskets are affected as well, these horrendous weapons are available as reproductions also.
https://www.militaryheritage.com/musket16.htm

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 12^th, 2024 at 9:46am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 12th, 2024 at 8:13am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 11th, 2024 at 7:07pm: Just read a legal opinion on the WA gun laws and it seems that the health provisions, which include mental health only apply to firearm licence holders and as the WA police do not have to hold a license for their service pistols and other firearms then they are not subject to the mental health provisions. The new laws have been likened to the gun laws of Nazi Germany. Who by....You??? Care to post a link to support this argument and let us know exactly who is comparing WA gun laws to Nazi Germany??? :-? :-? :-? Care to highlight the bit about police not being subject to the same laws as other firearms users? The references to Nazi Germany have come up here and there but don’t worry they were not derogatory to the Nazis. Care to comment on the bloke who had to give up his 1720 replica musket and how that makes WA a safer place? Good to see you quoting experts on mental health “CEO, Trevor Whittington, said the organisation welcomed the move and called it a "responsible step forward" that would "hopefully help reduce self-inflicted firearm suicides and God forbid a mass murder". "Firearms like explosives or aircraft in the wrong hands are potential weapons of mass destruction," he said.” Let’s hope that he’s just as good at farming. He seems to be having problems with English too, it’s a little known fact that all suicides are self inflicted. Perhaps you could ask him about how reducing the number of 1720 flintlock muskets will stop a mass murder or, Heaven forbid, mass destruction.

You made a bullshit claim!!!


Quote:

The new laws have been likened to the gun laws of Nazi Germany.

All I asked was for you to support your claim which you cannot....You really are pathetic and stupid!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2024 at 10:18am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 12th, 2024 at 9:46am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 12th, 2024 at 8:13am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 11th, 2024 at 7:07pm: Just read a legal opinion on the WA gun laws and it seems that the health provisions, which include mental health only apply to firearm licence holders and as the WA police do not have to hold a license for their service pistols and other firearms then they are not subject to the mental health provisions. The new laws have been likened to the gun laws of Nazi Germany. Who by....You??? Care to post a link to support this argument and let us know exactly who is comparing WA gun laws to Nazi Germany??? :-? :-? :-? Care to highlight the bit about police not being subject to the same laws as other firearms users? The references to Nazi Germany have come up here and there but don’t worry they were not derogatory to the Nazis. Care to comment on the bloke who had to give up his 1720 replica musket and how that makes WA a safer place? Good to see you quoting experts on mental health “CEO, Trevor Whittington, said the organisation welcomed the move and called it a "responsible step forward" that would "hopefully help reduce self-inflicted firearm suicides and God forbid a mass murder". "Firearms like explosives or aircraft in the wrong hands are potential weapons of mass destruction," he said.” Let’s hope that he’s just as good at farming. He seems to be having problems with English too, it’s a little known fact that all suicides are self inflicted. Perhaps you could ask him about how reducing the number of 1720 flintlock muskets will stop a mass murder or, Heaven forbid, mass destruction. You made a bullshit claim!!! Quote: The new laws have been likened to the gun laws of Nazi Germany. All I asked was for you to support your claim which you cannot....You really are pathetic and stupid!!! ::) ::) ::)

You’ve got me, Phil, fair and square, search as I might I can’t find a reference.
Now having got that out of the way, perhaps you could answer my questions?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 12^th, 2024 at 10:22am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 12th, 2024 at 10:18am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 12th, 2024 at 9:46am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 12th, 2024 at 8:13am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 11th, 2024 at 7:07pm: Just read a legal opinion on the WA gun laws and it seems that the health provisions, which include mental health only apply to firearm licence holders and as the WA police do not have to hold a license for their service pistols and other firearms then they are not subject to the mental health provisions. The new laws have been likened to the gun laws of Nazi Germany. Who by....You??? Care to post a link to support this argument and let us know exactly who is comparing WA gun laws to Nazi Germany??? :-? :-? :-? Care to highlight the bit about police not being subject to the same laws as other firearms users? The references to Nazi Germany have come up here and there but don’t worry they were not derogatory to the Nazis. Care to comment on the bloke who had to give up his 1720 replica musket and how that makes WA a safer place? Good to see you quoting experts on mental health “CEO, Trevor Whittington, said the organisation welcomed the move and called it a "responsible step forward" that would "hopefully help reduce self-inflicted firearm suicides and God forbid a mass murder". "Firearms like explosives or aircraft in the wrong hands are potential weapons of mass destruction," he said.” Let’s hope that he’s just as good at farming. He seems to be having problems with English too, it’s a little known fact that all suicides are self inflicted. Perhaps you could ask him about how reducing the number of 1720 flintlock muskets will stop a mass murder or, Heaven forbid, mass destruction. You made a bullshit claim!!! Quote: The new laws have been likened to the gun laws of Nazi Germany. All I asked was for you to support your claim which you cannot....You really are pathetic and stupid!!! ::) ::) ::) You’ve got me, Phil, fair and square, search as I might I can’t find a reference. Now having got that out of the way, perhaps you could answer my questions?

What question....The rules are the same for everyone...If you are restricted to owning 10 muskets because of the law then that is all you can collect....If you fail to meet the criteria for owning a weapon that is the law....The agreement sets a minimum standard and States can enforce any laws they want that do not breach those minimum standards....Your whole argument was bullshit from the start!!!

::) ::) ::)

Also not allowed in WA if over the limit are reproductions of

“ The earliest form of matchlock in Europe appeared by 1411 and in the Ottoman Empire by 1425.[9] This early arquebus was a hand cannon with a serpentine lever to hold matches.[10] However this early arquebus did not have the matchlock mechanism traditionally associated with the weapon. The exact dating of the matchlock addition is disputed. The first references to the use of what may have been matchlock arquebuses (tüfek) by the Janissary corps of the Ottoman Army date them from 1394 to 1465”
From Wikipedia.

Imagine if you will, a criminalp sneaking up in the darkness of night, with deadly intent, matchlock musket at the ready with the glowing match cord like an evil red eye peering.
Not allowing a reproduction  of one of these,over the limit will indeed make us all safer.

So, in the enlightened State of Western Australia, ifo you w7yant to own a reproduction of an early 15th Century gun and you already are at the limit of 10 firearms then you must get rid of one of them to make way for it.

But be not discouraged, by doing so you will be helping to make WA a safer State, and helping to reduce the number of “self inflicted “ suicides.

Just been reading the WA Firearms Act 2024

and found this

“(2) The objects of the Act are as follow

       (a). . . .
       (i) to facilitate a nationally consistent approach to the control of firearms”

Well, that’s good to know

https://imageshack.com/a/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Gun nuts.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 12^th, 2024 at 12:19pm:

https://imageshack.com/a/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Gun nuts.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian,
I wondered when you’d drop in with a well thought out response, not disappointed.

Here’s a bit more information from WA

“Why are numerical limits being proposed?
Show more
How will numerical limits influence public safety?
Show less
Rationalising the number of firearms in the community will contribute to public safety by reducing the potential impact of theft from licence holders.‘

That’s logical, impose restrictions on the law abiding to frustrate the criminals.
Perhaps this could be extended to liquor stores and.the amount of jewels or gold bars a person may own.

WA Government definition of ‘logic’
‘’That which pertains to felled trees; the logging industry.”

Unequivocal statement: firearms ownership is a fundamental right not a privilege as asserted by people with scant knowledge of rights.

Western Australia and the rest of the States plus the Commonwealth are denying the people their just rights,

https://imageshack.com/a/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Gun nuts.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

https://imageshack.com/a/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Numb nuts..tsk tsk.

You’re repeating yourself, Brian, but why the seven minutes between posts?
Does it take you so long to co-ordinate your thoughts?

Nope that was me being cheeky. Re-read.

lee wrote on Oct 12^th, 2024 at 7:04pm:

Nope that was me being cheeky. Re-read.

Good one, got me😀😀

Apologies to Brian, I over estimated him.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 12^th, 2024 at 4:28pm:

Unequivocal statement: firearms ownership is a fundamental right not a privilege as asserted by people with scant knowledge of rights. Western Australia and the rest of the States plus the Commonwealth are denying the people their just rights,

Oh, I dunno - restrictions have their place.  I like the M-14 - many do not - but if I'd had one when that arschlock turned that bar light on the back his ute on in my face on a dark night, he'd have been filled with long 7.62s.  Even with the bright light I'd have hit him... it's a matter of falling into habit and just 'knowing' your shot.  Been a long time but I've still got it.

As they say - at 75 the prospect of life doesn't mean that much.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller wrote on Oct 12^th, 2024 at 10:22pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 12th, 2024 at 4:28pm: Unequivocal statement: firearms ownership is a fundamental right not a privilege as asserted by people with scant knowledge of rights. Western Australia and the rest of the States plus the Commonwealth are denying the people their just rights, Oh, I dunno - restrictions have their place.  I like the M-14 - many do not - but if I'd had one when that arschlock turned that bar light on the back his ute on in my face on a dark night, he'd have been filled with long 7.62s.  Even with the bright light I'd have hit him... it's a matter of falling into habit and just 'knowing' your shot.  Been a long time but I've still got it. As they say - at 75 the prospect of life doesn't mean that much.

I agree, restrictions do have their place, but let’s see them for what they are, denials of a right not merely the withholding of privileges=.

All AustralIan Governments recognise that there is a right to self defence but deny the possession of firearms for such defence, when, logically, if one has the right to self defence then one has the right to an adequate means of such defence.

75? Life has much to offer.
I’m 90 and still hunt, though mainly foxes from a comfortable hide.
I still shoot competition in rifle and pistol, drive a fast car and a truck’, split firewood although I have cut down on the use of the chain saw.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 12^th, 2024 at 4:28pm:

Unequivocal statement: firearms ownership is a fundamental right not a privilege as asserted by people with scant knowledge of rights. Western Australia and the rest of the States plus the Commonwealth are denying the people their just rights,

You have been shown the agreement multiple times yet still proceed to lie and misrepresent what is in the agreement....Owning a firearm in Australia is a privellege as set out in the first paragraph of the opening statement...You either did not bother to read the agreement before lying about it or you deliberately misrepresented the truth because you are a lying turd with no morals and you are stupid???


Quote:

National Firearms Agreement Opening Statement 1. The National Firearms Agreement constitutes a National approach to the regulation of firearms. The agreement affirms that firearms possesion and use is a privellege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety and that public safety is improved by the safe and responsible possession, carriage, use, registration, storage and transfer of firearms. 2. The agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations. 3. Having regard to the National Firearms Trafficing Policy agreement, first agreed in 2002, juristictions agree to establish or maintain substancial penalties for the illegal possesion of firearms.

You are a liar and a flake!!!

::) ::) ::)

https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 12^th, 2024 at 12:19pm:

https://imageshack.com/a/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Gun nuts.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

And you reckon you were in the military? ;D

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2024 at 10:12am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 12th, 2024 at 12:19pm: https://imageshack.com/a/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Gun nuts.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) And you reckon you were in the military? ;D

I have proved my military service, Gnads,  what about you?  Anytime in a baggy green skin?   No, I didn't think so.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Phil said,
‘’ You have been shown the agreement multiple times yet still proceed to lie and misrepresent what is in the agreement....Owning a firearm in Australia is a privellege as set out in the first paragraph of the opening statement...You either did not bother to read the agreement before lying about it or you deliberately misrepresented the truth because you are a lying turd with no morals and you are stupid???”

My! My! Such invective is indicative of a small mind, do you hear it rattle  if you shake your head?

What is said in the. [dis]Agreement doesn’t alter the fact that firearm and personal weapon ownership is a right it merely refuses to recognise that Right.

People have the right to self defence therefore they also have the right to a personal means of adequate defence

The Nation has given its word to protect the lives of all who live within its jurisdiction but it cannot do so, so therefore it has no right to deprive those dependent upon it of adequate means of such defence..

So firearm ownership is not a privilege to be granted by an inadequate government but a right .
Self defence is a right that is enjoyed by all creatures, great and small.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 15^th, 2024 at 2:48pm:

Phil said, ‘’ You have been shown the agreement multiple times yet still proceed to lie and misrepresent what is in the agreement....Owning a firearm in Australia is a privellege as set out in the first paragraph of the opening statement...You either did not bother to read the agreement before lying about it or you deliberately misrepresented the truth because you are a lying turd with no morals and you are stupid???” My! My! Such invective is indicative of a small mind, do you hear it rattle  if you shake your head? What is said in the. [dis]Agreement doesn’t alter the fact that firearm and personal weapon ownership is a right it merely refuses to recognise that Right. People have the right to self defence therefore they also have the right to a personal means of adequate defence The Nation has given its word to protect the lives of all who live within its jurisdiction but it cannot do so, so therefore it has no right to deprive those dependent upon it of adequate means of such defence.. So firearm ownership is not a privilege to be granted by an inadequate government but a right . Self defence is a right that is enjoyed by all creatures, great and small.

What a load of bullshit....You lie about the agreement and now claim the law is not as it is writen....Your whole rant is irrelivant and complete and utter bullshit....Firearms ownership is granted by the Government who set the conditions no matter how much you deny the facts....You are an idiot who believes you have rights that do not exist....Stupid is forever!!!

::) ::) ::)

Quote:

National Firearms Agreement Opening Statement 1. The National Firearms Agreement constitutes a National approach to the regulation of firearms. The agreement affirms that firearms possesion and use is a privellege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety and that public safety is improved by the safe and responsible possession, carriage, use, registration, storage and transfer of firearms. 2. The agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations. 3. Having regard to the National Firearms Trafficing Policy agreement, first agreed in 2002, juristictions agree to establish or maintain substancial penalties for the illegal possesion of firearms.

https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf

The law shows you do not know what you are ranting about!!!


Quote:

Weapons Licensing Laws in Australia Are Self Defence Weapons in Australia Legal? Other than body armour vests, weapons are illegal to carry or use for self-defence purposes in Australia generally. Western Australia is the only place in Australia that allow you to carry an OC, capsicum or pepper spray for self-defence purposes in circumstances you have reasonable grounds to apprehend or lawful excuse. Every other state and territory laws make it illegal to possess or use a prohibited weapon for self-defence or protection purposes.

::) ::) ::)

https://www.criminaldefencelawyers.com.au/blog/weapons-licensing-laws-in-australia/#:~:text=Are%20Self%20Defence%20Weapons%20in,defence%20purposes%20in%20Australia%20generally.

Phil,

‘’ What a load of bullshit....You lie about the agreement and now claim the law is not as it is writen....Your whole rant is irrelivant and complete and utter bullshit....Firearms ownership is granted by the Government who set the conditions no matter how much you deny the facts....You are an idiot who believes you have rights that do not exist....Stupid is forever!!!’’

Your grasp of English comprehension is about on a level with your manners.

Shew me where I said that the law is not as it is written?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 15^th, 2024 at 4:13pm:

Phil, ‘’ What a load of bullshit....You lie about the agreement and now claim the law is not as it is writen....Your whole rant is irrelivant and complete and utter bullshit....Firearms ownership is granted by the Government who set the conditions no matter how much you deny the facts....You are an idiot who believes you have rights that do not exist....Stupid is forever!!!’’ Your grasp of English comprehension is about on a level with your manners. Show me where I said that the law is not as it is written?

Posted by: Sir Eoin O Fada

Quote:

What is said in the. [dis]Agreement doesn’t alter the fact that firearm and personal weapon ownership is a right it merely refuses to recognise that Right.

The agreement stipulates gun ownership is a privellege....The agreement is clearly writen and you refuses to recognise that fact and istead continue to claim some right that does not exist???

Posted by: Sir Eoin O Fada

Quote:

People have the right to self defence therefore they also have the right to a personal means of adequate defence

Using a prohibited weapon for self defence is illegal in Australia....Once again you continue to claim some right that does not exist???

Posted by: Sir Eoin O Fada

Quote:

The Nation has given its word to protect the lives of all who live within its jurisdiction but it cannot do so, so therefore it has no right to deprive those dependent upon it of adequate means of such defence.

Irellivant bullshit....Once again you continue to claim some right that does not exist???

Posted by: Sir Eoin O Fada

Quote:

So firearm ownership is not a privilege to be granted by an inadequate government but a right . Self defence is a right that is enjoyed by all creatures, great and small.

Once again you continue to claim some right that does not exist???

Everything you posted is bullshit....You really are stupid!!!

::) ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15^th, 2024 at 11:55am:

Gnads wrote on Oct 15th, 2024 at 10:12am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 12th, 2024 at 12:19pm: https://imageshack.com/a/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Gun nuts.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) And you reckon you were in the military? ;D I have proved my military service, Gnads,  what about you?  Anytime in a baggy green skin?   No, I didn't think so.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Really ... if you say so ..I've never said I have.

So being ex-military why the wanker comment about "gun nuts"?

I'd say you did nothing more than an admin clerks job.

That's why you're such a prwogressive lefty socialist.

Gnads wrote on Oct 15^th, 2024 at 5:45pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 15th, 2024 at 11:55am: Gnads wrote on Oct 15th, 2024 at 10:12am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 12th, 2024 at 12:19pm: https://imageshack.com/a/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Gun nuts.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) And you reckon you were in the military? ;D I have proved my military service, Gnads,  what about you?  Anytime in a baggy green skin?   No, I didn't think so.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) Really ... if you say so ..I've never said I have. So being ex-military why the wanker comment about "gun nuts"? I'd say you did nothing more than an admin clerks job. That's why you're such a prwogressive lefty socialist.

https://imageshack.com/a/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Phil,

Shew me where I said that the law is not as it is written?

You can’t because I never that the law is not as it is written, one of the main problems is that it is as written.

And just for your information anything, legal or not, can legally be used for self defence if such defence is legally justified.

One may well be charged for possession or an illegal weapon but the status of the weapon has no effect upon the legality of the self defence.

Do try to comprehend our common language.

In WA if one has 11 firearms and one of them is a Zimmerstutzen then either it or one of the others must be gotten rid of to comply with the law,
Almost as funny as NSW where if the Zimmerstutzen is a breech loader it is Category A but if it is the more antiquated muzzle loading type it is Category B, up there with high powered center fire repeating rifles.

Strange people in the WA Government they allow people who have been arrested as mentally unfit to possess and drive motor vehicles but will not allow them to have a Zimmerstutzen.

Those assessed as mental risks are also allowed access to chainsaws, hatchets,axes and a variety of knives.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18^th, 2024 at 10:12am:

Strange people in the WA Government they allow people who have been arrested as mentally unfit to possess and drive motor vehicles but will not allow them to have a Zimmerstutzen. Those assessed as mental risks are also allowed access to chainsaws, hatchets,axes and a variety of knives.

Chainsaws, hatchets, axes and a variety of knives are tools most people use and own....However if you choose to use one of these tools as a weapon you will be charged with the consequences....Firearms are classified as weapons only....Despite your bullshit deflection your claim that the National Firearms Agreement has been broken by WA is complete bullshit as you have been shown on multiple occasions....WA can introduce any gun laws they consider necassary to protect the public as it is writen in the agreement....You are a liar and not very smart as you bullshit confirms!!!


Quote:

National Firearms Agreement Opening Statement 1. The National Firearms Agreement constitutes a National approach to the regulation of firearms. The agreement affirms that firearms possesion and use is a privellege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety and that public safety is improved by the safe and responsible possession, carriage, use, registration, storage and transfer of firearms. 2. The agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations. 3. Having regard to the National Firearms Trafficing Policy agreement, first agreed in 2002, juristictions agree to establish or maintain substancial penalties for the illegal possesion of firearms.

 

::) ::) ::)

https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf

https://www.criminaldefencelawyers.com.au/blog/weapons-licensing-laws-in-australia/#:~:text=Are%20Self%20Defence%20Weapons%20in,defence%20purposes%20in%20Australia%20generally.

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2024 at 10:35am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 10:12am: Strange people in the WA Government they allow people who have been arrested as mentally unfit to possess and drive motor vehicles but will not allow them to have a Zimmerstutzen. Those assessed as mental risks are also allowed access to chainsaws, hatchets,axes and a variety of knives. Chainsaws, hatchets, axes and a variety of knives are tools most people use and own....However if you choose to use one of these tools as a weapon you will be charged with the consequences....Firearms are classified as weapons only....Despite your bullshit deflection your claim that the National Firearms Agreement has been broken by WA is complete bullshit as you have been shown on multiple occasions....WA can introduce any gun laws they consider necassary to protect the public as it is writen in the agreement....You are a liar and not very smart as you bullshit confirms!!! Quote: National Firearms Agreement Opening Statement 1. The National Firearms Agreement constitutes a National approach to the regulation of firearms. The agreement affirms that firearms possesion and use is a privellege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety and that public safety is improved by the safe and responsible possession, carriage, use, registration, storage and transfer of firearms. 2. The agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations. 3. Having regard to the National Firearms Trafficing Policy agreement, first agreed in 2002, juristictions agree to establish or maintain substancial penalties for the illegal possesion of firearms.   ::) ::) ::) https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf https://www.criminaldefencelawyers.com.au/blog/weapons-licensing-laws-in-australia/#:~:text=Are%20Self%20Defence%20Weapons%20in,defence%20purposes%20in%20Australia%20generally.

Your obfuscation doesn’t alter the fact that people considered to be mentally unfit are allowed free access to lethal weapons but are not allowed to own a Zimmerstutzen.
Going by your posts I doubt that you could get a firearm license.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18^th, 2024 at 11:09am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 10:35am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 10:12am: Strange people in the WA Government they allow people who have been arrested as mentally unfit to possess and drive motor vehicles but will not allow them to have a Zimmerstutzen. Those assessed as mental risks are also allowed access to chainsaws, hatchets,axes and a variety of knives. Chainsaws, hatchets, axes and a variety of knives are tools most people use and own....However if you choose to use one of these tools as a weapon you will be charged with the consequences....Firearms are classified as weapons only....Despite your bullshit deflection your claim that the National Firearms Agreement has been broken by WA is complete bullshit as you have been shown on multiple occasions....WA can introduce any gun laws they consider necassary to protect the public as it is writen in the agreement....You are a liar and not very smart as you bullshit confirms!!! Quote: National Firearms Agreement Opening Statement 1. The National Firearms Agreement constitutes a National approach to the regulation of firearms. The agreement affirms that firearms possesion and use is a privellege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety and that public safety is improved by the safe and responsible possession, carriage, use, registration, storage and transfer of firearms. 2. The agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations. 3. Having regard to the National Firearms Trafficing Policy agreement, first agreed in 2002, juristictions agree to establish or maintain substancial penalties for the illegal possesion of firearms.   ::) ::) ::) https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf https://www.criminaldefencelawyers.com.au/blog/weapons-licensing-laws-in-australia/#:~:text=Are%20Self%20Defence%20Weapons%20in,defence%20purposes%20in%20Australia%20generally. Your obfuscation doesn’t alter the fact that people considered to be mentally unfit are allowed free access to lethal weapons tools and kitchen appliances but are not allowed to own a Zimmerstutzen. Going by your posts I doubt that you could get a firearm license.

Going by your rant you confirm you are a compete dickhead....Chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives are not classed as lethal weapons that require a licence you idiot....Why do you continue to embarrass yourself with such blatant bullshit???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2024 at 11:39am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 11:09am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 10:35am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 10:12am: Strange people in the WA Government they allow people who have been arrested as mentally unfit to possess and drive motor vehicles but will not allow them to have a Zimmerstutzen. Those assessed as mental risks are also allowed access to chainsaws, hatchets,axes and a variety of knives. Chainsaws, hatchets, axes and a variety of knives are tools most people use and own....However if you choose to use one of these tools as a weapon you will be charged with the consequences....Firearms are classified as weapons only....Despite your bullshit deflection your claim that the National Firearms Agreement has been broken by WA is complete bullshit as you have been shown on multiple occasions....WA can introduce any gun laws they consider necassary to protect the public as it is writen in the agreement....You are a liar and not very smart as you bullshit confirms!!! Quote: National Firearms Agreement Opening Statement 1. The National Firearms Agreement constitutes a National approach to the regulation of firearms. The agreement affirms that firearms possesion and use is a privellege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety and that public safety is improved by the safe and responsible possession, carriage, use, registration, storage and transfer of firearms. 2. The agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations. 3. Having regard to the National Firearms Trafficing Policy agreement, first agreed in 2002, juristictions agree to establish or maintain substancial penalties for the illegal possesion of firearms.   ::) ::) ::) https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf https://www.criminaldefencelawyers.com.au/blog/weapons-licensing-laws-in-australia/#:~:text=Are%20Self%20Defence%20Weapons%20in,defence%20purposes%20in%20Australia%20generally. Your obfuscation doesn’t alter the fact that people considered to be mentally unfit are allowed free access to lethal weapons tools and kitchen appliances but are not allowed to own a Zimmerstutzen. Going by your posts I doubt that you could get a firearm license. Going by your rant you confirm you are a compete dickhead....Chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives are not classed as lethal weapons that require a licence you idiot....Why do you continue to embarrass yourself with such blatant bullshit??? ::) ::) ::)

Not embarrassed in the slightest.
I didn’t say they were classified as weapons but they are lethal and one would expect that a Government that doesn’t allow a Zimmerstutzen over the limit for those it considers mentally stable would have been at pains not to allow potentially lethal things/weapons into the hands of those that it considers mentally unstable.

Bye the way, do you know what this symbol ‘’?’’ means ?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18^th, 2024 at 12:08pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 11:39am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 11:09am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 10:35am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 10:12am: Strange people in the WA Government they allow people who have been arrested as mentally unfit to possess and drive motor vehicles but will not allow them to have a Zimmerstutzen. Those assessed as mental risks are also allowed access to chainsaws, hatchets,axes and a variety of knives. Chainsaws, hatchets, axes and a variety of knives are tools most people use and own....However if you choose to use one of these tools as a weapon you will be charged with the consequences....Firearms are classified as weapons only....Despite your bullshit deflection your claim that the National Firearms Agreement has been broken by WA is complete bullshit as you have been shown on multiple occasions....WA can introduce any gun laws they consider necassary to protect the public as it is writen in the agreement....You are a liar and not very smart as you bullshit confirms!!! Quote: National Firearms Agreement Opening Statement 1. The National Firearms Agreement constitutes a National approach to the regulation of firearms. The agreement affirms that firearms possesion and use is a privellege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety and that public safety is improved by the safe and responsible possession, carriage, use, registration, storage and transfer of firearms. 2. The agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations. 3. Having regard to the National Firearms Trafficing Policy agreement, first agreed in 2002, juristictions agree to establish or maintain substancial penalties for the illegal possesion of firearms.   ::) ::) ::) https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf https://www.criminaldefencelawyers.com.au/blog/weapons-licensing-laws-in-australia/#:~:text=Are%20Self%20Defence%20Weapons%20in,defence%20purposes%20in%20Australia%20generally. Your obfuscation doesn’t alter the fact that people considered to be mentally unfit are allowed free access to lethal weapons tools and kitchen appliances but are not allowed to own a Zimmerstutzen. Going by your posts I doubt that you could get a firearm license. Going by your rant you confirm you are a compete dickhead....Chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives are not classed as lethal weapons that require a licence you idiot....Why do you continue to embarrass yourself with such blatant bullshit??? ::) ::) ::) Not embarrassed in the slightest. I didn’t say they were classified as weapons but they are lethal and one would expect that a Government that doesn’t allow a Zimmerstutzen over the limit for those it considers mentally stable would have been at pains not to allow potentially lethal things/weapons into the hands of those that it considers mentally unstable. Bye the way, do you know what this symbol ‘’?’’ means ?

What is your point dickhead....Are you advocating for anyone who has a criminal record or mental health issues should be banned from possessing chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives....Should they require a licence to possess these tools and kitchen appliances....Or are you claiming guns should not require a licence or background checks....Either way your pathetic argument is complete bullshit....Guns are weapons that require a licence....Your argument WA has breached the National Firearms agreement is a lie and complete bullshit....You really are a complete dickhead mate!!!

??? Question you sanity!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2024 at 12:20pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 12:08pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 11:39am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 11:09am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 10:35am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 10:12am: Strange people in the WA Government they allow people who have been arrested as mentally unfit to possess and drive motor vehicles but will not allow them to have a Zimmerstutzen. Those assessed as mental risks are also allowed access to chainsaws, hatchets,axes and a variety of knives. Chainsaws, hatchets, axes and a variety of knives are tools most people use and own....However if you choose to use one of these tools as a weapon you will be charged with the consequences....Firearms are classified as weapons only....Despite your bullshit deflection your claim that the National Firearms Agreement has been broken by WA is complete bullshit as you have been shown on multiple occasions....WA can introduce any gun laws they consider necassary to protect the public as it is writen in the agreement....You are a liar and not very smart as you bullshit confirms!!! Quote: National Firearms Agreement Opening Statement 1. The National Firearms Agreement constitutes a National approach to the regulation of firearms. The agreement affirms that firearms possesion and use is a privellege that is conditional on the overriding need to ensure public safety and that public safety is improved by the safe and responsible possession, carriage, use, registration, storage and transfer of firearms. 2. The agreement sets out minimum requirements in relation to the regulation of firearms. Nothing in this Agreement prevents jurisdictions from adopting additional - including more restrictive - regulations. 3. Having regard to the National Firearms Trafficing Policy agreement, first agreed in 2002, juristictions agree to establish or maintain substancial penalties for the illegal possesion of firearms.   ::) ::) ::) https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf https://www.criminaldefencelawyers.com.au/blog/weapons-licensing-laws-in-australia/#:~:text=Are%20Self%20Defence%20Weapons%20in,defence%20purposes%20in%20Australia%20generally. Your obfuscation doesn’t alter the fact that people considered to be mentally unfit are allowed free access to lethal weapons tools and kitchen appliances but are not allowed to own a Zimmerstutzen. Going by your posts I doubt that you could get a firearm license. Going by your rant you confirm you are a compete dickhead....Chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives are not classed as lethal weapons that require a licence you idiot....Why do you continue to embarrass yourself with such blatant bullshit??? ::) ::) ::) Not embarrassed in the slightest. I didn’t say they were classified as weapons but they are lethal and one would expect that a Government that doesn’t allow a Zimmerstutzen over the limit for those it considers mentally stable would have been at pains not to allow potentially lethal things/weapons into the hands of those that it considers mentally unstable. Bye the way, do you know what this symbol ‘’?’’ means ? What is your point dickhead....Are you advocating for anyone who has a criminal record or mental health issues should be banned from possessing chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives....Should they require a licence to possess these tools and kitchen appliances....Or are you claiming guns should not require a licence or background checks....Either way your pathetic argument is complete bullshit....Guns are weapons that require a licence....Your argument WA has breached the National Firearms agreement is a lie and complete bullshit....You really are a complete dickhead mate!!! ??? Question you sanity!!! ::) ::) ::)

So you think that it’s OK for those deemed to be mentally unfit to own a Zimmerstutzen should be allowed things that can be lethal weapons?
Allowing those deemed to be dangerous because of a Government employee’s thinking on their mental health access to knives but not to a Zimmerstutzen borders on the hysterical in terms of mirth.
‘It would be funny were it not so pathetic.

Just curious, but is your rudeness hereditary or did you acquire it?

You have a serious problem with reality mate....What are you proposing???

1. Mental health and background checks for everyone wanting to purchase chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives with licencing and severe penalties for breaches?

2. No background checks for anyone wanting to purchase any firearm and no limit to the amount of firearms someone can possess?

3. Everyone should be required to own a weapon for self defence?

All weapons including crossbows, blow darts certain knives and an array of other weapons are classified under a weapon category....The category of the weapon determines what restrictions are applied....If someone can only own 10 antique weapons that fall into a restricted category then that is the law....Having 10 firearms for a legitimate reason is more than enough for anyone....Your whole argument is complete bullshit!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2024 at 1:17pm:

You have a serious problem with reality mate....What are you proposing??? 1. Mental health and background checks for everyone wanting to purchase chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives with licencing and severe penalties for breaches? 2. No background checks for anyone wanting to purchase any firearm and no limit to the amount of firearms someone can possess? 3. Everyone should be required to own a weapon for self defence? All weapons including crossbows, blow darts certain knives and an array of other weapons are classified under a weapon category....The category of the weapon determines what restrictions are applied....If someone can only own 10 antique weapons that fall into a restricted category then that is the law....Having 10 firearms for a legitimate reason is more than enough for anyone....Your whole argument is complete bullshit!!! ::) ::) ::)

Just answer this; why should a person who has been deemed mentally unfit to possess a Zimmerstutzen be allowed to have things with the potential to cause much harm?
A Zimmerstutzen has iess power than a thrown dart yet is required to be registered, minuscule power compared to a chainsaw and not worth mentioning compared to a motor vehicle.
Why do you think that those deemed to be mentally unfit to possess a firearm are mentally stablei enough to be trusted with a motor vehicle?
Motor vehicles have been used to commit murder , a few years ago at Glen Innes, north NSW, there was a double murder and suicide by a mentally unstable man., then therewas the time a truck was driven into the cafe at Ayre’s Rock.
Can happen any time.
But you would seem to condone the mentally unstable having free access to dangerous items that can become weapons in an instant.

What’s your thoughts on those deemed to be mentally unfit having free access to matches and petrol?

Phil,
You said, “ You have a serious problem with reality mate . . .”
Be that as it may, but I am not your ‘mate’, I am far more discerning than that.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 1:04pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 1:17pm: You have a serious problem with reality mate....What are you proposing??? 1. Mental health and background checks for everyone wanting to purchase chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives with licencing and severe penalties for breaches? 2. No background checks for anyone wanting to purchase any firearm and no limit to the amount of firearms someone can possess? 3. Everyone should be required to own a weapon for self defence? All weapons including crossbows, blow darts certain knives and an array of other weapons are classified under a weapon category....The category of the weapon determines what restrictions are applied....If someone can only own 10 antique weapons that fall into a restricted category then that is the law....Having 10 firearms for a legitimate reason is more than enough for anyone....Your whole argument is complete bullshit!!! ::) ::) ::) Just answer this; why should a person who has been deemed mentally unfit to possess a Zimmerstutzen be allowed to have things with the potential to cause much harm? A Zimmerstutzen has iess power than a thrown dart yet is required to be registered, minuscule power compared to a chainsaw and not worth mentioning compared to a motor vehicle. Why do you think that those deemed to be mentally unfit to possess a firearm are mentally stablei enough to be trusted with a motor vehicle? Motor vehicles have been used to commit murder , a few years ago at Glen Innes, north NSW, there was a double murder and suicide by a mentally unstable man., then therewas the time a truck was driven into the cafe at Ayre’s Rock. Can happen any time. But you would seem to condone the mentally unstable having free access to dangerous items that can become weapons in an instant. What’s your thoughts on those deemed to be mentally unfit having free access to matches and petrol?

So your proposal is either....

1. Mental health and background checks for everyone wanting to purchase chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives with licencing and severe penalties for breaches....We can also add matches and petrol although motor vehicles require a licence and practicle test as welll as restrictions....That way we can make sure anybody with a mental condition cannot purchase anything....Everything someone wants to purchase that may be used to cause harm will require a background check....Just to be sure!!!

2. No background checks for anyone wanting to purchase any firearm and no limit to the amount of firearms someone can possess???

If you dont like the laws go to court and change them....Your whole argument is complete bullshit!!!



::) ::) ::)

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 15^th, 2024 at 7:39pm:

In WA if one has 11 firearms and one of them is a Zimmerstutzen then either it or one of the others must be gotten rid of to comply with the law, Almost as funny as NSW where if the Zimmerstutzen is a breech loader it is Category A but if it is the more antiquated muzzle loading type it is Category B, up there with high powered center fire repeating rifles.

1. Your whole argument that WA breached the National Firearms Agreement is bullshit....Debate over!!!

2. If you have a problem with the weapons catergories in the agreement then your only remedy is to change the law!!!

3. If someone can only own 10 antique (or other firearms) then refer to point 2.!!!

4. This is not America....Owning a firearm is a privilege not a right and Australia is safer for it!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 6:10pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 15th, 2024 at 7:39pm: In WA if one has 11 firearms and one of them is a Zimmerstutzen then either it or one of the others must be gotten rid of to comply with the law, Almost as funny as NSW where if the Zimmerstutzen is a breech loader it is Category A but if it is the more antiquated muzzle loading type it is Category B, up there with high powered center fire repeating rifles. 1. Your whole argument that WA breached the National Firearms Agreement is bullshit....Debate over!!! 2. If you have a problem with the weapons catergories in the agreement then your only remedy is to change the law!!! 3. If someone can only own 10 antique (or other firearms) then refer to point 2.!!! 4. This is not America....Owning a firearm is a privilege not a right and Australia is safer for it!!! ::) ::) ::)

Owning a firearm for self defence is a right it’s just that in Australia people are denied that tight.

All people have a right to defend themselves from unlawful acts, therefore they have the right to an adequate means of defence.
The Government cannot protect its citizens from attack so it has no right to deny them the means of protection. 

Now tell me that that is not logical, refute my points with logical reasoning if you can.

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 5:50pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 19th, 2024 at 1:04pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 1:17pm: You have a serious problem with reality mate....What are you proposing??? 1. Mental health and background checks for everyone wanting to purchase chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives with licencing and severe penalties for breaches? 2. No background checks for anyone wanting to purchase any firearm and no limit to the amount of firearms someone can possess? 3. Everyone should be required to own a weapon for self defence? All weapons including crossbows, blow darts certain knives and an array of other weapons are classified under a weapon category....The category of the weapon determines what restrictions are applied....If someone can only own 10 antique weapons that fall into a restricted category then that is the law....Having 10 firearms for a legitimate reason is more than enough for anyone....Your whole argument is complete bullshit!!! ::) ::) ::) Just answer this; why should a person who has been deemed mentally unfit to possess a Zimmerstutzen be allowed to have things with the potential to cause much harm? A Zimmerstutzen has iess power than a thrown dart yet is required to be registered, minuscule power compared to a chainsaw and not worth mentioning compared to a motor vehicle. Why do you think that those deemed to be mentally unfit to possess a firearm are mentally stablei enough to be trusted with a motor vehicle? Motor vehicles have been used to commit murder , a few years ago at Glen Innes, north NSW, there was a double murder and suicide by a mentally unstable man., then therewas the time a truck was driven into the cafe at Ayre’s Rock. Can happen any time. But you would seem to condone the mentally unstable having free access to dangerous items that can become weapons in an instant. What’s your thoughts on those deemed to be mentally unfit having free access to matches and petrol? So your proposal is either.... 1. Mental health and background checks for everyone wanting to purchase chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives with licencing and severe penalties for breaches....We can also add matches and petrol although motor vehicles require a licence and practicle test as welll as restrictions....That way we can make sure anybody with a mental condition cannot purchase anything....Everything someone wants to purchase that may be used to cause harm will require a background check....Just to be sure!!! 2. No background checks for anyone wanting to purchase any firearm and no limit to the amount of firearms someone can possess??? If you dont like the laws go to court and change them....Your whole argument is complete bullshit!!! ::) ::) ::)

OK, so in your opinion it’s alright for those deemed to be mentally unstable to have matches and petrol.
Good thinking,

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Phil,
The Firearms Act that the WA Government just enacted says that the limit of 5 firearms hunters and 10 for competition shooters is tohelp stop firearm theft by criminals.

How do they know that criminals are twice as likely to steal from hunters?

Can you tell us, or do you also think that such a distinction is absurd?

Just a small point, where didI mention a restriction on the number of antique firearms that can be owned?

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 9:08pm:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Seems that the level of discussion is a bit higher than Brian’s level.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 9:35pm:

Phil, The Firearms Act that the WA Government just enacted says that the limit of 5 firearms hunters and 10 for competition shooters is tohelp stop firearm theft by criminals. How do they know that criminals are twice as likely to steal from hunters? Can you tell us, or do you also think that such a distinction is absurd?

Pistols are what criminals want hunters can't use pistols they are for target shooting competitions which is an Olympic sport.

The 5 gun limit on firearms for hunters is absurd you can only use one gun at a time this isn't Hollywood where they shoot blanks that don't have recoil.

The ban on some firearm calibres is based on fear that a cop could be shot yet no cop has ever been shot with the calibres they banned.

At 1 minute 15 seconds former NSW Police minister Troy Grant says greater than 97% of all gun crime is done by criminals with Illegal guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKXLxKX8RgQ

Politicians sell a perception they're making you safer yet they never bring in tougher laws for criminals with illegal guns.
They only go after licensed gun owners so they an appear to be doing something.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 10:48pm:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Point proven🤣🤣🤣

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 19^th, 2024 at 7:00pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 19th, 2024 at 5:50pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 19th, 2024 at 1:04pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 18th, 2024 at 1:17pm: You have a serious problem with reality mate....What are you proposing??? 1. Mental health and background checks for everyone wanting to purchase chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives with licencing and severe penalties for breaches? 2. No background checks for anyone wanting to purchase any firearm and no limit to the amount of firearms someone can possess? 3. Everyone should be required to own a weapon for self defence? All weapons including crossbows, blow darts certain knives and an array of other weapons are classified under a weapon category....The category of the weapon determines what restrictions are applied....If someone can only own 10 antique weapons that fall into a restricted category then that is the law....Having 10 firearms for a legitimate reason is more than enough for anyone....Your whole argument is complete bullshit!!! ::) ::) ::) Just answer this; why should a person who has been deemed mentally unfit to possess a Zimmerstutzen be allowed to have things with the potential to cause much harm? A Zimmerstutzen has iess power than a thrown dart yet is required to be registered, minuscule power compared to a chainsaw and not worth mentioning compared to a motor vehicle. Why do you think that those deemed to be mentally unfit to possess a firearm are mentally stablei enough to be trusted with a motor vehicle? Motor vehicles have been used to commit murder , a few years ago at Glen Innes, north NSW, there was a double murder and suicide by a mentally unstable man., then therewas the time a truck was driven into the cafe at Ayre’s Rock. Can happen any time. But you would seem to condone the mentally unstable having free access to dangerous items that can become weapons in an instant. What’s your thoughts on those deemed to be mentally unfit having free access to matches and petrol? So your proposal is either.... 1. Mental health and background checks for everyone wanting to purchase chainsaws, hatchets, axes and knives with licencing and severe penalties for breaches....We can also add matches and petrol although motor vehicles require a licence and practicle test as welll as restrictions....That way we can make sure anybody with a mental condition cannot purchase anything....Everything someone wants to purchase that may be used to cause harm will require a background check....Just to be sure!!! 2. No background checks for anyone wanting to purchase any firearm and no limit to the amount of firearms someone can possess??? If you dont like the laws go to court and change them....Your whole argument is complete bullshit!!! ::) ::) ::) OK, so in your opinion it’s alright for those deemed to be mentally unstable to have matches and petrol. Good thinking,

Do you require a licence to purchase matches or petrol....What do you propose....Can you answer these three questions???

1. Should people need a background check to purchase matches and petrol???

2. Should people wanting to purchase a firearm require a background check???

3. What limit should be placed on owning firearms???

WA have not breached the National Firearms Agreement....Your whole argument is bullshit!!!

::) ::) ::)

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 20^th, 2024 at 9:18am:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2024 at 10:48pm: https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Point proven🤣🤣🤣

You just don't get it do you, Eugene?  Like a real gun nut you confuse safety with a gun.  Tsk tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2024 at 12:36pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 20th, 2024 at 9:18am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2024 at 10:48pm: https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Point proven🤣🤣🤣 You just don't get it do you, Eugene?  Like a real gun nut you confuse safety with a gun.  Tsk tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

You can write ! ! and not just to yourself on “Defence”.

If your assailant has a big knife do you draw your fountain pen?
After all the pen is mightier than the sword.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 20^th, 2024 at 1:00pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20th, 2024 at 12:36pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 20th, 2024 at 9:18am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2024 at 10:48pm: https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Point proven🤣🤣🤣 You just don't get it do you, Eugene?  Like a real gun nut you confuse safety with a gun.  Tsk tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) You can write ! ! and not just to yourself on “Defence”. If your assailant has a big knife do you draw your fountain pen? After all the pen is mightier than the sword.

I use what ever weapon is to hand to defend myself,  Eugene.  Australians have used milk crates to stop Terrorists.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20^th, 2024 at 2:58pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 20th, 2024 at 1:00pm: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 20th, 2024 at 12:36pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 20th, 2024 at 9:18am: Brian Ross wrote on Oct 19th, 2024 at 10:48pm: https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif Point proven🤣🤣🤣 You just don't get it do you, Eugene?  Like a real gun nut you confuse safety with a gun.  Tsk tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) You can write ! ! and not just to yourself on “Defence”. If your assailant has a big knife do you draw your fountain pen? After all the pen is mightier than the sword. I use what ever weapon is to hand to defend myself,  Eugene.  Australians have used milk crates to stop Terrorists.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Good on you, Brian, perhaps you’d use one of the mythical extra long Sword bayonets that you invented when you denigrated the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade.who charged using their ordinary 16 inch Sword bayonets at the charge at Beersheba.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 21^st, 2024 at 12:07pm:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Embarrassing isn’t it, Brian, to be caught out in a piece your own BS.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 21^st, 2024 at 4:54pm:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Well said, your intellectual standards haven’t been impaired.

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2024 at 10:19am:

1. Should people need a background check to purchase matches and petrol??? 2. Should people wanting to purchase a firearm require a background check??? 3. What limit should be placed on owning firearms??? ::) ::) ::)

1. The worst mass murders in NSW and QLD were done by lighting fires.
I guess the bedwetters think being burned alive isn't as bad as being shot

2. If they have a license then background checks have already been done so pointless doing it again.

3. The 2nd worst mass shooting in Australia was done with a single shot bolt action .22 which is Category A  a type bedwetters have no problems with.

If you can trust someone with a gun then type of gun doesn't really matter.

Limits on how many guns are bullshit you can only use 1 at a time.

The amount and type of guns you have is already relevant with safe storage regulations.

Baronvonrort wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 12:13am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 20th, 2024 at 10:19am: 1. Should people need a background check to purchase matches and petrol??? 2. Should people wanting to purchase a firearm require a background check??? 3. What limit should be placed on owning firearms??? ::) ::) ::) 1. The worst mass murders in NSW and QLD were done by lighting fires. I guess the bedwetters think being burned alive isn't as bad as being shot 2. If they have a license then background checks have already been done so pointless doing it again. 3. The 2nd worst mass shooting in Australia was done with a single shot bolt action .22 which is Category A  a type bedwetters have no problems with. If you can trust someone with a gun then type of gun doesn't really matter. Limits on how many guns are bullshit you can only use 1 at a time. The amount and type of guns you have is already relevant with safe storage regulations.

So you advocate for a restriction on matches yet want guns to be freely available....You gun nuts would prefer a clean kill???

Assault weapons are illegal in Australia because the type of gun does matter when lives matter....Guns have one purpose dickhead!!!

The laws have broad support from the Australian public and mass shootings are rare in Australia because wankers like you have restrictions placed on your self centered hobby!!!

It is a privelege to own a firearm in Australia and if you gun nuts don't like the laws then piss off to America where you can play with any gun you want and nobody will care!!!

Martin Bryant, killed 35 people and wounded 23 others, the deadliest massacre in modern Australian history using an AR 15 and a L1AI self loading rifle 308!!!

The amount of guns in America and the carnage that it has wrought on the American people prove your bullshit claim about the amount of guns do not matter is stupidity on steroids....You really are a complete dickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)

Phil,
You said:
‘’you require a licence to purchase matches or petrol....What do you propose....Can you answer these three questions???

1. Should people need a background check to purchase matches and petrol???
If one needs a background check to possess a Zimmerstutzen then logically one should be checked for matches and petrol, as they have far more  potential danger. WA requires a check for Zimmerstutzen.
2. Should people wanting to purchase a firearm require a background check??? Yes

3. What limit should be placed on owning firearms???
What is that supposed to mean?

WA have not breached the National Firearms Agreement....Your whole argument is bullshit!!!’’
WA have virtually destroyed the NFA.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 10:44am:

Phil, You said: ‘’you require a licence to purchase matches or petrol....What do you propose....Can you answer these three questions??? 1. Should people need a background check to purchase matches and petrol??? If one needs a background check to possess a Zimmerstutzen then logically one should be checked for matches and petrol, as they have far more  potential danger. WA requires a check for Zimmerstutzen. 2. Should people wanting to purchase a firearm require a background check??? Yes 3. What limit should be placed on owning firearms??? What is that supposed to mean? WA have not breached the National Firearms Agreement....Your whole argument is bullshit!!!’’ WA have virtually destroyed the NFA.

Firearms are restricted and require a licence....Matches do not....Do you really think purchasing matches should require a background check....What about cigarete lighters???

States determine the laws regarding firearms licencing....WA has every right to enforce restrictions on firearms!!!

WA have not breached the NFA and your whole argument is bullshit as usual....You are a liar and a complete dickhead....You are done!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 10:57am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 10:44am: Phil, You said: ‘’you require a licence to purchase matches or petrol....What do you propose....Can you answer these three questions??? 1. Should people need a background check to purchase matches and petrol??? If one needs a background check to possess a Zimmerstutzen then logically one should be checked for matches and petrol, as they have far more  potential danger. WA requires a check for Zimmerstutzen. 2. Should people wanting to purchase a firearm require a background check??? Yes 3. What limit should be placed on owning firearms??? What is that supposed to mean? WA have not breached the National Firearms Agreement....Your whole argument is bullshit!!!’’ WA have virtually destroyed the NFA. Firearms are restricted and require a licence....Matches do not....Do you really think purchasing matches should require a background check....What about cigarete lighters??? States determine the laws regarding firearms licencing....WA has every right to enforce restrictions on firearms!!! WA have not breached the NFA and your whole argument is bullshit as usual....You are a liar and a complete dickhead....You are done!!! ::) ::) ::)

Invective is the last resort of one who has lost not only the plot but also the argument.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 11:47am:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 10:57am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 10:44am: Phil, You said: ‘’you require a licence to purchase matches or petrol....What do you propose....Can you answer these three questions??? 1. Should people need a background check to purchase matches and petrol??? If one needs a background check to possess a Zimmerstutzen then logically one should be checked for matches and petrol, as they have far more  potential danger. WA requires a check for Zimmerstutzen. 2. Should people wanting to purchase a firearm require a background check??? Yes 3. What limit should be placed on owning firearms??? What is that supposed to mean? WA have not breached the National Firearms Agreement....Your whole argument is bullshit!!!’’ WA have virtually destroyed the NFA. Firearms are restricted and require a licence....Matches do not....Do you really think purchasing matches should require a background check....What about cigarete lighters??? States determine the laws regarding firearms licencing....WA has every right to enforce restrictions on firearms!!! WA have not breached the NFA and your whole argument is bullshit as usual....You are a liar and a complete dickhead....You are done!!! ::) ::) ::) Invective is the last resort of one who has lost not only the plot but also the argument.

Your argument was that WA breached the NFA....Your argument was complete bullshit from the start....WA has not breached the NFA and crying (lying) like a little bitch will do nothing to alter the fact you are a complete dickhead who has nothing of substance to support your lie!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 11:51am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 11:47am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 10:57am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 10:44am: Phil, You said: ‘’you require a licence to purchase matches or petrol....What do you propose....Can you answer these three questions??? 1. Should people need a background check to purchase matches and petrol??? If one needs a background check to possess a Zimmerstutzen then logically one should be checked for matches and petrol, as they have far more  potential danger. WA requires a check for Zimmerstutzen. 2. Should people wanting to purchase a firearm require a background check??? Yes 3. What limit should be placed on owning firearms??? What is that supposed to mean? WA have not breached the National Firearms Agreement....Your whole argument is bullshit!!!’’ WA have virtually destroyed the NFA. Firearms are restricted and require a licence....Matches do not....Do you really think purchasing matches should require a background check....What about cigarete lighters??? States determine the laws regarding firearms licencing....WA has every right to enforce restrictions on firearms!!! WA have not breached the NFA and your whole argument is bullshit as usual....You are a liar and a complete dickhead....You are done!!! ::) ::) ::) Invective is the last resort of one who has lost not only the plot but also the argument. Your argument was that WA breached the NFA....Your argument was complete bullshit from the start....WA has not breached the NFA and crying (lying) like a little bitch will do nothing to alter the fact you are a complete dickhead who has nothing of substance to support your lie!!! ::) ::) ::)

Thank you for proving my point.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 12:20pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 11:51am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 11:47am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 10:57am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 10:44am: Phil, You said: ‘’you require a licence to purchase matches or petrol....What do you propose....Can you answer these three questions??? 1. Should people need a background check to purchase matches and petrol??? If one needs a background check to possess a Zimmerstutzen then logically one should be checked for matches and petrol, as they have far more  potential danger. WA requires a check for Zimmerstutzen. 2. Should people wanting to purchase a firearm require a background check??? Yes 3. What limit should be placed on owning firearms??? What is that supposed to mean? WA have not breached the National Firearms Agreement....Your whole argument is bullshit!!!’’ WA have virtually destroyed the NFA. Firearms are restricted and require a licence....Matches do not....Do you really think purchasing matches should require a background check....What about cigarete lighters??? States determine the laws regarding firearms licencing....WA has every right to enforce restrictions on firearms!!! WA have not breached the NFA and your whole argument is bullshit as usual....You are a liar and a complete dickhead....You are done!!! ::) ::) ::) Invective is the last resort of one who has lost not only the plot but also the argument. Your argument was that WA breached the NFA....Your argument was complete bullshit from the start....WA has not breached the NFA and crying (lying) like a little bitch will do nothing to alter the fact you are a complete dickhead who has nothing of substance to support your lie!!! ::) ::) ::) Thank you for proving my point.

White flag not accepted....Remain stupid you ignorant liar....WA did nothing wrong!!!

:) :) :)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 12:33pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 12:20pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 11:51am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 11:47am: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 10:57am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 10:44am: Phil, You said: ‘’you require a licence to purchase matches or petrol....What do you propose....Can you answer these three questions??? 1. Should people need a background check to purchase matches and petrol??? If one needs a background check to possess a Zimmerstutzen then logically one should be checked for matches and petrol, as they have far more  potential danger. WA requires a check for Zimmerstutzen. 2. Should people wanting to purchase a firearm require a background check??? Yes 3. What limit should be placed on owning firearms??? What is that supposed to mean? WA have not breached the National Firearms Agreement....Your whole argument is bullshit!!!’’ WA have virtually destroyed the NFA. Firearms are restricted and require a licence....Matches do not....Do you really think purchasing matches should require a background check....What about cigarete lighters??? States determine the laws regarding firearms licencing....WA has every right to enforce restrictions on firearms!!! WA have not breached the NFA and your whole argument is bullshit as usual....You are a liar and a complete dickhead....You are done!!! ::) ::) ::) Invective is the last resort of one who has lost not only the plot but also the argument. Your argument was that WA breached the NFA....Your argument was complete bullshit from the start....WA has not breached the NFA and crying (lying) like a little bitch will do nothing to alter the fact you are a complete dickhead who has nothing of substance to support your lie!!! ::) ::) ::) Thank you for proving my point. White flag not accepted....Remain stupid you ignorant liar....WA did nothing wrong!!! :) :) :)

Never said that WA did anything wrong, do please learn to comprehend the written word.
You seem to be so eager to illustrate your ignorance that you reply with the appearance of complete misunderstanding of what has actually been written by others.

Your reference to the White Flag is a case in point, obviously you don’t understand the meaning of it., and to fire on it, so to speak, either shews your ignorance or ill intent.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 12:45pm:

Never said that WA did anything wrong,

End of debate....You are done!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 1:59pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 12:45pm: Never said that WA did anything wrong, End of debate....You are done!!! ::) ::) ::)

Well, I never said that.

End of what debate, there hasn’t been one, to debate one answers the points raised by others, addresses their questions and adds one’s own explanations.
These things you have repeatedly failed to do, however I was waiting for this point, the point where you throw in the towel and run for cover, as you’ve done in the past.

Before you go, do you remember posting this: ‘’ Assault weapons are illegal in Australia because the type of gun does matter when lives matter....Guns have one purpose dickhead!!!’’
Assault weapons and similar have been banned in Australia for 100 years or so, obviously you don’t know what you are talking about.
Guns do not only have one purpose and anyone who thinks so is basking in the glow of their own ignorance.

So long blissful, I will miss your posts, but for amusement I can read Brian in Defence.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 2:45pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 1:59pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 12:45pm: Never said that WA did anything wrong, End of debate....You are done!!! ::) ::) ::) Well, I never said that. End of what debate, there hasn’t been one, to debate one answers the points raised by others, addresses their questions and adds one’s own explanations. These things you have repeatedly failed to do, however I was waiting for this point, the point where you throw in the towel and run for cover, as you’ve done in the past. Before you go, do you remember posting this: ‘’ Assault weapons are illegal in Australia because the type of gun does matter when lives matter....Guns have one purpose dickhead!!!’’ Assault weapons and similar have been banned in Australia for 100 years or so, obviously you don’t know what you are talking about. Guns do not only have one purpose and anyone who thinks so is basking in the glow of their own ignorance. So long blissful, I will miss your posts, but for amusement I can read Brian in Defence.

There is nothing in any of your dribble that has shown the NFA is not working as it was intended....If you have a problem with prohibeted weapons or the classification of weapons then your only remedy is to challenge the restrictions in a court of law or get gun nuts elected to change the legislation....All you are doing is complaining about something that is legal and supported by the majority of Australian's.....WA's gun laws are working just fine!!!

:) :) :)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 2:53pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 2:45pm: philperth2010 wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 1:59pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 22nd, 2024 at 12:45pm: Never said that WA did anything wrong, End of debate....You are done!!! ::) ::) ::) Well, I never said that. End of what debate, there hasn’t been one, to debate one answers the points raised by others, addresses their questions and adds one’s own explanations. These things you have repeatedly failed to do, however I was waiting for this point, the point where you throw in the towel and run for cover, as you’ve done in the past. Before you go, do you remember posting this: ‘’ Assault weapons are illegal in Australia because the type of gun does matter when lives matter....Guns have one purpose dickhead!!!’’ Assault weapons and similar have been banned in Australia for 100 years or so, obviously you don’t know what you are talking about. Guns do not only have one purpose and anyone who thinks so is basking in the glow of their own ignorance. So long blissful, I will miss your posts, but for amusement I can read Brian in Defence. There is nothing in any of your dribble that has shown the NFA is not working as it was intended....If you have a problem with prohibeted weapons or the classification of weapons then your only remedy is to challenge the restrictions in a court of law or get gun nuts elected to change the legislation....All you are doing is complaining about something that is legal and supported by the majority of Australian's.....WA's gun laws are working just fine!!! :) :) :)

Looks like I got that wrong.
Are you not leaving?

Here’s a gem from the well thought out NFA

‘’Personal protection is not a genuine reason for acquiring, possessing or using a firearm.’’
So, according to the NFA if one’s life is unlawfully threatened by a person with a firearm then one must submit to being murdered, even though one may be in possession of a firearm legally, for as stated above personal protection is not a reason for using a firearm.

Thank God the Courts of Law disagree.

What do you think, Phil, if you found yourself in that position would you stick by the NFA or would you pull the trigger to save your life or the lives of your loved ones?

I’ll just add to the previous, if one is out hunting rabbits with a .410 shotgun and is charged by a scrub bull then it would appear from the NFA that it is illegal to use the shotgun, in self defence, to try to divert the bull.

Logical thinking?

Phil,

You said, ‘’is a privelege to own a firearm in Australia and if you gun nuts don't like the laws then piss off to America where you can play with any gun you want and nobody will care!!!’’

Hope you’re joking, because if you’re not then you’re shewing complete ignorance.
If we went to the US we’d be aliens and not allowed to possess any type of firearm let alone have any that we may want, even US citizens can’t have any type of firearm.

Were the framers/current custodians of the NFA knowledgeable about firearms?
It seems not for nothing justifies the restriction on calibre.
Target shooters are restricted to .38 or below.

A well known and accurate target round was the .455 Webley but it is banned, on the other hand the.357 Magnum is OK apparently because it has a smaller diameter bullet.

.455 Webley, muzzle velocity [in the hottest loading] 900 feet/second
and 360 foot pounds of energy.

.357 Magnum, mv 1,400 f/s and 783 ft,lbs of energy.

Thus we can see that the Magnum has just over one and a half times the m.v. and over twice the energy

So the calibre ban makes no sense if the idea was to limit power, however if the idea was simply to be narky then it is understandable.

Intelligent comments welcome.

One thing that must be satisfying for WA target shooters is that they have only half as much chance of having their guns stolen as do hunters.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2024 at 2:22pm:

Were the framers/current custodians of the NFA knowledgeable about firearms? It seems not for nothing justifies the restriction on calibre. Target shooters are restricted to .38 or below. A well known and accurate target round was the .455 Webley but it is banned, on the other hand the.357 Magnum is OK apparently because it has a smaller diameter bullet. .455 Webley, muzzle velocity [in the hottest loading] 900 feet/second and 360 foot pounds of energy. .357 Magnum, mv 1,400 f/s and 783 ft,lbs of energy. Thus we can see that the Magnum has just over one and a half times the m.v. and over twice the energy So the calibre ban makes no sense if the idea was to limit power, however if the idea was simply to be narky then it is understandable. Intelligent comments welcome.

Where are you,Phil?
One would think that the above would be right up your alley, a chance to shew your knowledgle.

Nothing wrong with a mental health assessment for people who want a gun licence, nor is there anything wrong about limiting the number of guns a person can legally own. Should be rolled out nationally.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 1^st, 2024 at 8:58am:

Nothing wrong with a mental health assessment for people who want a gun licence, nor is there anything wrong about limiting the number of guns a person can legally own. Should be rolled out nationally.

The mental assessment if it is to curb potential gun violence should apply to all people who legally possess firearms do you not think?

What difference does it make if a hunter owns 6 single shot low power guns and thus exceeds the WA limit by one or owns the limit of 5 high power magazine rifles all of which are capable of very rapid fire, rapid fire that exceeds the rate of fire of some banned semiautomatic rifles?

The makers of WA’s stupid laws didn’t have a clue.

Whilst we’re at it, how about mental health checks for all politicians and sobriety checks before they are allowed to vote in their respective Parliaments?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 1^st, 2024 at 2:35pm:

Whilst we’re at it, how about mental health checks for all politicians and sobriety checks before they are allowed to vote in their respective Parliaments?

Donald Trump badly needs a mental health check.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 1^st, 2024 at 6:44pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 1st, 2024 at 2:35pm: Whilst we’re at it, how about mental health checks for all politicians and sobriety checks before they are allowed to vote in their respective Parliaments? Donald Trump badly needs a mental health check.

Western Australia is in the Southern Hemisphere.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 1^st, 2024 at 2:35pm:

Whilst we’re at it, how about mental health checks for all politicians and sobriety checks before they are allowed to vote in their respective Parliaments?

How long have you been a non-Australian, Eugene?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 1^st, 2024 at 8:32pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 1st, 2024 at 2:35pm: Whilst we’re at it, how about mental health checks for all politicians and sobriety checks before they are allowed to vote in their respective Parliaments? How long have you been a non-Australian, Eugene?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Since I was born, I automatically got dual citizenship from the Republic of Ireland.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2024 at 11:39am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 1st, 2024 at 8:32pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 1st, 2024 at 2:35pm: Whilst we’re at it, how about mental health checks for all politicians and sobriety checks before they are allowed to vote in their respective Parliaments? How long have you been a non-Australian, Eugene?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Since I was born, I automatically got dual citizenship from the Republic of Ireland.

Perhaps you should think about immigration then 'cause your displaying traits that do not fit downunder, Eugene.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2024 at 12:19pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 2nd, 2024 at 11:39am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 1st, 2024 at 8:32pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 1st, 2024 at 2:35pm: Whilst we’re at it, how about mental health checks for all politicians and sobriety checks before they are allowed to vote in their respective Parliaments? How long have you been a non-Australian, Eugene?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Since I was born, I automatically got dual citizenship from the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps you should think about immigration then 'cause your displaying traits that do not fit downunder, Eugene.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Multiculturalism, Brian, multiculturalism.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2024 at 2:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 2nd, 2024 at 12:19pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 2nd, 2024 at 11:39am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 1st, 2024 at 8:32pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 1st, 2024 at 2:35pm: Whilst we’re at it, how about mental health checks for all politicians and sobriety checks before they are allowed to vote in their respective Parliaments? How long have you been a non-Australian, Eugene?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Since I was born, I automatically got dual citizenship from the Republic of Ireland. Perhaps you should think about immigration then 'cause your displaying traits that do not fit downunder, Eugene.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Multiculturalism, Brian, multiculturalism.

Touche!  Eugene, touche!  Well argued but since has it been presumed parliamentarians are not allowed to be, "tired and emotional"?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Two home invasions in the FarWest, looks like a last throw of the dice before the new WA flirearm laws make this sort of thing impossible.

The WA Liberal and National alliance is in a stoush over gun laws. Where does it leave them just four months out from an election?  Shows who's who in WA, hey? Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

I see the State Administrative Tribunal has knocked back the letters Police sent to affected shooters as neither the legislation or the underpinning regulations have been enacted. Also some of the affected people were those convicted in their teens many years ago.  ::)

lee wrote on Nov 9^th, 2024 at 2:00pm:

I see the State Administrative Tribunal has knocked back the letters Police sent to affected shooters as neither the legislation or the underpinning regulations have been enacted. Also some of the affected people were those convicted in their teens many years ago.  ::)

It is what many have come to expect, law thought up by the unelected and it is not WA only.

Quote:

Gun dealer buyback to remove thousands of additional weapons The Cook Government today announced it will pay licensed gun dealers in Western Australia for surrendered stock ahead of the nation's toughest firearm laws coming into effect. WA firearms dealers can hand over guns to Western Australia Police in return for cash The dealer buyback offers business owners an opportunity to unload stock before implementation of the nation's toughest gun laws New regulations strengthen rules around supply of guns for hunting purposes Modernised licensing system to result in cost savings for gun owners Between now and 17 January 2025, licensed WA firearms dealers can hand over guns to the WA Police in return for up to $1,000 in cash, depending on the type, style, calibre and age of each weapon. The dealer buyback will see thousands of guns removed from towns and suburbs across the State and follows the success of the Cook Government's multimillion-dollar voluntary firearm buyback program Comments attributed to Police Minister Paul Papalia: "The licensed dealer gun buyback provides an opportunity for the industry to hand in their weapons before our tough new firearm laws come into effect. https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/Cook%20Labor%20Government/Gun-dealer-buyback-to-remove-thousands-of-additional-weapons-20241107

Up to $1000 in cash for rifles that cost over $3K

Just Googled shotguns under $ 1,000 and couldn’t find any, of course that’s retail so there might be a few under a thousand at wholesale prices but not many.
.22 rimfire rifles, mostly over the thousand mark.

Seems the WA police are rather out of touch, not unusual for they have suddenly, after more than thirty years, found that the firearm laws are inadequate; what have they been doing all these years?

Are licensed firearm owners law abiding?

Yet they are protesting the very laws they agreed to.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10^th, 2024 at 1:38pm:

Are licensed firearm owners law abiding? Yet they are protesting the very laws they agreed to.

So where did they agree to the new laws? The legislation was passed in 2024. The election was 2021. The next 2025.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 9^th, 2024 at 9:18pm:

lee wrote on Nov 9th, 2024 at 2:00pm: I see the State Administrative Tribunal has knocked back the letters Police sent to affected shooters as neither the legislation or the underpinning regulations have been enacted. Also some of the affected people were those convicted in their teens many years ago.  ::) It is what many have come to expect, law thought up by the unelected and it is not WA only.

WA has always been crazy on firearms, it doesn't surprise me at all they have reneged on national firearms laws.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 10^th, 2024 at 1:35pm:

Just Googled shotguns under $ 1,000 and couldn’t find any, of course that’s retail so there might be a few under a thousand at wholesale prices but not many. .22 rimfire rifles, mostly over the thousand mark. Seems the WA police are rather out of touch, not unusual for they have suddenly, after more than thirty years, found that the firearm laws are inadequate; what have they been doing all these years?

They'll just move them interstate for sale if they are getting ripped off.

The liberals and nationals are tearing each other apart over this and it's quite beautiful watching  :)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10^th, 2024 at 1:38pm:

Are licensed firearm owners law abiding? Yet they are protesting the very laws they agreed to.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian,
You’re not suggesting that there was consultation are you?
When and where did this agreement take place?
Reference?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 10^th, 2024 at 8:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 1:38pm: Are licensed firearm owners law abiding? Yet they are protesting the very laws they agreed to.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Brian, You’re not suggesting that there was consultation are you? When and where did this agreement take place? Reference?

The laws were passed after Port Arthur in 1996.  The Australian people agreed to them in the next election and every election since, Eugene.  You claim that you lot are, "law abiding" so why are going against the will of the democratic majority of Australians?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10^th, 2024 at 8:44pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 8:40pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 1:38pm: Are licensed firearm owners law abiding? Yet they are protesting the very laws they agreed to.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Brian, You’re not suggesting that there was consultation are you? When and where did this agreement take place? Reference? The laws were passed after Port Arthur in 1996.  The Australian people agreed to them in the next election and every election since, Eugene.  You claim that you lot are, "law abiding" so why are going against the will of the democratic majority of Australians?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

They were foisted upon them. I never agreed. While I have no prob with the same laws applying everywhere, we were not asked. Now WA, again, wants to go it's own way.

Setanta wrote on Nov 10^th, 2024 at 8:57pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 8:44pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 8:40pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 1:38pm: Are licensed firearm owners law abiding? Yet they are protesting the very laws they agreed to.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Brian, You’re not suggesting that there was consultation are you? When and where did this agreement take place? Reference? The laws were passed after Port Arthur in 1996.  The Australian people agreed to them in the next election and every election since, Eugene.  You claim that you lot are, "law abiding" so why are going against the will of the democratic majority of Australians?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) They were foisted upon them. I never agreed. While I have no prob with the same laws applying everywhere, we were not asked. Now WA, again, wants to go it's own way.

So, you're not, "Law Abiding", then?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Setanta wrote on Nov 10^th, 2024 at 7:14pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 1:35pm: Just Googled shotguns under $ 1,000 and couldn’t find any, of course that’s retail so there might be a few under a thousand at wholesale prices but not many. .22 rimfire rifles, mostly over the thousand mark. Seems the WA police are rather out of touch, not unusual for they have suddenly, after more than thirty years, found that the firearm laws are inadequate; what have they been doing all these years? They'll just move them interstate for sale if they are getting ripped off.

It's a taxpayer funded buyback from gun dealers.
These dealers can only sell them to people the police have approved so it will do nothing for public safety.

Apart from air rifles and air pistols not much if anything in gun shops under $1000 brand new.

A quality rimfire like Anshutz are over $3k

There is nothing in this new legislation that deals with criminals using illegal guns.

The sheeple have been brainwashed into guns are bad so they don't question stupid new laws that cost taxpayers a fortune while not doing anything apart from giving a perception they're doing something.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10^th, 2024 at 10:05pm:

It's a taxpayer funded buyback from gun dealers. These dealers can only sell them to people the police have approved so it will do nothing for public safety. Apart from air rifles and air pistols not much if anything in gun shops under $1000 brand new. A quality rimfire like Anshutz are over $3k There is nothing in this new legislation that deals with criminals using illegal guns. The sheeple have been brainwashed into guns are bad so they don't question stupid new laws that cost taxpayers a fortune while not doing anything apart from giving a perception they're doing something.

Another non-Law Abiding gun owner then?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10^th, 2024 at 10:11pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:05pm: It's a taxpayer funded buyback from gun dealers. These dealers can only sell them to people the police have approved so it will do nothing for public safety. Apart from air rifles and air pistols not much if anything in gun shops under $1000 brand new. A quality rimfire like Anshutz are over $3k There is nothing in this new legislation that deals with criminals using illegal guns. The sheeple have been brainwashed into guns are bad so they don't question stupid new laws that cost taxpayers a fortune while not doing anything apart from giving a perception they're doing something. Another non-Law Abiding gun owner then?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

What laws have i broken Bwhine?

Looking to get a 28 Nosler for longer range shots on feral pigs we can have them in NSW

---

Brian, you said,
‘’ The laws were passed after Port Arthur in 1996.  The Australian people agreed to them in the next election and every election since, Eugene.  You claim that you lot are, "law abiding" so why are going against the will of the democratic majority of Australians?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes’’
Where and when was the consultation?

We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country.
When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 7:58am:

Brian, you said, ‘’ The laws were passed after Port Arthur in 1996.  The Australian people agreed to them in the next election and every election since, Eugene.  You claim that you lot are, "law abiding" so why are going against the will of the democratic majority of Australians?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes’’ Where and when was the consultation? We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know.

There was more than sufficient consultation before the introduction of the firearm laws after Port Arthur but your ears and your eyes were collectively closed.  You refused to listen to the Governments when they said enough was enough.  You protested, you had idiots proclaim that "the streets would run with blood", you had fools claim they were going to bury their guns rather than sell them to the Government.  Gun owners were anything but law abiding.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10^th, 2024 at 10:55pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:11pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:05pm: It's a taxpayer funded buyback from gun dealers. These dealers can only sell them to people the police have approved so it will do nothing for public safety. Apart from air rifles and air pistols not much if anything in gun shops under $1000 brand new. A quality rimfire like Anshutz are over $3k There is nothing in this new legislation that deals with criminals using illegal guns. The sheeple have been brainwashed into guns are bad so they don't question stupid new laws that cost taxpayers a fortune while not doing anything apart from giving a perception they're doing something. Another non-Law Abiding gun owner then?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What laws have i broken Bwhine?

You are proposing that gun owners disobey the law.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 10:28am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: Brian, you said, ‘’ The laws were passed after Port Arthur in 1996.  The Australian people agreed to them in the next election and every election since, Eugene.  You claim that you lot are, "law abiding" so why are going against the will of the democratic majority of Australians?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes’’ Where and when was the consultation? We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. There was more than sufficient consultation before the introduction of the firarm laws after Port Arthur but your ears and your eyes were collectively closed.  You refused to listen to the Governments when they said enough was enough.  You protested, you had idiots proclaim that "the streets would run with blood", you had fools claim they were going to bury their guns rather than sell them to the Government.  Gun owners were anything but law abiding.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

All of them Brian? Much like all Muslims bad? You're a hypocrite. Do you even know any firearm owners?

Setanta wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 12:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 10:28am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: Brian, you said, ‘’ The laws were passed after Port Arthur in 1996.  The Australian people agreed to them in the next election and every election since, Eugene.  You claim that you lot are, "law abiding" so why are going against the will of the democratic majority of Australians?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes’’ Where and when was the consultation? We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. There was more than sufficient consultation before the introduction of the firarm laws after Port Arthur but your ears and your eyes were collectively closed.  You refused to listen to the Governments when they said enough was enough.  You protested, you had idiots proclaim that "the streets would run with blood", you had fools claim they were going to bury their guns rather than sell them to the Government.  Gun owners were anything but law abiding.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) All of them Brian? Much like all Muslims bad? You're a hypocrite. Do you even know any firearm owners?

I've known quite few over the years, Setanta.  Some have been loons most have been good.  Eugene wants them to disobey the law, despite claiming he is, "law abiding."  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 10:32am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:55pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:11pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:05pm: It's a taxpayer funded buyback from gun dealers. These dealers can only sell them to people the police have approved so it will do nothing for public safety. Apart from air rifles and air pistols not much if anything in gun shops under $1000 brand new. A quality rimfire like Anshutz are over $3k There is nothing in this new legislation that deals with criminals using illegal guns. The sheeple have been brainwashed into guns are bad so they don't question stupid new laws that cost taxpayers a fortune while not doing anything apart from giving a perception they're doing something. Another non-Law Abiding gun owner then?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What laws have i broken Bwhine? You are proposing that gun owners disobey the law.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Cite where i have proposed gun owners disobey the law or did you pluck that from your arse?

Bwhine the bullshitter tsk tsk tsk  ::) ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 6:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 10:32am: Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:55pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:11pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:05pm: It's a taxpayer funded buyback from gun dealers. These dealers can only sell them to people the police have approved so it will do nothing for public safety. Apart from air rifles and air pistols not much if anything in gun shops under $1000 brand new. A quality rimfire like Anshutz are over $3k There is nothing in this new legislation that deals with criminals using illegal guns. The sheeple have been brainwashed into guns are bad so they don't question stupid new laws that cost taxpayers a fortune while not doing anything apart from giving a perception they're doing something. Another non-Law Abiding gun owner then?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What laws have i broken Bwhine? You are proposing that gun owners disobey the law.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Cite where i have proposed gun owners disobey the law or did you pluck that from your arse? Bwhine the bullshitter tsk tsk tsk  ::) ::)

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, here Baron, here.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 6:15pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 6:02pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 10:32am: Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:55pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:11pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:05pm: It's a taxpayer funded buyback from gun dealers. These dealers can only sell them to people the police have approved so it will do nothing for public safety. Apart from air rifles and air pistols not much if anything in gun shops under $1000 brand new. A quality rimfire like Anshutz are over $3k There is nothing in this new legislation that deals with criminals using illegal guns. The sheeple have been brainwashed into guns are bad so they don't question stupid new laws that cost taxpayers a fortune while not doing anything apart from giving a perception they're doing something. Another non-Law Abiding gun owner then?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What laws have i broken Bwhine? You are proposing that gun owners disobey the law.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Cite where i have proposed gun owners disobey the law or did you pluck that from your arse? Bwhine the bullshitter tsk tsk tsk  ::) ::) Oh, dearie, dearie, me, here Baron, here.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

That is not encouraging people to break the law it's pointing out what the government has offered to pay gun dealers to buyback guns is far less than what they cost or are worth.

You have nothing i see why everyone abandoned your debate and relate forum ::) ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 10:28am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: Brian, you said, ‘’ The laws were passed after Port Arthur in 1996.  The Australian people agreed to them in the next election and every election since, Eugene.  You claim that you lot are, "law abiding" so why are going against the will of the democratic majority of Australians?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes’’ Where and when was the consultation? We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. There was more than sufficient consultation before the introduction of the firearm laws after Port Arthur but your ears and your eyes were collectively closed.  You refused to listen to the Governments when they said enough was enough.  You protested, you had idiots proclaim that "the streets would run with blood", you had fools claim they were going to bury their guns rather than sell them to the Government.  Gun owners were anything but law abiding.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

There was no consultation, if there had been then many of the resulting stupid laws would have been argued over with the probability that many of the subsequent changes would not have been necessary.
The ‘’blood will run in the streets’’ was as I remember made by the wife of a well known politician of the time, but I’m open to correction, just give a reference if you would be so kind.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 6:15pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, here Baron, here.

If you follow that link there is nothing about breaking the law. Bwian the Bullsch!t king. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Brian,
While on the subject, you know as well as I do that circumventing a proposed law is not breaking the law.

Licensed firearm owners are, as I said, among the most law abiding citizens, the fact that they are trusted by the various Governments to possess lethal weapons, particularly pistols, is proof enough.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 6:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 6:15pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 6:02pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 10:32am: Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:55pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:11pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 10th, 2024 at 10:05pm: It's a taxpayer funded buyback from gun dealers. These dealers can only sell them to people the police have approved so it will do nothing for public safety. Apart from air rifles and air pistols not much if anything in gun shops under $1000 brand new. A quality rimfire like Anshutz are over $3k There is nothing in this new legislation that deals with criminals using illegal guns. The sheeple have been brainwashed into guns are bad so they don't question stupid new laws that cost taxpayers a fortune while not doing anything apart from giving a perception they're doing something. Another non-Law Abiding gun owner then?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What laws have i broken Bwhine? You are proposing that gun owners disobey the law.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Cite where i have proposed gun owners disobey the law or did you pluck that from your arse? Bwhine the bullshitter tsk tsk tsk  ::) ::) Oh, dearie, dearie, me, here Baron, here.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) That is not encouraging people to break the law it's pointing out what the government has offered to pay gun dealers to buyback guns is far less than what they cost or are worth.

You mean their over-inflated prices that they paid for their toys, Baron?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 7:01pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 10:28am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: Brian, you said, ‘’ The laws were passed after Port Arthur in 1996.  The Australian people agreed to them in the next election and every election since, Eugene.  You claim that you lot are, "law abiding" so why are going against the will of the democratic majority of Australians?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes’’ Where and when was the consultation? We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. There was more than sufficient consultation before the introduction of the firearm laws after Port Arthur but your ears and your eyes were collectively closed.  You refused to listen to the Governments when they said enough was enough.  You protested, you had idiots proclaim that "the streets would run with blood", you had fools claim they were going to bury their guns rather than sell them to the Government.  Gun owners were anything but law abiding.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::) There was no consultation, if there had been then many of the resulting stupid laws would have been argued over with the probability that many of the subsequent changes would not have been necessary. The ‘’blood will run in the streets’’ was as I remember made by the wife of a well known politician of the time, but I’m open to correction, just give a reference if you would be so kind.

It was Ian McNiven:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNJycVqJaeY&t=44s

So much for being, "law abiding," Eugene.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

lee wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 7:21pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 6:15pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me, here Baron, here. If you follow that link there is nothing about breaking the law. Bwian the Bullsch!t king. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, he is proposing to move firearms out of the state, rather than surrender them to the authorities, Lee.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 7:23pm:

Brian, While on the subject, you know as well as I do that circumventing a proposed law is not breaking the law. Licensed firearm owners are, as I said, among the most law abiding citizens, the fact that they are trusted by the various Governments to possess lethal weapons, particularly pistols, is proof enough.

They must prove their suitability to possess lethal weapon, which are not allowed to be owned for killing innocent people, unlike the USA.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 8:04pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, he is proposing to move firearms out of the state, rather than surrender them to the authorities, Lee.

Not on the link you posted. Your link goes to  the Baron. "Up to $1000 in cash for rifles that cost over $3K"

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 8:04pm:

lee wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:21pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 6:15pm: Oh, dearie, dearie, me, here Baron, here. If you follow that link there is nothing about breaking the law. Bwian the Bullsch!t king. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Oh, dearie, dearie, me, he is proposing to move firearms out of the state, rather than surrender them to the authorities, Lee.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Bwhine the bullshitter is telling more lies

It's not illegal to sell firearms interstate if transaction is done by licensed firearm dealers.

Cite where you claim i proposed people move them out of the state you bullshitter.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 8:06pm:

They must prove their suitability to possess lethal weapon

Which is a psych evaluation, carried out yearly, on a certain date. Nothing to do with stressors going forward. And with 90,000 firearm holders they will need to do at least 300 a day, each and every day.

Do they even have enough psych experts available, seeing as mental health is supposed to be in crisis? :o

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 8:06pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:23pm: Brian, While on the subject, you know as well as I do that circumventing a proposed law is not breaking the law. Licensed firearm owners are, as I said, among the most law abiding citizens, the fact that they are trusted by the various Governments to possess lethal weapons, particularly pistols, is proof enough. They must prove their suitability to possess lethal weapon, which are not allowed to be owned for killing innocent people, unlike the USA.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Glad to see that you agree, having proved their suitability they are obviously among the top groups of the law abiding.
Are you considered among the top people or were you refused a license?
Your remark about the USA is pointless, inaccurate, tactless and completely irrelevant.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11^th, 2024 at 7:58am:

We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know.

Because Australia does background checks, restricts certain firearms, regulates the sale and storage of firearms and only allowes firearms for a specific purpose that does not include self defence....Unlike America were any dickhead can buy a gun and do....America could learn a few things from Australia and save a lot of children from mass shootings in the process!!!

::) ::) ::)

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 8:24am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 8:06pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:23pm: Brian, While on the subject, you know as well as I do that circumventing a proposed law is not breaking the law. Licensed firearm owners are, as I said, among the most law abiding citizens, the fact that they are trusted by the various Governments to possess lethal weapons, particularly pistols, is proof enough. They must prove their suitability to possess lethal weapon, which are not allowed to be owned for killing innocent people, unlike the USA.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Glad to see that you agree, having proved their suitability they are obviously among the top groups of the law abiding. Are you considered among the top people or were you refused a license? Your remark about the USA is pointless, inaccurate, tactless and completely irrelevant.

Is it?  You like many gun nuts hold the USA as the paragon as far as gun ownership is concerned. It is a real wild west society over there.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 8:58am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. Because Australia does background checks, restricts certain firearms, regulates the sale and storage of firearms and only allowes firearms for a specific purpose that does not include self defence....Unlike America were any dickhead can buy a gun and do....America could learn a few things from Australia and save a lot of children from mass shootings in the process!!!

Good to see you join Brian and be among those who recognise lisensed firearm owners as being in the top bracket of law abiding citizens.

Good points, Phil, and what do you think is the problem with countries that have very strict gun laws but have a much higher murder rate than the US?

Pray don’t be bashful but give us the benefit of your insightful intellect.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 12:12pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 8:24am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 8:06pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:23pm: Brian, While on the subject, you know as well as I do that circumventing a proposed law is not breaking the law. Licensed firearm owners are, as I said, among the most law abiding citizens, the fact that they are trusted by the various Governments to possess lethal weapons, particularly pistols, is proof enough. They must prove their suitability to possess lethal weapon, which are not allowed to be owned for killing innocent people, unlike the USA.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Glad to see that you agree, having proved their suitability they are obviously among the top groups of the law abiding. Are you considered among the top people or were you refused a license? Your remark about the USA is pointless, inaccurate, tactless and completely irrelevant. Is it?  You like many gun nuts hold the USA as the paragon as far as gun ownership is concerned. It is a real wild west society over there.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Yes it is, completely inaccurate and tasteless etc., etc. but I’m glad you stick to believing that licensed firearm owners are very law abiding.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 3:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 12:12pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 8:24am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 8:06pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:23pm: Brian, While on the subject, you know as well as I do that circumventing a proposed law is not breaking the law. Licensed firearm owners are, as I said, among the most law abiding citizens, the fact that they are trusted by the various Governments to possess lethal weapons, particularly pistols, is proof enough. They must prove their suitability to possess lethal weapon, which are not allowed to be owned for killing innocent people, unlike the USA.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Glad to see that you agree, having proved their suitability they are obviously among the top groups of the law abiding. Are you considered among the top people or were you refused a license? Your remark about the USA is pointless, inaccurate, tactless and completely irrelevant. Is it?  You like many gun nuts hold the USA as the paragon as far as gun ownership is concerned. It is a real wild west society over there.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Yes it is, completely inaccurate and tasteless etc., etc. but I’m glad you stick to believing that licensed firearm owners are very law abiding.

Only if they obey the law, Eugene.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 3:57pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 3:56pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 12:12pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 8:24am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 8:06pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:23pm: Brian, While on the subject, you know as well as I do that circumventing a proposed law is not breaking the law. Licensed firearm owners are, as I said, among the most law abiding citizens, the fact that they are trusted by the various Governments to possess lethal weapons, particularly pistols, is proof enough. They must prove their suitability to possess lethal weapon, which are not allowed to be owned for killing innocent people, unlike the USA.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Glad to see that you agree, having proved their suitability they are obviously among the top groups of the law abiding. Are you considered among the top people or were you refused a license? Your remark about the USA is pointless, inaccurate, tactless and completely irrelevant. Is it?  You like many gun nuts hold the USA as the paragon as far as gun ownership is concerned. It is a real wild west society over there.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Yes it is, completely inaccurate and tasteless etc., etc. but I’m glad you stick to believing that licensed firearm owners are very law abiding. Only if they obey the law, Eugene.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

What an insightful comment, you are right on the money, they are only law abiding if they obey the law.
Did you reason that out yourself or did you seek advise?

He gets his advice from Guido (John Smith). ;)

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 4:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 3:57pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 3:56pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 12:12pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 8:24am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 8:06pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:23pm: Brian, While on the subject, you know as well as I do that circumventing a proposed law is not breaking the law. Licensed firearm owners are, as I said, among the most law abiding citizens, the fact that they are trusted by the various Governments to possess lethal weapons, particularly pistols, is proof enough. They must prove their suitability to possess lethal weapon, which are not allowed to be owned for killing innocent people, unlike the USA.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Glad to see that you agree, having proved their suitability they are obviously among the top groups of the law abiding. Are you considered among the top people or were you refused a license? Your remark about the USA is pointless, inaccurate, tactless and completely irrelevant. Is it?  You like many gun nuts hold the USA as the paragon as far as gun ownership is concerned. It is a real wild west society over there.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) Yes it is, completely inaccurate and tasteless etc., etc. but I’m glad you stick to believing that licensed firearm owners are very law abiding. Only if they obey the law, Eugene.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::) What an insightful comment, you are right on the money, they are only law abiding if they obey the law. Did you reason that out yourself or did you seek advise?

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 3:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 8:58am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. Because Australia does background checks, restricts certain firearms, regulates the sale and storage of firearms and only allowes firearms for a specific purpose that does not include self defence....Unlike America were any dickhead can buy a gun and do....America could learn a few things from Australia and save a lot of children from mass shootings in the process!!! Good to see you join Brian and be among those who recognise lisensed firearm owners as being in the top bracket of law abiding citizens. Good points, Phil, and what do you think is the problem with countries that have very strict gun laws but have a much higher murder rate than the US? Pray don’t be bashful but give us the benefit of your insightful intellect.

I am comparing Western Australia to America....Which countries are you referring to???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 5:34pm:

I am comparing Western Australia to America...

How about comparing WA to the rest of Australia. It is the change in laws in Australia, WA in particular, you are championing. ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 5:34pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 3:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 8:58am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. Because Australia does background checks, restricts certain firearms, regulates the sale and storage of firearms and only allowes firearms for a specific purpose that does not include self defence....Unlike America were any dickhead can buy a gun and do....America could learn a few things from Australia and save a lot of children from mass shootings in the process!!! Good to see you join Brian and be among those who recognise lisensed firearm owners as being in the top bracket of law abiding citizens. Good points, Phil, and what do you think is the problem with countries that have very strict gun laws but have a much higher murder rate than the US? Pray don’t be bashful but give us the benefit of your insightful intellect. I am comparing Western Australia to America....Which countries are you referring to??? :-? :-? :-?

Murders per 100,000 population [2022]
Jamaica      53.34
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines      40.41
Trinidad and Tobago      39.52
Saint Lucia      36.7
Honduras      35.09
Bahamas      31.22
Belize      27.88
Ecuador      26.99
Mexico      26.11
Colombia      25.38
All have much tougher gun laws than the USA indeed some of them are much tougher than Australia

USA.        6.81 [2021]

You weren’t comparing WA and the US at all because you gave no facts about the US just a wild uninformed rant.

And here’s a link.

https://www.liveandinvestoverseas.com/lifestyle/gun-laws-in-central-and-south-america/

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 7:12pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 5:34pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 3:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 8:58am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. Because Australia does background checks, restricts certain firearms, regulates the sale and storage of firearms and only allowes firearms for a specific purpose that does not include self defence....Unlike America were any dickhead can buy a gun and do....America could learn a few things from Australia and save a lot of children from mass shootings in the process!!! Good to see you join Brian and be among those who recognise lisensed firearm owners as being in the top bracket of law abiding citizens. Good points, Phil, and what do you think is the problem with countries that have very strict gun laws but have a much higher murder rate than the US? Pray don’t be bashful but give us the benefit of your insightful intellect. I am comparing Western Australia to America....Which countries are you referring to??? :-? :-? :-? Murders per 100,000 population [2022] Jamaica      53.34 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines      40.41 Trinidad and Tobago      39.52 Saint Lucia      36.7 Honduras      35.09 Bahamas      31.22 Belize      27.88 Ecuador      26.99 Mexico      26.11 Colombia      25.38 All have much tougher gun laws than the USA indeed some of them are much tougher than Australia USA.        6.81 [2021] You weren’t comparing WA and the US at all because you gave no facts about the US just a wild uninformed rant.

Australia 0.83 (2022)

::) ::) ::)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 7:28pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 7:12pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 5:34pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 3:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 8:58am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. Because Australia does background checks, restricts certain firearms, regulates the sale and storage of firearms and only allowes firearms for a specific purpose that does not include self defence....Unlike America were any dickhead can buy a gun and do....America could learn a few things from Australia and save a lot of children from mass shootings in the process!!! Good to see you join Brian and be among those who recognise lisensed firearm owners as being in the top bracket of law abiding citizens. Good points, Phil, and what do you think is the problem with countries that have very strict gun laws but have a much higher murder rate than the US? Pray don’t be bashful but give us the benefit of your insightful intellect. I am comparing Western Australia to America....Which countries are you referring to??? :-? :-? :-? Murders per 100,000 population [2022] Jamaica      53.34 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines      40.41 Trinidad and Tobago      39.52 Saint Lucia      36.7 Honduras      35.09 Bahamas      31.22 Belize      27.88 Ecuador      26.99 Mexico      26.11 Colombia      25.38 All have much tougher gun laws than the USA indeed some of them are much tougher than Australia USA.        6.81 [2021] You weren’t comparing WA and the US at all because you gave no facts about the US just a wild uninformed rant. Australia 0.83 (2022) ::) ::) ::) https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country

Which proves that Australia is a very law abiding country and that there is no need for tougher gun laws, except for the need for political parties to be seen to be doing something.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 7:58pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 7:28pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 7:12pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 5:34pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 3:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 8:58am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. Because Australia does background checks, restricts certain firearms, regulates the sale and storage of firearms and only allowes firearms for a specific purpose that does not include self defence....Unlike America were any dickhead can buy a gun and do....America could learn a few things from Australia and save a lot of children from mass shootings in the process!!! Good to see you join Brian and be among those who recognise lisensed firearm owners as being in the top bracket of law abiding citizens. Good points, Phil, and what do you think is the problem with countries that have very strict gun laws but have a much higher murder rate than the US? Pray don’t be bashful but give us the benefit of your insightful intellect. I am comparing Western Australia to America....Which countries are you referring to??? :-? :-? :-? Murders per 100,000 population [2022] Jamaica      53.34 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines      40.41 Trinidad and Tobago      39.52 Saint Lucia      36.7 Honduras      35.09 Bahamas      31.22 Belize      27.88 Ecuador      26.99 Mexico      26.11 Colombia      25.38 All have much tougher gun laws than the USA indeed some of them are much tougher than Australia USA.        6.81 [2021] You weren’t comparing WA and the US at all because you gave no facts about the US just a wild uninformed rant. Australia 0.83 (2022) ::) ::) ::) https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country Which proves that Australia is a very law abiding country and that there is no need for tougher gun laws, except for the need for political parties to be seen to be doing something.

No further comments from Phil, as he runs for cover.

John Smith, have you found a dictionary yet?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12^th, 2024 at 7:58pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 7:28pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 7:12pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 5:34pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 3:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 8:58am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. Because Australia does background checks, restricts certain firearms, regulates the sale and storage of firearms and only allowes firearms for a specific purpose that does not include self defence....Unlike America were any dickhead can buy a gun and do....America could learn a few things from Australia and save a lot of children from mass shootings in the process!!! Good to see you join Brian and be among those who recognise lisensed firearm owners as being in the top bracket of law abiding citizens. Good points, Phil, and what do you think is the problem with countries that have very strict gun laws but have a much higher murder rate than the US? Pray don’t be bashful but give us the benefit of your insightful intellect. I am comparing Western Australia to America....Which countries are you referring to??? :-? :-? :-? Murders per 100,000 population [2022] Jamaica      53.34 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines      40.41 Trinidad and Tobago      39.52 Saint Lucia      36.7 Honduras      35.09 Bahamas      31.22 Belize      27.88 Ecuador      26.99 Mexico      26.11 Colombia      25.38 All have much tougher gun laws than the USA indeed some of them are much tougher than Australia USA.        6.81 [2021] You weren’t comparing WA and the US at all because you gave no facts about the US just a wild uninformed rant. Australia 0.83 (2022) ::) ::) ::) https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country Which proves that Australia is a very law abiding country and that there is no need for tougher gun laws, except for the need for political parties to be seen to be doing something.

All you have proven is America's gun laws are inadequate where guns are far too easy to obtain without a licence or background check....Australia's laws have broad support from the public unlike America's laws which allow weapons to be purchased unchecked or regulated....Australia does not have a problem with guns, America does dickhead!!!

Murders per 100,000 population
U.S.A.        6.81 [2021]
Australia     0.83 [2022]

::) ::) ::)


Quote:

Majority in U.S. Continues to Favor Stricter Gun Laws

https://news.gallup.com/poll/513623/majority-continues-favor-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2024 at 8:31am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 7:58pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 7:28pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 7:12pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 5:34pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 3:53pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 12th, 2024 at 8:58am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 11th, 2024 at 7:58am: We are law abiding, in fact licensed firearm owners are one of the most law abiding groups in the country. When we protest against the firearms laws we are exercising our democratic right to object, in case you didn’t know. Because Australia does background checks, restricts certain firearms, regulates the sale and storage of firearms and only allowes firearms for a specific purpose that does not include self defence....Unlike America were any dickhead can buy a gun and do....America could learn a few things from Australia and save a lot of children from mass shootings in the process!!! Good to see you join Brian and be among those who recognise lisensed firearm owners as being in the top bracket of law abiding citizens. Good points, Phil, and what do you think is the problem with countries that have very strict gun laws but have a much higher murder rate than the US? Pray don’t be bashful but give us the benefit of your insightful intellect. I am comparing Western Australia to America....Which countries are you referring to??? :-? :-? :-? Murders per 100,000 population [2022] Jamaica      53.34 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines      40.41 Trinidad and Tobago      39.52 Saint Lucia      36.7 Honduras      35.09 Bahamas      31.22 Belize      27.88 Ecuador      26.99 Mexico      26.11 Colombia      25.38 All have much tougher gun laws than the USA indeed some of them are much tougher than Australia USA.        6.81 [2021] You weren’t comparing WA and the US at all because you gave no facts about the US just a wild uninformed rant. Australia 0.83 (2022) ::) ::) ::) https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country Which proves that Australia is a very law abiding country and that there is no need for tougher gun laws, except for the need for political parties to be seen to be doing something. All you have proven is America's gun laws are inadequate where guns are far too easy to obtain without a licence or background check....Australia's laws have broad support from the public unlike America's laws which allow weapons to be purchased unchecked or regulated....Australia does not have a problem with guns, America does dickhead!!! Murders per 100,000 population U.S.A.        6.81 [2021] Australia     0.83 [2022] ::) ::) ::) Quote: Majority in U.S. Continues to Favor Stricter Gun Laws https://news.gallup.com/poll/513623/majority-continues-favor-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

Thank you for the reply, Phil.
Now just answer the question.
With Australia’s very low murder rate and low overall crime rate, why does WA need stricter gun laws?