The firearm thread

[TheDemonLord]

You clearly do not undestand
I have expalined it on at least three occasion
All you do is say but "three" doesn't make sense i want you to explain three.
Well that's because 1 and 1 make two not "three"

You've explained nothing, because you know nothing. You cannot admit that the Legislation as worded is deeply flawed, nor can you produce evidence that shows it's not. I've given you two instances where you could provide an example to show the legislation is well written. But you can't produce these examples because they don't exist. The reason they don't exist is because the Legislation is written badly.

This is not just my view, it's the view of COLFO, the NZ Law Society, NZDA etc.

AS for what the sultan has according to your latest post happened in Brunei.
I have never mentioned anything about stoning any people to death as being good or not bad either.
its a non question that hasnt been asked i haven't said anything about it,Perhaps as i dont know what you are talking about?

I know - you call me Islamophobic for being Critical of Islam and the Qu'ran.

If you say that Stoning people to Death is bad, then by your own definition - you are as Islamophobic as I am.
If you don't say Stoning people to Death is bad, then by your own definition - you are a Terrible human Being.

Pick one.

(but we both know you won't)

Somehow in your hysterical state, you decided it was part of the conversation about firearms control in NZ.
I ignored it as it wasnt?
Do you think you need a semi auto to protect yourself from the sultan of Brunei

Considering Self-defence is not a valid reason for owning in NZ and I've never had any intention of using for Self-Defence...

The point was - you are gloating about how I'm such a bad person and how it's good I'm getting my personal property removed by force based on Ideas I hold.

I'm presenting you with a very clear cut case of the Qu'ran and Islam being used to do something Terrible - which creates a dilemma based on the standards you have judged others.

Either you agree with stoning innocent people to death or you are an Islamophobe. Your refusal to answer is because you know that you cannot hold both views simultaneously and you can't bring yourself to admit to one or the other - so all your gloating and name-calling and character judgements can fuck off.

[husaberg]

You've explained nothing, because you know nothing. You cannot admit that the Legislation as worded is deeply flawed, nor can you produce evidence that shows it's not. I've given you two instances where you could provide an example to show the legislation is well written. But you can't produce these examples because they don't exist. The reason they don't exist is because the Legislation is written badly.

This is not just my view, it's the view of COLFO, the NZ Law Society, NZDA etc.



I know - you call me Islamophobic for being Critical of Islam and the Qu'ran.

If you say that Stoning people to Death is bad, then by your own definition - you are as Islamophobic as I am.
If you don't say Stoning people to Death is bad, then by your own definition - you are a Terrible human Being.

Pick one.

(but we both know you won't)



Considering Self-defence is not a valid reason for owning in NZ and I've never had any intention of using for Self-Defence...

The point was - you are gloating about how I'm such a bad person and how it's good I'm getting my personal property removed by force based on Ideas I hold.

I'm presenting you with a very clear cut case of the Qu'ran and Islam being used to do something Terrible - which creates a dilemma based on the standards you have judged others.

Either you agree with stoning innocent people to death or you are an Islamophobe. Your refusal to answer is because you know that you cannot hold both views simultaneously and you can't bring yourself to admit to one or the other - so all your gloating and name-calling and character judgements can fuck off.

There we go again can you understand why you keep getting put on ignore.
For at leas the last 4 pages it has been detailed to you why, yet you choose to ignore this and instead you just keep going back to the same illogical conclusion you refused to be shifted from.
Now you are trying to change the subject. Which somehow in your muddled state is now about islam.
You ignore statements made, then rant on about stuff that has not been said that somehow you concoct odd scenarios of in your muddled brain.
Then you go on ranting about statements ,i have not made and somehow you can decide what my opinion is based on what you say rather than what i say.
the only clear case you are presenting me with is why you shouldn't have access to the public let alone a semi auto?

[RDJ]

C'mon husaberg, just admit you're Chris Cahill. It'll make it easier to remember your ranting points.

[TheDemonLord]

There we go again can you understand why you keep getting put on ignore.
For at leas tthelast 4 pages it has been detailed to you why you just keep going back to the same illogical conclusion you refused to be shifted from.
Now you are trying to change the subject. Wy somehow in your muddled state is now about islam.
You ignore statements made, then rant on about stuff that has been said that somehow you concoct scenarios of in your muddled brain.
Then you go on ranting about statements i have not made and somehow you can decide what my opinion is or may be based on what you say rather than what i say.
the only clear case you are presenting me with is why you shouldn't have access to the public let alone a semi auto?

It's not an Illogical conclusion, It's the same conclusion that Lawyers AND Firearms experts have come to.

Because the Legislation is terribly worded.

I predicted you wouldn't declare a position and I was right - you just deflect with insults and demands for censure. The most interesting part was the fact you missed the point.

[jasonu]

How about on a SKS how many serial and makers numbers do they have?
Tey used all parts and there has been a fully functioning submarine gun made here and used to murder someone using multiple parts both manufactured and homemade.
I also believed there is restricted parts in the usa also or are you allowed to purchase large capacity mags still in some states and there was also a federal ban in place in 1994
Which might explain why the NRA hates the clintons and spent 130 million on Trumps election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...lt_Weapons_Ban

As I said in the USA the only part that is considered to be a firearm is the lower receiver. That is where the serial number is found. Without the lower receiver you don’t have a gun.

[husaberg]

It's not an Illogical conclusion, It's the same conclusion that Lawyers AND Firearms experts have come to.

Your conclusion is not logical, Nor is it the exact same conclusion as all lawyer and firearms experts had arrived at.

Because the Legislation is terribly worded.

Thats your opinion. is based on your years draft and interpreting laws or your years in legislature? or the same faulty reasoning skills that lead to to post how you knew more about US law than a US superme court judge?

I predicted you wouldn't declare a position and I was right - you just deflect with insults and demands for censure. The most interesting part was the fact you missed the point.

No you originally said i was clearly supportive as i had said nothing. You are constantly trying to introduce subjects that have nothing to do with the firearms laws i NZ, i are not interested in indulging your fantasy.

[husaberg]

As I said in the USA the only part that is considered to be a firearm is the lower receiver. That is where the serial number is found. Without the lower receiver you don’t have a gun.

Its not the only serial number though is it nor is the serial number/s registered or recorded in every state of the USA either.

C'mon husaberg, just admit you're Chris Cahill. It'll make it easier to remember your ranting points.

I had to google who he was , So i guess i am not him.
I did know only in passing his predecessor Greg O'Connor. I knew his father and some of his brothers though, if that helps.

[jasonu]

Its not the only serial number though is it nor is the serial number/s registered or recorded in every state of the USA either.


.

Are you trying to start another one of your ridiculous arguments or are you just being stupid on purpose?

[Laava]

I was just trying to imagine how much butthurt there must be on firearms forums based on how much there is in this thread on a motorbike forum. Personally, having owned firearms in this newly outlawed category, I am 100% behind the government on this one. I do have some empathy for people who may end up financially worse off, but that is just going to have to be collateral damage...

[husaberg]

Are you trying to start another one of your ridiculous arguments or are you just being stupid on purpose?

https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/

Most states in the U.S. do not require registration of guns and there is no Federal program to register guns. In fact under Federal law a national gun registry is illegal and eight states also have bans on any gun registry. There are at least four states and one district that have setup a registry for guns, the states are;

California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York and the District of Columbia.

Other states as listed below do not have an official gun registry but collect data on sales.

States With Official Gun Registries

California - The registry is maintained by the California Department of Justice and keeps information on buyers and sellers plus any firearms imported into the state. Information maintained is serial numbers, fingerprints, names, and addresses. The information is collected on handguns and long guns however if a gun was owned before 1991 there is no requirement to register it.
District of Columbia - All handguns and long guns are required to be registered with the Metropolitan Police.
Hawaii - All firearms must be registered within a 5 day period from when they are brought into the state or purchased with the county police chief.
Maryland - Only applies to handguns and automatic weapons which are required to be registered with the state police.
New York - Only applies to handguns which must be registered. There is a fee of $3 for registration and it is an offense to possess an unregistered handgun.
States That Collect Data on Gun Sales

Michigan - All sales of handguns must be registered with local law enforcement.
New Jersey - A copy of all purchase permits are sent to the New Jersey state police who maintain a record of all handgun transfers.
Washington -Licensed dealers are required to report all sales of handguns to the Department of Licensing and local law enforcement.

[jasonu]

https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/

I never said anything about registration.

[RDJ]

Are you trying to start another one of your ridiculous arguments or are you just being stupid on purpose?

Might I suggest - embrace the preposition 'and' :-)

[TheDemonLord]

Your conclusion is not logical, Nor is it the exact same conclusion as all lawyer and firearms experts had arrived at.

Did I say all?

No I did not.

If my conclusion is illogical - then you should be able to provide an example of a Suppressor that turns a rifle into a Semi or Fully automatic rifle. You cannot. Because no such Suppressor exists. This proves that my conclusion is not illogical.

Thats your opinion. is based on your years draft and interpreting laws or your years in legislature? or the same faulty reasoning skills that lead to to post how you knew more about US law than a US superme court judge?

Also that of all NZDA, COLFO etc. who have had years of experience reading and interpreting Firearm legislation - and as history proves, doing a better job at it than the NZ Police (remember the high court case?)

However, even then - to prove me wrong, you simply have to produce a Sight or a Suppressor that can turn a rifle into a Semi or fully automatic rifle.

No you originally said i was clearly supportive as i had said nothing. You are constantly trying to introduce subjects that have nothing to do with the firearms laws i NZ, i are not interested in indulging your fantasy.

Of course you aren't interested in proving your hypocrisy.

I'll make it simple - you keep introducing your opinion of me as 'a bad person' for being critical of Islam and as such keep trying to declare me as not fit and proper to hold a Licence.

The new law in Brunei is based on the Qu'ran and a strict implementation of Islam. If you disagree with the rule, you are as Islamophobic as you claim that I am. If you don't disagree with the rule, you are a terrible human being.

You cannot and will not state one way or the other - because it's a contradiction that you can't resolve. And that contradiction is why all your attempts to portray me as not being fit and proper to hold a licence (which IS relevant to the discussion) is complete BS.

[husaberg]

I never said anything about registration.

Correct but whats the use of saying it the minimum parts that make up a firearm in the states was a lower receiver when no one records the serial numbers in the states anyway.

Might I suggest - embrace the preposition 'and' :-)

Exactly what have you offered thus far.?
Seem to be its you embracing a position.

[husaberg]

Did I say all?

No I did not.

If my conclusion is illogical - then you should be able to provide an example of a Suppressor that turns a rifle into a Semi or Fully automatic rifle. You cannot. Because no such Suppressor exists. This proves that my conclusion is not illogical.



Also that of all NZDA, COLFO etc. who have had years of experience reading and interpreting Firearm legislation - and as history proves, doing a better job at it than the NZ Police (remember the high court case?)

However, even then - to prove me wrong, you simply have to produce a Sight or a Suppressor that can turn a rifle into a Semi or fully automatic rifle.

No i didnt as i have pointed out to you on five separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some slly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 5 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future. but i will not enter into any further debate regarding it with you.
As for the laywers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.
WHich is rather ironic. Considering you current situation, with your previous statements on how those in the religious minority should do not not do.
If you want to discuss Islam do it in another thread.