Australian Politics Forum - WA and the National Firearms Agreement

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18479
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #90 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 12:13am

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???

Roll Eyes

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.

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20390
Perth
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #91 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 8:54am

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

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???

Roll Eyes

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!!!

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: 2242
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #92 - 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.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20390
Perth
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #93 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 10:57am

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!!!

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: 2242
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #94 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 11:47am

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

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20390
Perth
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #95 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 11:51am

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

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

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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!!!

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: 2242
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #96 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 12:20pm

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

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

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

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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!!!

Roll Eyes

Thank you for proving my point.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20390
Perth
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #97 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 12:33pm

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

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

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

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

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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!!!

Roll Eyes

Thank you for proving my point.

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

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: 2242
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #98 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 12:45pm

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

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

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

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

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

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 12:58pm by Sir Eoin O Fada »

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

philperth2010 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20390 Perth Gender:	Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement Reply #99 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 1:59pm 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!!!
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: 2242
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #100 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 2:45pm

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

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20390
Perth
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #101 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 2:53pm

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

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

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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!!!

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: 2242
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #102 - Oct 22^nd, 2024 at 4:16pm

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

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

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

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!!!

Roll Eyes

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?

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2242 New England, NSW Gender:	Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement Reply #103 - Oct 23^rd, 2024 at 10:57am 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?
Back to top	Self defence is a right. IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2242
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: WA and the National Firearms Agreement
Reply #104 - Oct 23^rd, 2024 at 11:10am

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.

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged