Bill Bartlett writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
> [...]
> >I don't see why strict gun control implies a police state. I'd like
> >to hear your argument. In any case, I don't advocate a police state.
> >What do you mean by police state?
>
> A police state is a state that rules over the people by brute force, rather
> than with the consent of the governed. Issodhos is perhaps overstating the
> danger of gun control in leading to a police state, but gun control is
> certainly a necessary pre-condition for an effective police state. Can't
> have the plebs shooting back now, can we?
Well, then guns are also a necessary pre-condition for an effective
police state. So we should get rid of all guns to prevent a police
state?
> Your idea of limiting the number of guns a person can own, before
> they must be stored in a central armoury, would be rather a nuisance
> (and probably quite a financial burden) to many gun owners though.
Children are also a nuisance and a financial burden to many mothers
and fathers. We continue to expect people to take care of their
children properly.
> Guns are just tools, you need different tools for different jobs.
One gun is a tool. You can only shoot one gun at a time. Ten guns is
an armory. If you need a different type of gun for each task, fine.
How many are there? Hunting, target shooting, self-defence (if your
worries about a police state lead you to believe police do not deter
crime), and service in the militia. That's four. Any others?
> The absurdly restrictive gun laws recently enacted here in Australia
> illustrate that rules invented to satisfy the Disneyesque world-view
> of the urban middle class are a severe nuisance to the people who
> actually use guns.
>
> Friends of mine who are passionate hunters are really frustrated by
> these laws. One bloke had to hand in most of his firearms
> (pump-action shotguns) and make do with outdated 19th century
> breech-loading weapons, and even then the authorities question his
> need for more than one or two of these. The poor bastard now has to
> come and borrow my shotgun most weekends, for other shooters he
> takes along with his shooting party. He has no spare guns for
> emergencies. The 2-shot guns he does have are inadequate for the
> type of shooting he like (Roo shooting in thick scrub with a pack of
> hounds).
I don't know how this guy can go on living. I can't imagine shooting
roos without taking at least three pump action shotguns along for
emergencies. War is hell.
> I also have a relative who is a collector, with some nice old 19th
> century breech-loaders and old octagonal barrel lever-action
> rifles. The idea of mutilating them as required by law so appalled
> him that he didn't register any of his weapons. He certainly
> wouldn't have been in the slightest bit interested in locking them
> away in an armoury where he wouldn't even get to see them.
Why not put them in a museum? Why not make part of the armory into a
museum? I didn't say anything about requiring mutilation of antiques,
or any other gun. If the law is flawed the flaws should be
corrected. You're saying gun control is wrong because the Australian
gun control law contains a flaw?
> That may be OK for "investors". But I don't really think it would be
> too good in the long-run, the investment would depreciate pretty
> damn quick if you effectively killed the market for collectable
> firearms by not letting people see their collection or show it off.
But I said nothing about not seeing their collection or showing it
off. You said that.
> I just wish the urban middle-class would mind their own business. I
> agree with resticting offensive weapons like concealable pistols and
> assault rifles. But the trouble with you lot is you don't know the
> difference between offensive and hunting weapons and target weapons
> and collectables. These are all completely different kettles of
> fish.
I certainly do know the difference.
> Only wankers own offensive weapons in my experience. Usually, but
> not always, city wankers. And psychopaths of course. Taking these
> away from people is fair enough, but because most of the urban
> middle class in Australia doesn't understand the difference and
> won't listen to anyone who knows, they finished up going way over
> the top with gun law reform here.
> Next thing you know we have the likes of Pauline Hanson, a bigoted
> ignoramus, getting huge support from rural Australians. Wonder why?
Because rural Australians are just as prone to errors in judgment as
urban middle class Australians.
martin
Martin Smith Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
|