Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

BabyCheeses

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Ah W. I believe he's referencing the large cohort of numpties that gurgle out tropes on this very forum that can found in that manifesto.

Bingo!

Nothing from his manifesto was new, I’ve heard it all here before from the same people.

Sardonicat

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

Perhaps you should be clear as to who you are addressing your posts to.

They know themselves. They get overly defensive when you skip past their bull****.

"They" might.

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

Where does it say that?

What semi-automatic firearms are affected by today’s changes?

Two types of firearms are now defined as MSSAs:

A semi-automatic firearm capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges
A semi-automatic shotgun capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges.

Semi-automatic .22 calibre rimfire firearms with a magazine which holds no more than 10 rounds
Semi-automatic and pump action shotguns with a non-detachable tubular magazine which holds no more than five rounds

No mention of caliber restrictions. So a semiautomatic firearm chambered for say .308 with a five round magazine is still legal. A lever action chambered for the same round doesn't get a mention. Ditto for bolt action. No mention of pump or lever action firearms other than shotguns. It's all focused on one type because "semiautomatic" are the "dangerous" weapons. Clueless.

Hector Savage

BabyCheeses wrote: »

I do. I’m not the one trying to talk about any other killing. I’m not the one defending websites that promote the shooters ideology.

Who did this and what website ?
Can you link me and ill see if I have a different interpretation ...

Wibbs

BabyCheeses wrote: »

To be fair. If the same thing happened here, and it turned out to be you. I wouldn’t be surprised. You repeat the same stuff. Complaining about Muslims is your entire personality.

I’m not saying you would do it, but you definitely interact with someone who would and should probably have an eye kept on.

Holy fucking christ, you've a neck as hard as a jockey's bollocks to make such a shabby accusation and character assignation like that.

BabyCheeses

Hector Savage wrote: »

Who did this and what website ?
Can you link me and ill see if I have a different interpretation ...

Zorya I think. Might have mixed up the names. They were talking about Nigeria.

Breitbart. I’m sure it’s just a normal center website to you. All the comments are from people who are just concerned about mass immigration.

They are classifying as MSSA any semi-auto rifle capable of being used with a detachable >5 round magazine. (except .22 or smaller rimfire)

And similarly any semi-auto shotgun capable of being used with a detachable >5 round magazine.

Because of the term capable, my interpretation is that almost anything large calibre usable with a detachable magazine is now banned. Only old-fashioned semi-auto rifles with integral tube magazines (5 rounds or less) are still allowed.

https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms
(link to actual order here)

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I find that it would be foolish to take any news source as gospel these days. Breitbart have an agenda, in much the same way as any other news agency. The BBC, CNN, Fox et al are all different cheeks of the same ****ty arse.

Just because Breitbard lean a different way than you lean, doesn't make them pond scum. CNN, MSNBC and other outlets that would be more along your way of thinking are equally egregious when it comes to unbiased reporting

I think it may be me he was talking about. This apparently is "defending" Breitbart.

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

What semi-automatic firearms are affected by today’s changes?

Two types of firearms are now defined as MSSAs:

A semi-automatic firearm capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges
A semi-automatic shotgun capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges.

Semi-automatic .22 calibre rimfire firearms with a magazine which holds no more than 10 rounds
Semi-automatic and pump action shotguns with a non-detachable tubular magazine which holds no more than five rounds

No mention of caliber restrictions. So a semiautomatic firearm chambered for say .308 with a five round magazine is still legal. A lever action chambered for the same round doesn't get a mention. Ditto for bolt action. No mention of pump or lever action firearms other than shotguns. It's all focused on one type because "semiautomatic" are the "dangerous" weapons. Clueless.

From what I read it states all semi automatic rifles are now banned.

Backed up my the PM.

"Six days after this attack, we are announcing a ban on all military style semi-automatics (MSSA) and assault rifles in New Zealand,"...Related parts used to convert these guns into MSSAs are also being banned, along with all high-capacity magazines

Apart from

Semi-automatic .22 calibre rimfire firearms with a magazine which holds no more than 10 rounds

The legislation hasn't been published AFAIK, but it would seem this is not an optics exercise.

Zorya

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Zorya I think. Might have mixed up the names. They were talking about Nigeria.

Breitbart. I’m sure it’s just a normal center website to you. All the comments are from people who are just concerned about mass immigration.

Just to be CRYSTAL CLEAR - I have NEVER gone to Breitbart website, ever. I saw the story on the Christian Post, or something with that kind of name. Mad Christians.

Sardonicat

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Hector Savage wrote: »

Who did this and what website ?
Can you link me and ill see if I have a different interpretation ...

Zorya I think. Might have mixed up the names. They were talking about Nigeria.

Breitbart. I’m sure it’s just a normal center website to you. All the comments are from people who are just concerned about mass immigration.

Zorya? ! Go back and read her post.

Danzy

Wibbs wrote: »

Holy fucking christ, you've a neck as hard as a jockey's bollocks to make such a shabby accusation and character assignation like that.

The main thing for Baby Cheeses is that he is having lots of fun on boards.ie off the back of all the murder.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

They are classifying as MSSA any semi-auto rifle capable of being used with a detachable >5 round magazine. (except .22 or smaller rimfire)

And similarly any semi-auto shotgun capable of being used with a detachable >5 round magazine.

Because of the term capable, my interpretation is that almost anything large calibre usable with a detachable magazine is now banned. Only old-fashioned semi-auto rifles with integral tube magazines (5 rounds or less) are still allowed.

https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firearms-and-safety/changes-firearms
(link to actual order here)

Certain semi-automatic firearms declared to be military style semi-automatic firearms
For the purposes of the Arms Act 1983, the following firearms are declared to be military style semi-automatic firearms:
(a)
a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges:
(b)
a semi-automatic firearm that is a shotgun and that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2019/0055/latest/LMS173647.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_arms+order_resel_25_a&p=1

Hector Savage

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Zorya I think. Might have mixed up the names. They were talking about Nigeria.

Breitbart. I’m sure it’s just a normal center website to you. All the comments are from people who are just concerned about mass immigration.

Still sniping even after I made my position clear.

I don't trust Breitbart, they would be too far to the right - even for an evil nazi like me ... :rolleyes:

Hector Savage

BabyCheeses wrote: »

To be fair. If the same thing happened here, and it turned out to be you. I wouldn’t be surprised. You repeat the same stuff. Complaining about Muslims is your entire personality.

I’m not saying you would do it, but you definitely interact with someone who would and should probably have an eye kept on..

Wow!

Just.
F*cking W0W!!

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

I saw the story on the Christian Post

Oh yeah, that bastion of sanity.

Danzy

Hector Savage wrote: »

Still sniping even after I made my position clear.

I don't trust Breitbart, they would be too far to the right - even for an evil nazi like me ... :rolleyes:

Amusingly, Baby Cheeses for all his everyone is a Nazi views has views on Jews that often veer in to outright antisemitism.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Oh yeah, that bastion of sanity.

In fairness, going to a Christian website to read about murders of christians isn't really a strange thing to do.

ArrBee

tuxy wrote: »

No, there is only one place that he could go legally and that is extradition to Australia. Massive headache legally and would make New Zealand look bad for not taking care of its responsibility. I don't know if Australia could punish him for a crime that happened elsewhere.
He would be safe in solitary, the chances of staff causing him harm would be very slim.

interestingly, Australia has made a show of sending "bad New Zealanders" back to NZ in recent years.
Any reciprocal action by NZ could be based on the same "understanding".

Sardonicat

Hector Savage wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

Perhaps you should be clear as to who you are addressing your posts to.

Wow!

Just.
F*cking W0W!!

Excuse me?

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

Oh yeah, that bastion of sanity.

I honestly haven't a clue what else they post as I have not read articles there, it just happened to be the link for the story (I think - defo not Breitbart). I find that a lot of stories do not get reported in the mainstream regular papers. Usually if I post here I reference BBC or Guardian or something like that because I know it is the easy option to dismiss reports according to where they are found. But I have found more and more that newspapers of record are quite selective in what they print. For example, the Milan Schoolbus has been barely reported in regular papers, or at least has been downplayed. For another example I have seen completely insane twitter videos of things, that are true - because they are video-taped live, such as Drag Queen story tellers wearing lingerie and twerking at toddlers in public libraries. But I do not post them because of the source, not because they are not true. They have happened, they have just been ignored by regular media. So the old adage of checking sources etc becomes less reasonable as time goes on. Unfortunately. As I like to be careful about what I believe.

SoundsRight

Any Irish girls donning a hijab or burka tomorrow in solidarity? I'm happy to take a second wife for the day.

Hector Savage

Sardonicat wrote: »

Excuse me?

Sorry, I thought I was quoting BabyCheeses post where he said if it happened here it would be me or someone I associate with ...

ill fix it

Hector Savage

BabyCheeses wrote: »

To be fair. If the same thing happened here, and it turned out to be you. I wouldn’t be surprised. You repeat the same stuff. Complaining about Muslims is your entire personality.

I’m not saying you would do it, but you definitely interact with someone who would and should probably have an eye kept on.

You know what, the more I think about this the more angered I get, you really should recind that statement.

Bannasidhe

Zorya wrote: »

There's something a bit off (for me) about the scarfs for solidarity thing, wear a hijab on Friday to show you care. Meh. Why is there no campaign for men to wear turbans or salwaar kameez? Why after a school shooting is there no wear schoolbags or school scarfs response? Why no movement to wear crucifixes for the Christians being slaughtered in Africa? The hijab is a garment that is very divisive - ask the girls of Iran, ask Nasrin Sotoudeh, who has just been imprisoned in Iran for 38 years plus more than a hundred lashes, for supporting protests against compulsory hijab.
It all seems a bit paternalistic or patronising to me, ironically given that it is mostly aimed at women from women. People can perfectly well be horrified, upset, supportive, sympathetic and so on without some submissive, craw-thumping display.

Because the hijab has become a battleground between two conflicting ideologies.
In some countries women are being forced to wear one and the West screams about this.
It some countries in the West women are forbidden to wear one because the West is tolerant or something.
It wasn't that long ago in the West married women were expected to cover their hair in public. Orthodox Jewish women are expected to shave their heads and wear a wig in public.

At the end of the day it's a headscarf.
Queen Elizabeth wears one frequently. Should that be banned?

Or should it only be banned if one's headscarf has a religious significance? Like the modified version nuns wear? Would it be ok it we just called it a veil?

I haven't noticed there are the same issues with turbans or any other religiously inspired male head wear tbh. Seems the mania for telling women what to wear has never gone away.

It is as an act of respect to grieving families. Respect in the face of grief is never a bad thing in my opinion.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

For example, the Milan Schoolbus has been barely reported in regular paper

It's on every single news outlet.

The reason I would suggest it is not getting the "full whack" is because nobody was killed.

Anyway there was 45 snakes found under a house in Texas, it's the 3rd most clicked story.

People gonna be People.

Tacklebox

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because the hijab has become a battleground between two conflicting ideologies.
In some countries women are being forced to wear one and the West screams about this.
It some countries in the West women are forbidden to wear one because the West is tolerant or something.
It wasn't that long ago in the West married women were expected to cover their hair in public. Orthodox Jewish women are expected to shave their heads and wear a wig in public.

At the end of the day it's a headscarf.
Queen Elizabeth wears one frequently. Should that be banned?

Or should it only be banned if one's headscarf has a religious significance? Like the modified version nuns wear? Would it be ok it we just called it a veil?

I haven't noticed there are the same issues with turbans or any other religiously inspired make head wear tbh. Seems the mania for telling women what to wear has never gone away.

It is as an act of respect to grieving families. Respect in the face of grief is never a bad thing in my opinion.

Ironically I actually think the hijab looks kind of stylish and attractive on some women

Boggles

Tacklebox wrote: »

Ironically I actually think the hijab looks kind of stylish and attractive on some women

That's more fetish than ironic.

:pac:

Bannasidhe

Tacklebox wrote: »

Ironically I actually think the hijab looks kind of stylish and attractive on some women

Makes me look like Peig.

Danzy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Makes me look like Peig.

Rarrh

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

Oh yeah, that bastion of sanity.

Yay! My brain worked! I remembered where I got the link to the Nigerian Christian story. It was from a Muslim man, Tarek Fatah. A person who I find reasonably sane in a mad world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Fatah

It was him who referenced the Christian website.

https://twitter.com/TarekFatah/status/1106748571737571329

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

From what I read it states all semi automatic rifles are now banned.

Backed up my the PM.




Apart from

Semi-automatic .22 calibre rimfire firearms with a magazine which holds no more than 10 rounds

The legislation hasn't been published AFAIK, but it would seem this is not an optics exercise.

I'm really beginning to wonder are people reading what they want to read. No, it does not state "all semi automatic rifles are now banned". It says any semiautomatic rifle capable of using a detachable magazine of more than five rounds(other than .22). As teotwawki points out the "capable" part spreads the net wider, but is very much open to interpretation, which is a sure sign of rushed through legislation. A glaring omission are things like lever action and pump action rifles(the latter is only applied to shotguns), never mind bolt action rifles.

Pistols are left out of the specifics. A class of firearm nearly always first on the radar for such legislation for obvious reasons. I don't know what weapons this prick used and no way in hell am I going looking for the video, but I suspect they're focussing on just the weapons he used and running from that. I suppose the get out on that might be the use of "firearm" rather than "rifle" which would technically include semiautomatic pistols, but that leaves revolvers out. Some lunatic with a pair of revolvers and fast loaders could do horrible damage. Much easier to conceal too.

They have existing legislation in place for collector status guns and that's not affected by this change. It states you can't shoot them, but that's not much of a barrier with any collector gun that chambers the usual calibers and there would be a lot of them. Its pretty vague.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

Yay! My brain worked! I remembered where I got the link to the Nigerian Christian story. It was from a Muslim man, Tarek Fatah.

The Christian Perspective.

As a general rule I stay away from all god bothering "news" sites.

Bannasidhe

Danzy wrote: »

Rarrh

Any more of that and it will be a schlap of a turnip insteach your cluas matey!

:pac:

fatknacker

If a hijab is "just a headscarf" then why are women in Iran getting the shite knocked out of them for trying to remove them.

I'm all for sympathising with victims but wearing a hijab in solidarity is nonsense.

Will victims of a church attack in Nigeria last week have people brandishing crucifxes in solidarity too?

Boggles

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm really beginning to wonder are people reading what they want to read.

You keep saying that but you haven't cited one article that backs up what you interrupt the new laws to mean.

Bannasidhe

fatknacker wrote: »

If a hijab is "just a headscarf" then why are women in Iran getting the shite knocked out of them for trying to remove them.

I'm all for sympathising with victims but wearing a hijab in solidarity is nonsense.

Will victims of a church attack in Nigeria last week have people brandishing crucifxes in solidarity too?

If the West is the bastion of freedom why are women being forbidden to wear what they want on their heads?
It's a bit rich to complain about some countries forcing women to wear a headscarf but ignore other countries forbidding women to wear a headscarf.

Two sides of the same coin.

No one is asking you to wear a hijab. Some women in the West have decided of their own free will to wear an item of clothing that has become a symbol of Islamophobia in the West as a gesture of solidarity to victims of Islamobhobia in the West.

Perhaps you feel this is nonsense, but I feel that perhaps a bit of respect for other cultures is the way to build bridges. Or do you think acting like Iran and telling women what they should/should not wear is the correct response?

Auntie Semite

Article in the Irish Examiner today suggesting what we can do to counter Islamophobia

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/columnists/we-must-embrace-our-muslim-community-as-part-of-who-we-are-912330.html

The author suggests that "We must turn our education system around to make Islam understood as part of what we are, part of what we have always been"

Funny that, I thought most people in Ireland want the removal of religion from schools? Also I'm fairly certain Islam was never a part of what we have been

"We should counter our Islamophobia by approaching Islam from our own cultural background. Most of us were schooled by Christians. Islam has the same basic values"

Again I thought people wanted to move away from a religious based value system?

"you can see that these three religions encode rules for functional and progressive societies which helped bring a large part of the Eurasian continent to a high level of civilisation and compassion"

In Ireland the narrative is that religion created the opposite of a functional and progressive society..are we backtracking on that now?

"In Ireland in 2013, when Ali Selim published a book entitled Islam and Education in Ireland calling for a “revolution” in Irish education to help Muslims feel more included, Atheist Ireland responded by saying that there was already too much time allocated to religious festivals in Irish schools"

Ali Selim is an advocate for Female Genital Mutilation but I guess thats not really important is it? Not enough for the author to mention it. Maybe even a bit Islamophobic to oppose it?

"Muslims affront our new secularism by being openly religious"

Is she suggesting we return to religion (Islam perhaps?) in order to make Muslims feel more welcome here?

Zorya

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some women in the West have decided of their own free will to wear an item of clothing that has become a symbol of Islamophobia in the West as a gesture of solidarity to victims of Islamobhobia in the West.

They were not victims of Islamophobia in the west. They were victims of one murdering bastard. By all appearances they had/have very good lives in the West and have properly been shown enormous sympathy since the horrific massacre.

Bannasidhe

Zorya wrote: »

They were not victims of Islamophobia in the west. They were victims of one murdering bastard. By all appearances they have very good lives in the West and have properly been shown enormous sympathy since the horrific massacre.

Are you seriously suggesting that Islamophobia played no role in their murder?

Neyite

fatknacker wrote: »

If a hijab is "just a headscarf" then why are women in Iran getting the shite knocked out of them for trying to remove them.

I'm all for sympathising with victims but wearing a hijab in solidarity is nonsense.

Will victims of a church attack in Nigeria last week have people brandishing crucifxes in solidarity too?

Is it manners or virtue signalling though?

When I visited a Greek Orthodox monastery on holiday men and women were given additional clothing to cover up if they were deemed immodest in their vests and shorts/skirts. In Thailand visiting the palace of the king I had the wrong shoes on and had to get a pair from the streethawkers (who made a mint on us farangs) near the gate. At Buddhist temples I was asked to cover my upper arms which I did with a t-shrt. (Again, streethawkers)
In Spain or Italy, you have to cover shoulders in Catholic churches so anyone getting married in a strapless dress has to wear a shawl or bolero.

I disagree with the hijab on a personal level, but also feel a woman who wants to wear one for her own choice should not be forced not to wear one - like the woman who was forced to disrobe on a European beach as she was wearing a burkini. But if I am visiting people of a different faith to me to pay my respects at their loss, I would dress in a way that would not inadvertently offend. It's not about religion for me as I have none, but it's about being respectful of those who's faith is important to them. To me it's no different than putting a vegan dish on the table when my vegan family members visit even though I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian myself.

fatknacker

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If the West is the bastion of freedom why are women being forbidden to wear what they want on their heads?
It's a bit rich to complain about some countries forcing women to wear a headscarf but ignore other countries forbidding women to wear a headscarf.

Two sides of the same coin.

No one is asking you to wear a hijab. Some women in the West have decided of their own free will to wear an item of clothing that has become a symbol of Islamophobia in the West as a gesture of solidarity to victims of Islamobhobia in the West.

Perhaps you feel this is nonsense, but I feel that perhaps a bit of respect for other cultures is the way to build bridges. Or do you think acting like Iran and telling women what they should/should not wear is the correct response?

Wonderful...where did I say the hijab should be banned.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

They were not victims of Islamophobia in the west. They were victims of one murdering bastard.

That is true, but how he became so, is slightly more nuanced and needs to be understood.

Yurt2

Ali Selim is perfectly entitled proffer his views, as much as I disagree with them. The mystery is why the Irish media has annointed him and the Clonskeagh Mosque crowd as the spokespeople for Muslims in Ireland. Leo et al need to do a bit of thinking as to why they're the crowd that get the PR visits around Ramadan etc as well.

It must stick in the craw of the more moderate members of the community who just want to get on with things and practice their faith in peace without being linked with Selim's regressive ramblings.

Zorya

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that Islamophobia played no role in their murder?

If you could say exactly what ''Islamophobia'' triggered that monster, the terms for discussion might be clearer. Because if you are refering to regular normal human discussion and analysis of topics of current interest, including radical Islam or any thing under the sun, then no, this is not ''Islamophobia'' and if it triggered this guy then we may as well shut up shop and go inside altogether. So why would one wear a hijab to show apology for Islamophobia that they do not participate in?

Kivaro

Auntie Semite wrote: »

Article in the Irish Examiner today suggesting what we can do to counter Islamophobia

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/columnists/we-must-embrace-our-muslim-community-as-part-of-who-we-are-912330.html

The author suggests that "We must turn our education system around to make Islam understood as part of what we are, part of what we have always been"

..........

Not sure what's going on with the Irish Examiner today.
Here is something I posted on another thread earlier:

Standout headline on the Irish Examiner's viewpoint this morning:
We must tackle global threat of white terror

Yep, all us whities are responsible for all the world's ills.

The author could have easily used this headline:
We must tackle global threat of white extremist terror

But nagh, white guilt must prevail on media outlets, as it reinforces the liberal/left push for uncontrolled economic migration to Western countries.

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

You keep saying that but you haven't cited one article that backs up what you interrupt the new laws to mean.

I keep saying that because I quoted the actual legislation back to you pointing out where it's vague and misses out entire classes of weapons. Never mind that it simply doesn't state "all semi automatic rifles are now banned(save for .22)" as you keep claiming. Another area where it's open to interpretation is magazine capabilities. You can get magazines for many .22's that hold more than ten rounds, but semiautomatic .22's even if they're capable of that are grand so long as you don't slap a 15 or 20 round mag on it, which could be easily interpreted as semiautomatic 308's are grand too so long as you don't slap a 10 round mag on it. Take the "any semiautomatic rifle capable of using a detachable magazine of more than five rounds" part. OK, here is an M1 Garand



A semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine capable of carrying 8 rounds fed by a clip. The legislation doesn't cover that and they're quite the popular firearm in the US. I'd be surprised if there weren't a few in NZ.

Here's a selection of lever action rifles.



A non semiautomatic rifle type, that can carry 8 rounds of various calibers in their fixed magazines and capable of very accurate rapid fire, not far off a semiautomatic, reloading being the bottleneck there. The legislation doesn't cover them and they're also quite the popular firearm. Revolvers aren't in the mix either.

Bannasidhe

Zorya wrote: »

If you could say exactly what ''Islamophobia'' triggered that monster, the terms for discussion might be clearer. Because if you are refering to regular normal human discussion and analysis of topics of current interest, including radical Islam or any thing under the sun, then no, this is not ''Islamophobia'' and if it triggered this guy then we may as well shut up shop and go inside altogether. So why would one wear a hijab to show apology for Islamophobia that they do not participate in?

You have moved the goal posts. You claimed Islamophobia didn't play a part. Now you wish me to define the ways and means it fed a murders intentions.

If he had murdered 50 Jews in 2 synagogues would you quibble about whether or not Antisemitism was part of his ideological impetus?

Wearing the hijab is a visual demonstration that you actively do not support Islamophobia, as well as being a display of respect.

It's amazing how people can get so worked up, and judgmental, about a woman deciding of her own free will to wear a particular item on her head.

BattleCorp

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2019/0055/latest/whole.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_arms+order_resel_25_a&p=1#LMS173647

I've read the attached order and all that does is declare what is now a military semi-automatic firearm.

It's not the actual order. And I believe they have fcuked up this part of the order as the definition is wider than originally intended so we'll see what happens.

Rushed legislation is not good legislation.

It'll be interesting to see the actual order.

weldoninhio

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Not sure you understand the word vanity. Anyway go ahead...

His father wanted the NHS to provide him with new teeth for free. That is vanity. Anyway this is off topic. I was just making a point.