OK JAYB...

I realise you're cranky because they've taken you're beloved .50cal Barratt from you, still you'll have to content yourself with you're trusty old L1A1, SLR. And you know as well as I do, the old 7.62 will still make their eye's water if they cop it centre mass !

And you're right about some of the very weird 'gun nuts' that spend their entire days engaged in 'ballistic masturbation' down in their local 'boozer'. These blokes are usually on the radar, still a few manage to get through nevertheless, and they always represent a clear danger ?

I heard a whisper (not even a rumour) there was to be added to the agenda of the up-coming 'Police Commissioners Conference' to discuss, alternate methods of detecting and deterring applicants, or current licence holders from obtaining, or renewing F/A licences. Those who were deemed to suffer from certain categories of Psychiatric illnesses, were to be more thoroughly probed and screened, as to their fitness or otherwise to hold a F/A licence of any type ? It may sort out a few, depends how they determine whether a person is mentally ill ?

G'day there IS MISE...

Yeah I know mate. They'll always go after the easiest mark ? Still if you've got a decent sort of copper looking into the matter, and he sees the 'offended' individual has acted in 'good faith', and the crook got the flogging he justly deserved, "sometimes" I repeat, "sometimes" a copper can keep the allegations of 'excessive force' out of the judicial arena ? Once it hits the DPP, all the copper can do is stress and emphasize how 'wronged' the charged individual was, by the 'violent actions' of the crook who violated the poor bugger's home ! It's certainly not good is it ? The law's an ass !

G'day CHERFUL...

Of course you're right. The Bail laws are within the purview of the State government's, and NSW has amended the Act to take effect at the end of this month I believe ? Too late I realise for some, still better than nothing. In my opinion, most of this nonsense, Bail, availability of Firearms, stronger sentences, and many other instances of weaknesses in our judicial processes, come from our erudite, over remunerated, morally corrupt, politicians !

Politicians from * B O T H * sides of politics ! All Mr ABBOTT and the LNP can do, is to implore his various State Premiers to strengthen their Bail laws ? Concerning F/A's, again being a State issue, it's up to the various governments of each State to deal with ?All the federal government can do, is tighten the Custom's Act to make it much harder to import certain classes of F/A's into Oz, which he's done already. Some say he should tighten the Act even more ? Perhaps he should, I don't know ?

G'day HASBEEN...

Your last thread was directed to IS MISE ! Nevertheless I felt it necessary to respond, in the interests of 'human survival' ?

Your description of '...a strip of blond wood, and a snake...', does NOT represent anything that could be remotely described as a thing of 'beauty' ! Snakes are evil, frightening, horrible, 'slivering', dreadful, friendless creatures, that most SANE people don't like ! Furthermore I don't like 'em !

o sung wu,

I'm in the process of getting one of these,
http://www.ruger.com/products/no1Varminter/models.html
in brand new condition and with reloading dies and 50 rounds.

Fitted with a 4-12 variable scope; all for $700.

Will be doing some long range fox sniping.

OSW: Your description of '...a strip of blond wood, and a snake...', does NOT represent anything that could be remotely described as a thing of 'beauty' ! Snakes are evil, frightening, Horrible, 'slivering', dreadful, friendless creatures, that most SANE people don't like ! Furthermore I don't like 'em !

What's a Snake ever done to you. Snakes can be nice people too. See with an attitude towards them like that I'd bite you too. ;-)

Varminter? Sorry mate I don't like Martini type Actions. They did make a good .223 for the military once Though. It was a contender along with the M16 to replace the SLR. They went with the Styer then modified it & stuffed it. I think they gone back to the original configuration now though.

They Modified the SLR too. On the original when the last round was fired the working parts stayed back. Mag off, mag on, release. The holding open device originally worked in reverse & had to be pulled down to release the working parts. Hence the grip serrations on the top of it.

OSW: you're trusty old L1A1, SLR.

Never did like the SLR, for the Jungle. Too many sticky out bits that got caught on everything. Having the back sight & the Foresight on separates parts of the Weapon was a bad mistake. Too hard to keep sighted. Every time you fired it the MPI changed if it had the slightest wear.

o sung wu,

I again directed some comments to you rather than generally as they should have been as the issues developed. However you have broad shoulders and I reckon you always know when I am arguing things through rather that pointing the bone in any particular direction, least of all your way.

You are right though in what you implied: (in my words) that the modern regulators only nod to the time-honoured right of self defence, while ensuring that members of the public are in fact so restricted as to be hog-tied victims for any abuse, even slaughter, by an offender.

It is as though the State's social re-engineers, acting on the advice presumably of a social elite presumably, wanted to make the citizen's right to self defence unlawful, but stopped just short of that. -Here is where Goerge Orwell sit up in his grave and say, "I predicted that would happen".

If you don't mind I would like to open the discussion up a bit on that most basic of human rights that the State callously disregards for we ordinary folk, the right to preserve and defend ourselves and our loved ones.

It is inconceivable that way back in British law the State would have expected us to conduct our own defence, or defend the State against invaders too, with our bare hands. Particularly where the adversary had a big sword and was using it.

What about the Bill of Rights? For what possible reason would the State want to geld our rights? When did politicians ever presume that politicians and the State are our masters and not the other way around?

It wouldn't surprise me if that fundamental right still exists and the creeping restrictions on our capacity to conduct a worthwhile, sufficient personal defence are presumptuous and unlawful.

G'day there ONTHEBEACH...

I left your thread 'til last, because it had some substance to it ! There's been a few instances down through the years, where the notion of 'self-defence' has been abused and misused both by the Crown and as a useful defence to a charge of; attempt. murder, grievous bodily harm, malicious wounding, and other matters involving offences against the person.

There was a well documented matter in Melbourne a few years ago, where two well known criminal identities had it out, in the toilets of a Carlton restaurant, both armed. Only one emerged, the other dead. The defence was 'self-defence' ? Most thought this bloke was facing at least 25-35 years minimum. He walked, to the amazement of everyone, including himself I suspect ? The criminal law is a very topsy-turvy thing ? Therefore issues like the burden of proof, and other legal 'standards' are only good in text books and during 'moot' courts. Otherwise all bets are off. It's often been said, prior to codifying most of common law, the criminal law, was always considered fertile ground for 'precedence'.

I realise my response above has been flimsy ? Still I'm right out of my league, when it comes down to discussing the criminal elements of our system of jurisprudence. A whole study in it's own right !

Apropos your comments, where you were dealing essentially with the 'Doctrine of Proportionality', that's another matter entirely. In all issues dealing with 'offences against the person', physical disparity or dissimilitude, is always considered by the Courts ? Similarly as it is, the person's age, gender and infirmities if an any. I absolutely agree with your summation concerning 'burden of proof'.

As I've said previously, the law is (appears) an ass, on the face of it ? But it's the best we've got, until they draft further amendments, repeal some, strengthen others, and increase certain components of our system, well....?

Thanks ONTHEBEACH, you're certainly across some of it, more so than me, I suspect ? Thank you.