I don't disagree that the laws are imperfect and are riddled with local bureaucracy and incompetence to add to the confusion this however does not mean that the intent of the law itself is wrong.

The intent and consequences were never a consideration, it was a kneejerk reaction made by politicians for political gain alone. The easy way out for them, where they can be seen to be doing something, and damn the law abiding gun owners.

For the pollies it was just, "Back to the trough, and on with the never ending series of overseas junkets and free lunches".

We want less laws more justice. Because as funny as it may seem they are most often mutually incompatible. e.g. a sober licenced motorist who is stopped at a stoplight is rammed in the rear by another vehicle, he is deemed to be partly in the wrong for being there. Don't tell me it's not true, I know of a case where this was the judgement, and when the defendant complained he was interupted by the magistrate to be told, "Mr XXXX before you go any further may I remind you that this is not a court of justice, it is a court of LAW.

What chance does an honest man stand in system like that? This is the mentality that brings about laws such as those we have forced upon us like the current Firearms act.

handguns should be allowed for self defense, and Other than that, hunting rifles and shotguns.

And please no S&W .575 Magnum Revolvers. I Have never been mugged by an elephant, and to not expect to be.

Let's see -

1. 6 year olds should be allowed to pack 22cal pistols.

2. 12 year olds should be armed with 38cal semi-auto weapons and be allowed to wear them while attending school.

3. 18 year olds and above should be allowed to carry anything up to and including 50cal sniper rifles or assault weapons.

4. Women should be required to carry snub-nosed 38's in their purses along with pepper/CS agent dispensers.


JUST THINK - if everybody carries, we will never again have to worry about an unarmed civilian not being able to protect themselves from the criminal underworld when the entire populace is armed.

The days of the shootout at high-noon can be re-enabled and we can sell tickets for bleacher seats for those who wish to rubber-neck when two factions decide to trade gunfire with each other ... think of the added income we could put into our community's coffers. I can see it now, a Gunfight at the OK Corral every Saturday at High Noon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above tongue-in-cheek humor is NOT so unbelievable. IF there were NO laws regulating weapons, these things could very well come about. As a society, we have decided that there need to be minimum laws covering the sale and ownership of firearms. Weapons designed for use on the battlefields of the world that are capable of continuous fire of bullets that can blow through steel are NOT suited as deer hunting weapons and should NOT be allowed on our streets. The sale of anything other than a shotgun or a conventional deer rifle should require a background check to determine whether the person who is trying to buy these weapons does NOT have a criminal record or a record of mental disease. Why the NRA and other wacko groups have such a heartburn where this is concerned is beyond me. To me, this is the minimum that should be done for the protection of society.

On the other hand ... I WILL NEVER BE IN FAVOR OF A TOTAL BAN ON FIREARMS ... I just believe that oversight needs to be carried out to keep weapons out of the hands of those who should NOT be allowed access to them.

okay...
you're scaring me.

I am a retired Seaman and don't mind admitting I detest the sea. In my industry yacht owners, particularly the ocean going or offshore variety, are referred to as the "Blowflies of the sea" (They are for the most part a bloody nuisance)

The boating fraternity in my mind are all lunatics, there's not a month goes by without the state footing a large bill for a search for some lost "boatie", then there are those who drown, kill and injure themselves and endanger the lives of others in their use of power boats not to mention the annoyance many cause.

For the most part there is no reason why these people need to have a boat, but I don't go around advocating that all boats be banned for other than those who can show a need to own one. This stupid idea that we must "need" something to be able to own it is completely out of order.

As I stated earlier, the only things we "need" are, air sustenance and maybe shelter. But Im buggered if I'm going to agree to that either.

And on that note, I will reiterate my claim that "Gun control laws within Australia are a crock of sh*t", and withdraw from the debate having said all that I am going to on the matter.

Originally Posted by senojekips

And on that note, I will reiterate my claim that "Gun control laws within Australia are a crock of sh*t", and withdraw from the debate having said all that I am going to on the matter.

The laws you are talking about are they the ones that were implemented after the Martin Bryant incident or have there been major changes since then?
(I don't follow Australian law changes anymore than I imagine you follow New Zealand changes).

Why should guns be treated on a "need to have" basis when the 2nd amendment clearly says "shall not be infringed."

Why outlaw assault weapons when they're only used about 1% of weapon related crimes compared to handguns to which are used in 80% of weapon related crimes?

Why outlaw .50 caliber rifles? When was the last person murdered or killed by a .50 caliber rifle? How many Jetliners have been shot down by a .50 caliber rifle?

Originally Posted by Bugfatty

Why should guns be treated on a "need to have" basis when the 2nd amendment clearly says "shall not be infringed."

So tell me are there any limits to the "2nd amendment?
What stops you owning a Bradley for "self defense" or maybe a small tactical nuke to ensure your safety when walking the streets, hell MAD worked during the cold war why not extend it to civilians "One funny look from a thug and boom 6 city blocks leveled bet he wont do that again."
Where does "want to have" make way for "too dangerous to own"?

Originally Posted by MontyB

So tell me are there any limits to the "2nd amendment?
What stops you owning a Bradley for "self defense" or maybe a small tactical nuke to ensure your safety when walking the streets, hell MAD worked during the cold war why not extend it to civilians "One funny look from a thug and boom 6 city blocks leveled bet he wont do that again."
Where does "want to have" make way for "too dangerous to own"?

Nuclear weapons are of an indescriminant mass destruction nature.

And whats wrong with someone owning a Bradley IFV or a tank? There are lots of people in the US who collect working tanks with working guns with proper BATF paperwork.

Can you find me an instance where a legal privately owned machinegun, grenade launcher, .50 caliber rifle, tank, IFV, fighter jet, was used to kill someone in the US?