Australian Politics Forum - WA and the National Firearms Agreement

Setanta Gold Member Offline \/ Peace man! Posts: 16588 Northern NSW Gender:	Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement Reply #210 - Nov 26^th, 2024 at 8:59pm
Back to top	IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2236 New England, NSW Gender:	Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement Reply #211 - Nov 27^th, 2024 at 9:48am Brian Ross wrote on Nov 26^th, 2024 at 8:35pm: https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif So you can’t afford medication, try one of the charities.
Back to top	Self defence is a right. IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #212 - Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:08am

Phil,
Gun ownership is a right and not a privilege.
The High Court recognises Self Defence against unlawful attacks as a Right.
It follows from this that there also exists a Right to the means of defence.
The Government cannot guarantee the safety of the citizens against armed criminals therefore it has no place in depriving the citizens of a suitable means of defence against criminal acts.
As a pistol is the most effective means of defence, available at all times, then the citizens have the Right to possess a pistol.

Governments which cannot protect their citizens against armed criminals are cowards who protect criminals when they immorality restrict the most effective means of self defence.

For many people help from the police is only a phone call away and takes only seconds, however the physical presence of the police may be 10, 20 or 50 kilometres away.

Do the maths.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:43am by Sir Eoin O Fada »

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20358
Perth
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #213 - Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:24am

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:08am:

Phil,
Gun ownership is a right and not a privilege.
The High Court recognises Self Defence against unlawful attacks as a Right.
It follows from this that ther also exists a Right to the means of defence.
The Government cannot guarantee the safety of the citizens against armed criminals therefore it has no place in depriving the citizens of a suitable means of defence against criminal acts.
As a pistol is the most effective means of defence, available at all times, then the citizens have the Right to possess a pistol.

Governments which cannot protect their citizens against armed criminals are cowards who protect criminals when they immorality restrict the most effective means of self defence.

For many people help from the police is only a phone call away and takes only seconds, however the physical presence of the police may be 10, 20 or 50 kilometres away.

Do the maths.

Are you talking about Western Australia or America....Where does Western Australia allow a firearm for self defence....Where is it stated owning a pistol in Australia is a right....(post the legislation) (you won't because it is bullshit)....Owning Firearms is a privelege in Australia....There is no right to bear arms in the Australian Constitution....Get a licence and follow the law....Unlike America were anyone can get a gun....You are an idiot???

Roll Eyes

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #214 - Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:50am

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:24am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:08am:

Phil,
Gun ownership is a right and not a privilege.
The High Court recognises Self Defence against unlawful attacks as a Right.
It follows from this that ther also exists a Right to the means of defence.
The Government cannot guarantee the safety of the citizens against armed criminals therefore it has no place in depriving the citizens of a suitable means of defence against criminal acts.
As a pistol is the most effective means of defence, available at all times, then the citizens have the Right to possess a pistol.

Governments which cannot protect their citizens against armed criminals are cowards who protect criminals when they immorality restrict the most effective means of self defence.

For many people help from the police is only a phone call away and takes only seconds, however the physical presence of the police may be 10, 20 or 50 kilometres away.

Do the maths.

Are you talking about Western Australia or America....Where does Western Australia allow a firearm for self defence....Where is it stated owning a pistol in Australia is a right....(post the legislation) (you won't because it is bullshit)....Owning Firearms is a privelege in Australia....There is no right to bear arms in the Australian Constitution....Get a licence and follow the law....Unlike America were anyone can get a gun....You are an idiot???

Roll Eyes

Obviously you think that logic is to do with supplying raw material to a sawmill.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20358
Perth
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #215 - Nov 27^th, 2024 at 1:51pm

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:50am:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:24am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:08am:

Phil,
Gun ownership is a right and not a privilege.
The High Court recognises Self Defence against unlawful attacks as a Right.
It follows from this that ther also exists a Right to the means of defence.
The Government cannot guarantee the safety of the citizens against armed criminals therefore it has no place in depriving the citizens of a suitable means of defence against criminal acts.
As a pistol is the most effective means of defence, available at all times, then the citizens have the Right to possess a pistol.

Governments which cannot protect their citizens against armed criminals are cowards who protect criminals when they immorality restrict the most effective means of self defence.

For many people help from the police is only a phone call away and takes only seconds, however the physical presence of the police may be 10, 20 or 50 kilometres away.

Do the maths.

Are you talking about Western Australia or America....Where does Western Australia allow a firearm for self defence....Where is it stated owning a pistol in Australia is a right....(post the legislation) (you won't because it is bullshit)....Owning Firearms is a privelege in Australia....There is no right to bear arms in the Australian Constitution....Get a licence and follow the law....Unlike America were anyone can get a gun....You are an idiot???

Roll Eyes

Obviously you think that logic is to do with supplying raw material to a sawmill.

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #216 - Nov 27^th, 2024 at 4:20pm

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 1:51pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:50am:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:24am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Nov 27^th, 2024 at 10:08am:

Phil,
Gun ownership is a right and not a privilege.
The High Court recognises Self Defence against unlawful attacks as a Right.
It follows from this that ther also exists a Right to the means of defence.
The Government cannot guarantee the safety of the citizens against armed criminals therefore it has no place in depriving the citizens of a suitable means of defence against criminal acts.
As a pistol is the most effective means of defence, available at all times, then the citizens have the Right to possess a pistol.

Governments which cannot protect their citizens against armed criminals are cowards who protect criminals when they immorality restrict the most effective means of self defence.

For many people help from the police is only a phone call away and takes only seconds, however the physical presence of the police may be 10, 20 or 50 kilometres away.

Do the maths.

Are you talking about Western Australia or America....Where does Western Australia allow a firearm for self defence....Where is it stated owning a pistol in Australia is a right....(post the legislation) (you won't because it is bullshit)....Owning Firearms is a privelege in Australia....There is no right to bear arms in the Australian Constitution....Get a licence and follow the law....Unlike America were anyone can get a gun....You are an idiot???

Roll Eyes

Obviously you think that logic is to do with supplying raw material to a sawmill.

Phil,
Here’s a simple example of logic.
Not hard, it’s taken from a children’s perspective.
https://kids.wordsmyth.net/we/?level=2&rid=24266

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #217 - Nov 28^th, 2024 at 8:59am

The WA Government is so bright that it has overlooked this glaring loophole.

‘’The objects of this Act are as follows -
(a) to improve public safety by ensuring the safe and responsible possession and use of firearms;
(b) to specify the purposes for which a person can be authorised to possess or use a firearm;
(c) to minimise the risk of persons becoming victims of crimes that involve the use of firearms;
(d) to prevent persons from having access to firearms for criminal purposes;
(e) to prevent access to firearms by persons who pose a risk of violence, family violence or intimidating behaviour;
(f) to prevent access to firearms by persons who pose a risk of misuse of firearms;
(g) to minimise the risk of persons causing harm, including psychological harm, to themselves or others by the misuse of firearms;
(h) to reduce the number of firearms unlawfully possessed in the community;
(i) to facilitate a nationally consistent approach to the control of firearms.”

Then the Act goes on to tell us what are not firearms,

‘’ (3) None of the following things is a firearm - (a)
a firearm that by an approved means has been rendered permanently incapable of operation;
(b)
anything that is prescribed by regulations under the Weapons Act 1999 as a prohibited weapon or a controlled weapon;
(c)
an industrial tool powered by cartridges that contain a propellant or by compressed air or other compressed gas and that is manufactured to fix fasteners or plugs or for similar purposes;
(d)
a device that is manufactured to fire signal flares;
(e)
a device, commonly known as a line thrower, that is manufactured to be used to establish lines between structures, natural features or vessels;’’

‘(a)
a firearm that by an approved means has been rendered permanently incapable of operation;”

Which, of course looks like a firearm and the victim can’t see that it cannot be fired so it can obviously be used as a firearm to rob, threaten, intimidate erc, but it is not a firearm so anyone with criminal intent can get one legally.

Are you in the WA Parliament, Phil?

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #218 - Nov 29^th, 2024 at 3:51pm

‘’(di) A device that is manufactured to fire signal flares.’’

Is NOT a firearm under the new laws, even though many modern signnal devices are chambered for 12 gauge flares and are designed to fire 12 ga shot gun rounds as a method of self defence.
Not only that but signal flares, which are a self igniting projectile which at short range can inflict horrific wounds with the victim dying in absolute agony particularly if hit in the stomach.

The WA Parliamentarians who voted for this garbage didn’t do their homework or their duty as members of Parliament.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 41839	Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement Reply #219 - Nov 29^th, 2024 at 4:03pm
Back to top	Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2236 New England, NSW Gender:	Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement Reply #220 - Nov 29^th, 2024 at 4:16pm Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29^th, 2024 at 4:03pm: https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif I don’t think that it’s a big yawn, Brian, that a Government that you seem to support should have so little regard for public safety. Perhaps they don’t give a toss and are just after votes.
Back to top	Self defence is a right. IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 41839	Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement Reply #221 - Nov 29^th, 2024 at 5:17pm
Back to top	Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #222 - Nov 29^th, 2024 at 7:21pm

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29^th, 2024 at 5:17pm:

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

Have a yawn at this,

‘’ A device, commonly known as a line thrower, that is manufactured to be used to establish lines between structures, natural features or vessels;’’
Harpoon guns are also line throwers and 12 ga. ones can fire shotgun rounds.
Many civilian owned line guns are based on military rifles and the Lee Enfield ones are normal .303 calibre rifles and are designed to be used for self defence by the Digger whose duty it was to carry it. He couldn’t be expected to carry two rifles so the Line Thrower was also a service rifle.

So a person in WA who owns 10 firearms isn’t allowed to own a 1520 matchlock replica because that copy of a slow firing muzzle loading gun, fired incidentally by a piece of smouldering cord [not much use in wet weather] is one over the allowance set by the intellectually challenged MPs, who however would allow him/her to own a fully functional service rifle, fitted with a ten round magazine and firing .303 Mk VII ammunition, because it is a line throwing device and not a firearm under their well thought out 2024 Firearms Act.

Phil,
A gun is a device, so don’t jump in and once again prove Abe Lincoln to have been right.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 41839	Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement Reply #223 - Nov 29^th, 2024 at 8:17pm
Back to top	Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 46211
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #224 - Nov 29^th, 2024 at 9:16pm

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29^th, 2024 at 8:17pm:

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

And if you yawn you are not a sad, stupid, ridiculous little ijit? Of course you are. You are an object of universal contemp and ridicule, even as you sit in your wheelchair in your soiled nappy.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?action=usersrecentposts;username=Brian_R...

At what point will your end of life sense of dignity override your lifelong stupidity and compulsion to be contemptible?
You do not have much longer to mull it over.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged