Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009

bunny shooter

finnlite wrote: »

they will be collecting your firearms in the morning if so

Would you like to explain that statement (notice the lack of a question mark)

Grizzly 45

Last time I looked Bunny,it meant as little meddling by govts in the private lives of the citzenery.The right to life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness,and not that a person elected to public office could use his powers to ignore factual evidence to push his own personal agenda/pet hates through to the detriment of a minority.Last fellow who fit that bill in Europe was an Austrian fellow by the name of Adolf Hitler.

As for public perception; Well we are Bstds or nutters,if anything goes wrong and or trying to prove we are the good guys,because we only shoot this type of disipline or that type of gun makes no difference.

lykoris

bunny shooter wrote: »

Grizzly I think you should check what the defination of democracy is because your version seems different to mine

I think your definition of democracy is one rule for you and another for the common folk.

why edit to remove the 'right-wing' comment from your post ?

bunny shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Last time I looked Bunny,it meant as little meddling by govts in the private lives of the citzenery.The right to life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness,and not that a person elected to public office could use his powers to ignore factual evidence to push his own personal agenda/pet hates through to the detriment of a minority.Last fellow who fit that bill in Europe was an Austrian fellow by the name of Adolf Hitler.

As for public perception; Well we are Bstds or nutters,if anything goes wrong and or trying to prove we are the good guys,because we only shoot this type of disipline or that type of gun makes no difference.

So we are now living in a right-wing dictatorship?

bunny shooter

lykoris wrote: »

I think your definition of democracy is one rule for you and another for the common folk.

why edit to remove the 'right-wing' comment from your post ?

I am an honest, law adiding citizen who believes in democracy.

Right-wing comment was edited as it seems some people here think their individual rights supersede the rights of the majority which would not be a right-wing philisophy .

Grizzly 45

My! arent you perceptive Bunny!While not totally there it certainly is getting all the trappings of one ....Only trouble is as usual it is doing it bass ackwards.Right wing dictatorships in Europe in the last century generally allowed free firearms ownership for some reason.

Uh huh..So in your version of democracy it is totally ok for a minority to be crushed by the majority,as majority rules?????Hmmm.....Other point of democracy was I thought minorities were to be tolerated and accepted.Guess I was wrong on that one.

lykoris

an armed society is a polite society.

there is nothing right-wing about that.

The English took away firearms rights and open carry out of a fear of Communism - they didn't want the ordinary population armed for fear of revolt.

What exactly is the risk of a semi-auto centerfire rifle ? I have numerous military rifles, have never received so much as a speeding ticket as I am a law abiding citizen.

I love shooting them, I love the competitions we have here and I love the fun factor.

I have already been vetted by the authorities here and as such deemed to pose no risk neither the public nor myself with firearms.

Also within a confined space a person can do as much damage with a semi-auto .22lr as they could with a centerfire rifle....I guess you want to have them banned also.

and no doubt considering your stance with military semi-auto rifles....you would rather the public didn't have handguns either.

bunny shooter

We have no right in our constitution to own firearms.

I did not vote for any of the current government parties or FG in the last general election nor will I in any other general election. I will in future vote Labour and independent.

This is democracy in action.

lykoris

bunny shooter wrote: »

I am an honest, law adiding citizen who believes in democracy.

Right-wing comment was edited as it seems some people here think their individual rights supersede the rights of the majority which would not be a right-wing philisophy .

I believe every person has the right to life and the right to defend their life.

However, where I live my wife doesn't have the right to carry a handgun as a means of self-defense....as the majority of the ruling government doesn't believe she is entitled to that right.

They do believe however that a member of the prosecution service has an automatic right to concealed carry with only 4 hours of training per year.

That is what the 'majority' believe, it doesn't necessarily make it right.

bunny shooter

lykoris wrote: »

an armed society is a polite society.

there is nothing right-wing about that.

The English took away firearms rights and open carry out of a fear of Communism - they didn't want the ordinary population armed for fear of revolt.

What exactly is the risk of a semi-auto centerfire rifle ? I have numerous military rifles, have never received so much as a speeding ticket as I am a law abiding citizen.

I love shooting them, I love the competitions we have here and I love the fun factor.

I have already been vetted by the authorities here and as such deemed to pose no risk neither the public nor myself with firearms.

Also within a confined space a person can do as much damage with a semi-auto .22lr as they could with a centerfire rifle....I guess you want to have them banned also.

and no doubt considering your stance with military semi-auto rifles....you would rather the public didn't have handguns either.

Your countries laws and attitude to firearms are irrevelant in this country

Grizzly 45

lykoris wrote: »

I believe every person has the right to life and the right to defend their life.

However, where I live my wife doesn't have the right to carry a handgun as a means of self-defense....as the majority of the ruling government doesn't believe she is entitled to that right.

They do believe however that a member of the prosecution service has an automatic right to concealed carry with only 4 hours of training per year.

That is what the 'majority' believe, it doesn't necessarily make it right.

Watch it lads.We are swinging into RTKBA terrority here.
[sorry for back seat modding ]

But very right on the last point...Thing is;it isnt a majority that want this gone rather an egotistical individual in power who is literally a bully,with no checks or balances on him.Who is picking on the smallest kid in the schoolyard.

Dont be so sure on the irrevelance anymore.OUR laws might soon beand are irrevelant by the other great dictatorship in Europe.Called the EU.

bunny shooter

My final word on this is firearms are inaminate objects and they are only as dangerous as the person holding them no matter what type of firearm it is.

Restrictions on firearms and their uses will not stop them being misused by people.

Legisation exists to deal with those people who miuse firearms it should be enforced properly to it's full extent.

lykoris

bunny shooter wrote: »

We have no right in our constitution to own firearms.

you are 100% correct - across Europe firearms ownership is a priviledge extended by the state in the form of a license or permit and not an inherent right.

I don't agree with that at all but it is the rule of the land and as such I will abide by it.

I firmly believe the US still has their rights as they are a 'young' nation.

We lost our rights at the begining of the 20th century.

bunny shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

........Thing is;it isnt a majority that want this gone rather an egotistical individual in power who is literally a bully,with no checks or balances on him.Who is picking on the smallest kid in the schoolyard.

He cannot do anything that is not constitutional. Therefore if he abusing his powers why hasn't the AG intervened?

kakashka

bunny shooter wrote: »

Would you like to explain that statement (notice the lack of a question mark)

Convinced it's jw(bought the dictionary)!!!

lykoris

bunny shooter wrote: »

Legisation exists to deal with those people who miuse firearms it should be enforced properly to it's full extent.

This is where I fundamentally disagree with you.

You cannot control 'dangerous' people with legislation.

You can legislate 'til the cows come home it won't make any difference whatsoever as an incident will happen sooner or later....

so effectively what you are doing is creating enormous amounts of legislation on the premise that at some time in the future an individual will act with disregard to both public life and his own.

Meanwhile all this legislation will do nothing but impede normal law abiding citizens from participating in their hobby that is shooting.

In my mind, creating legislation for the exception rather than the majority is AN EXTREMELY POOR means of governing people's actions via legislation.

bunny shooter

My point is ......................

Why ban a shotgun 'cause someone shoots someone else with it?

Penalise the person who did the shooting not the firearm

Grizzly 45

And no one has any problems with that BS at all.
However WHO is misusing firearms in the shooting community???.
IF there is solid proof of it happening let it be brought into the open and shown as beyond all reasonable doubt,as it should be in any open democratic society.Not inneuendo,half truths,lies,atypcal,rumour, heresay etc.
IOW show the democratic process in action,not a quasi kangaroo court,because a biased person in power says it is fact and thats good enough.THATS a dictatorship.
Does the AG know alot of the firearms laws totally adaquately too??Remember the firearms part was a small part of this bill.I doubt our AG is a non partisan political appointee either.

lykoris

bunny shooter wrote: »

My final word on this is firearms are inaminate objects and they are only as dangerous as the person holding them no matter what type of firearm it is.

Restrictions on firearms and their uses will not stop them being misused by people.

Legisation exists to deal with those people who miuse firearms it should be enforced properly to it's full extent.

you seem to contradict yourself or I am misinterpreting your exact meaning.

restrictions on firearms arise from legislation.

lykoris

bunny shooter wrote: »

My point is ......................

Why ban a shotgun 'cause someone shoots someone else with it?

Penalise the person who did the shooting not the firearm

but if you follow that line of thought to its conclusion the same would apply to semi-auto military/black rifles.

bunny shooter

lykoris wrote: »

you seem to contradict yourself or I am misinterpreting your exact meaning.

restrictions on firearms arise from legislation.

If you ban pistols they will use sawn off shotguns

If someone commits a firearms offence give them the maximum sentence with no remission don't punish the innocent by taking his/her firearms

bunny shooter

lykoris wrote: »

but if you follow that line of thought to its conclusion the same would apply to semi-auto military/black rifles.

I said I didn't think there was a need for them I never said ban them :rolleyes:

lykoris

I think at the end of the day, all shooters across Europe are fearful that some sociopath/mentally deranged individual will take their legally held firearms and go postal.

I know I think about it and it comes up in conversations at our club.

I think that was the real motive behind Ahern's plan.

I just find it extremely sad legislation is passed to prevent it(by banning handguns exception air/olympic pistols) on the basis it might one day happen.

bunny shooter

lykoris wrote: »

I think at the end of the day, all shooters across Europe are fearful that some sociopath/mentally deranged individual will take their legally held firearms and go postal.

I know I think about it and it comes up in conversations at our club.

I think that was the real motive behind Ahern's plan.

I just find it extremely sad legislation is passed to prevent it(by banning handguns exception air/olympic pistols) on the basis it might one day happen.

+1

lykoris

bunny shooter wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned anything currently used by any countries army. How can any civilian justify requiring something like this irrelevant of calibre, action or calibre. Just for the record .308 Win. and .223 Rem. are not military calibres :rolleyes: 7.62mm and 5.56mm are !

well your post above would suggest otherwise.

and what is it with the rolleyes/superior attitude.

.308 is a military cartridge in France by definition of the law....as it is in Luxembourg and Belgium. I'm guessing you do things differently in Ireland.

5.56 is a military calibre.....have you ever seen reloading dies for sale in 5.56mm ?

lykoris

Grizzly,

if you ever feel like shooting some evil/black rifles let me know

ditto for the handguns

Bunnyshooter,

I guess we will agree to disagree....I however look forward to picking up within the next few weeks my latest additions

2 SLR L1A1s
Simonov SKS
Sig550

colt python
hk45
GPmkIIIs

and a hunting rifle...sako 85.

I'll be thinking of you when I'm having fun on the range

kakashka

lykoris wrote: »

I think at the end of the day, all shooters across Europe are fearful that some sociopath/mentally deranged individual will take their legally held firearms and go postal.

I know I think about it and it comes up in conversations at our club.

I think that was the real motive behind Ahern's plan.

I just find it extremely sad legislation is passed to prevent it(by banning handguns exception air/olympic pistols) on the basis it might one day happen.

+1 also
AFAICS you are all making good points and all right one way or another and all share the same passion= shooting/hunting/guns,i like to read through but i'm not qualified to comment really but to say that our Gov will take the easy route regardless,the only thing that we can be sure of.

rowa

i think the problem is ahern fears a shooting spree type affair on his watch and that would kill his political career stone dead , lets face it people thats the only reason 95% of these tds do anything look after there own backers and get themselves re-elected , if ahern could make the headlines of every paper in the morning telling the general public how he safeguarded the public from all firearms , thats what he'd do and hang everyone of us and it'd be so easy to do , a few radio interviews with the likes of joe duffy , and pat kenny and some on the television , we all remember how the police and labour used the media in the uk after dunblane , they made it virtually impossible to defend shooting without being accused of being some sort of rambo wannabe lunatic clad from head to toe in camo gear , responsible shooters were never given a chance and it can happen here in an instant .

Clash

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And no one has any problems with that BS at all.
However WHO is misusing firearms in the shooting community???.
IF there is solid proof of it happening let it be brought into the open and shown as beyond all reasonable doubt,as it should be in any open democratic society.Not inneuendo,half truths,lies,atypcal,rumour, heresay etc.
IOW show the democratic process in action,not a quasi kangaroo court,because a biased person in power says it is fact and thats good enough.THATS a dictatorship..

But you know of stuff going on Grizzly, you mentioned it in some earlier post about a guy: Shortt?? or something like that? and that there was stuff on youtube etc.

That stuff is obviously happening in this country, but you can't use it as evidence even though we know this was done in Ireland. The rules of evidence don't allow for youtube videos to be admissable unfortunately.

So, isn't it possible for the Minister to know about stuff going on in the same way without it being strong enough to stand up in court?

Maybe you'll throw a few angry smilies at me for saying this, but if you can believe youtube videos are enough to hang this shortt lad then you're justifying the Minister taking the same stance.

Meyer

Just been reading the minutes and I'm afraid the biggest shame in all this is Des Crofton's behaviour and how it is being used as propaganda by the Minister. I think Pat Rabbittes comments sum it up pretty clearly.

The Minister is not preventing proliferation or capping the numbers. Effectively, what he is doing is shutting down a particular type of sport. That will be the effect of the licences withering. It is not a question of merely preventing proliferation. Des Crofton’s opinion is interesting and it may even be the correct one; I do not know. However, I know he represents an entirely different sport; it is chalk and cheese. He very assertively argued his own corner as I well recall. The implications of what we are doing here is not only to tighten the regulations and put a stop to proliferation; we are terminating one particular acknowledged sport.