Skip to toolbar

Aussies Living Simply

The Firearms amendment ( Ammunition Control) Bill 2012.

Home Forums OVER THE BACK FENCE General chat and catching up The Firearms amendment ( Ammunition Control) Bill 2012.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #256970
    Le LoupLe Loup
    Member

    Dear Sir, I am contacting you to ask you to vote against The Firearms amendment ( Ammunition Control) Bill 2012. This will impact on legitimate gun owners in the country. This may also have further implications. By the wording of this bill it implies that registration is ownership. Does this mean that if anything happens to me that my family will no longer have control of our firearms?

    This sort of legislation will have no effect on criminals, this is just another move to get votes & we legitimate gun owners are the ones to pay the price. You are surely smart enough to see that this sort of legislation will not stop gun crime. What is needed it heavier penalties for crimes committed, not more & more legislation that makes it harder & harder for legitimate gun owners.

    Very sincerely, Keith H. Burgess.

    This legislation if it goes through will mean that my wife, a licensed gun owner, will no longer be able to purchase ammunition without paying a $30.00 fee for a permit to purchase! This legislation implies that my wife no longer ownes her own gun, because I was the one to register it!!! Think about this, they are coming in the back door again! Please write your local member & ask them to vote against this legislation before it is too late, whether you are a gun owner or not.

    Regards, Keith.

    #524244
    GiannaGianna
    Member

    More ridulous legislation. Gun laws have done nothing to keep the guns out of criminals hands. We hear about drive-by shootings on a weekly basis. I’m now really sorry that I surrendered my guns and didn’t re-new my shooter’s license.

    #524245
    mauzimauzi
    Member

    Yes, I agree, crazy and it does not change any criminal activity. The very nature of criminals is that they take no notice of the laws anyway. After moving to Tas, Tas wouldn’t recognise his NSW license so he had to go through the whole thing again and included attending another fire arm safety day etc. Just money making scheme really as they did recognise some states licenses.

    #524246
    mashellymashelly
    Member

    sad sad day when australia disarmed themselves..and the government knew exactly what they where doing

    #524247
    trandtotrandto
    Member

    Gianna post=343624 wrote: More ridulous legislation. Gun laws have done nothing to keep the guns out of criminals hands. We hear about drive-by shootings on a weekly basis. I’m now really sorry that I surrendered my guns and didn’t re-new my shooter’s license.

    I am sad I actually supported the laws, in my defence I put it down to the stupidity of youth. I am here to apologise profusely for that stupid decision of mine.

    We now have a small property and I wish I had my gun back I did a LOT of shooting, (and reloaded my own ammunition) target, feral animal and kangaroo for dog meat, as a teenager Ahh well..

    I am not quite sure why we need more and more laws, I would love to vote for a Government that spent it’s entire term sifting through the law books getting rid of and simplifying the law, who in hell here can understand, the tax act alone takes up an entire room of printed paper. We vote way to any lawyers into Parliament.

    #524248
    Anonymous
    Guest

    yes we all fell hook-line-and-sinker for the port arthur setup(the operative word), at the time most i would say me especially did not have access to the internet, so we believed the picture the media put before us.

    anyhow that pandora’s box was opened then so things can only get worse as time comes near.

    do you have a link keith?

    len

    #524249
    SteveSteve
    Keymaster

    Well I’m the opposite. I support the gun laws. While your argument about criminals being able to source guns anyway is probably valid, I wonder how many killings have been prevented in moments of anger when a firearm isn’t available.

    And honestly (other than on a farm) when is a firearm really required?

    I also don’t buy all the conspiracy theories…

    But then maybe I’m terribly naive…

    #524250
    busylizziebusylizzie
    Participant

    Steve post=343657 wrote: Well

    And honestly (other than on a farm) when is a firearm really required?

    Hunting & Sports (clay targets ect)

    #524251
    Le LoupLe Loup
    Member

    mashelly post=343641 wrote: sad sad day when australia disarmed themselves..and the government knew exactly what they where doing

    They did the same thing in England, & in WW2 they had to borrow guns from America to arm British Civil Defence!

    #524252
    Le LoupLe Loup
    Member

    gardenlen post=343654 wrote: yes we all fell hook-line-and-sinker for the port arthur setup(the operative word), at the time most i would say me especially did not have access to the internet, so we believed the picture the media put before us.

    anyhow that pandora’s box was opened then so things can only get worse as time comes near.

    do you have a link keith?

    len

    If you mean a link to my blog & group forum Len yes.

    My Blog: A Woodsrunner’s Diary.

    Our group’s Forum: New England Colonial Living History Group 1680-1760. (Armidale NSW)

    #524253
    Le LoupLe Loup
    Member

    Steve post=343657 wrote: Well I’m the opposite. I support the gun laws. While your argument about criminals being able to source guns anyway is probably valid, I wonder how many killings have been prevented in moments of anger when a firearm isn’t available.

    And honestly (other than on a farm) when is a firearm really required?

    I also don’t buy all the conspiracy theories…

    But then maybe I’m terribly naive…

    Well I am a property owner Steve, & these laws make it difficult for us. I am also an 18th century Living Historian, & I have every right to do this in pursuit of happiness. It is all very well for people to support these gun laws when they have no need of a gun themselves, but does this give them the right to deny us the right to gun ownership? If I did not own a gun, there is a very good chance that I might not be alive. Do you have the right to deny me the ability to defend myself & my family? And just how many people in the last 100 years have been killed by a muzzle-loading gun? Silly question you think? Well then why do all these laws also apply to single shot flintlock muzzle-loading guns?

    Regards, Keith.

    #524254
    BootstrapperBootstrapper
    Member

    Steve post=343657 wrote: Well I’m the opposite. I support the gun laws. While your argument about criminals being able to source guns anyway is probably valid, I wonder how many killings have been prevented in moments of anger when a firearm isn’t available.

    And honestly (other than on a farm) when is a firearm really required?

    I also don’t buy all the conspiracy theories…

    In the interest of full disclosure Steve, are (or were) you a firearm owner? Have you handled or used firearms?

    The answer to your first question is “Probably none.” The murderers would have used whatever was available to kill their victims.

    Responding to your second question I say “I may not agree with your choice of recreational activity but I would never deny you (or advocate denying you) access to that activity. Are you prepared to extend the same courtesy to me?”

    I agree, there is no conspiracy; The aim of gun control is to make the world safe for the government. 😉

    #524255
    SteveSteve
    Keymaster

    Hi Paul, I grew up on a farm and handled rifles and shotguns a fair bit. I’ve hunted, I’ve dispatched animals on the farm and I have been a member of a pistol club (target shooting). Although all of this was over 25 years ago now.

    #524256
    BootstrapperBootstrapper
    Member

    My apologies for my knee-jerk reaction Steve. :blush:

    I make it a point to defend what I regard as a legitimate recreational activity from any (perceived) attack.

    The ‘anti-gun’ propaganda machine would have people believe that restricting or banning private ownership of firearms will prevent ‘needless’ homocides. If this were the case, one would expect to see a signifigant (and sustained) drop in the total number of murders (of all types) following the 1996 ‘gun buy-back’, as one signifigant means of commiting murder was removed from circulation. The statistics do show a small drop but this is followed by a much larger increase in 1998-9. Like I said – the lack of a gun won’t stop a murderer; They’ll just find something else.

    #524257
    BobbeeBobbee
    Member

    I also support the gun laws and have no intention of ‘justifying’ my belief.

    All opinions are valid to the holder of the opinion.

    :hug:

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.