The Forum > General Discussion > Ban Political Donations From The Gun Lobby
Ban Political Donations From The Gun Lobby
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- ...
- 52
- 53
- 54
-
- All
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 18 February 2018 8:55:56 PM
| |
//As for Western Action, it's a fast growing, family orientated discipline where people do dress up as western/cowboy characters and fire pistols, rifles and shotguns of the period.
No modern designs are allowed, all arms must conform to designs that are now well over 100 years old.// Oh Gods, 'historical' re-enactors... I bet they talk in silly accents and everything. These are the sort of people that trainspotters think need to get a life. The only thing I can think of that is sadder than historical re-enactors is Morris dancers. Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 18 February 2018 10:46:06 PM
| |
Dear Is Mise,
Of course you want weapons in nearly all Australian homes and you have said as much. So a question if I may, what proportion of homes do you think would be disallowed a firearm under your rules? Further I was down camping at Mt Cole in central Victoria about a month ago. Great 4WDing and campsite. It is state forest so shooting is now allowed. I hadn't been back for nearly a decade and it is evident has been taking off as the gun crowd have really elbowed their way in. We were doing one of the walks out of the Ditchfields camp site and we could hear rounds being fired, something I could probably live with except for the fact that virtually every sign near a road (these blokes don't like walking it seems) was full of bullet holes, even those at the campground. It gave me very little confidence of responsible usage. So my second question; if someone is caught shooting up a sign (the ones depicting wildlife were favourites) do you think they should loose their licence and have their guns removed, after all this can hardly be deemed responsible use? Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 18 February 2018 11:12:22 PM
| |
Steele,
Only homes that would be allowed a firearm would be those inhabited by trustworthy, trained people who met the Commissioner of Police's criteria. "So my second question; if someone is caught shooting up a sign (the ones depicting wildlife were favourites) do you think they should loose their licence and have their guns removed, after all this can hardly be deemed responsible use" No quarter whatsoever, they should lose their licence, have their firearms either sold or placed in secure storage until they demonstrate that they are fit to hold a licence again. However, they should not lose their licence for a longer period than a vehicle driver who is found to be high-level DUI, and as motor vehicles are not confiscated ever when a person is killed or injured then I see no reason why a gun owner who does something stupid, but hurts nobody should be penalized more than an erring motorist. There is evidence that some road signs are shot, or otherwise damaged, by the antis to bring discredit on shooters; this becomes evident just before elections. Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 18 February 2018 11:51:10 PM
| |
What was the "good old days" in the Wild West of America? A time of complete lawlessness, which seen the killing of innocent men, women and children. A time of the wholesale slaughter of Native Americans and their dispossession from their land. Reenactment!
They should start a Port Arthur reenactment group, taking turns at playing 'Mad Martin', family fun... dad can be Mad Martin, and the rest of the family can play his victims! Nothing different than that Wild West mob!. "Only homes that would be allowed a firearm would be those inhabited by trustworthy, trained people who met the Commissioner of Police's criteria." In other words those that filled out the form correctly. I presummue this mob have gun licences; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok1NMsz6L08 "If there were no political donations and the Sporting Shooters Association became a political party" You have a political party, its called the Shooters and Hooters Party! Along with some cash up supportive politicians, like the Mad Katter and Weasel Leyonhjelm. "There is evidence that some road signs are shot, or otherwise damaged, by the antis," Put up the evidence Issy! I will be hounding you for it. Yeah! We tried to frame the law abiding Al Capone once, but he was innocent. Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 19 February 2018 3:50:12 AM
| |
Just to add, note the total lack of safety as these hillbillies run around shooting, carrying loaded guns around other people, loaded guns unattended, a rapid caress attitude while shooting, people standing close to shooters, unsafe metal targets. I am surprised no one has been killed yet by a stray bullet.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 19 February 2018 7:05:30 AM
|
Those donations are perfectly legal and don't amount to much in the grand scheme of things but I'd prefer to see no donations to political parties at all, let them fully fund their campaigns from money raised by their members.
What's the problem though with legal gun owners protecting their legal interests, isn't that one of the things that happen in a democracy?
Or does democracy ring a sour note?
If there were no political donations and the Sporting Shooters Association became a political party then they would not only have more members than any other party but more money; now there's a thought!!