Thread: HDPA does indeed lie about firearms

Originally Posted by Maca49

A person that wants to arm the police and remove those privileges from the public, has to be a worry?

He's a worry all right. Another right wing redneck reactionary grabbing as much media attention as possible to promote his ambition to become a politician. So he wants to become a "representative of the people" in some electorate. Christ help us all. If he thinks he's representing me he's dead wrong. "And of course he is pushing an agenda. That's the essence of what unions do." Unions push an agenda in accordance with the voting of the membership. O'Connor is pushing his own agenda. He's a quorum of one. He's also not very bright, I think. I'm not saying he's a dumb cnut, but he's close to it. And he's certainly got a few of the media talking heads fooled.

Originally Posted by keneff

He's a worry all right. Another right wing redneck reactionary grabbing as much media attention as possible to promote his ambition to become a politician. So he wants to become a "representative of the people" in some electorate. Christ help us all. If he thinks he's representing me he's dead wrong. "And of course he is pushing an agenda. That's the essence of what unions do." Unions push an agenda in accordance with the voting of the membership. O'Connor is pushing his own agenda. He's a quorum of one. He's also not very bright, I think. I'm not saying he's a dumb cnut, but he's close to it. And he's certainly got a few of the media talking heads fooled.

You obviously have little understanding of how the Police Association are structured or how their democratic processes work.

https://www.policeassn.org.nz/

Originally Posted by keneff

He's a worry all right. Another right wing redneck reactionary grabbing as much media attention as possible to promote his ambition to become a politician. So he wants to become a "representative of the people" in some electorate. Christ help us all. If he thinks he's representing me he's dead wrong. "And of course he is pushing an agenda. That's the essence of what unions do." Unions push an agenda in accordance with the voting of the membership. O'Connor is pushing his own agenda. He's a quorum of one. He's also not very bright, I think. I'm not saying he's a dumb cnut, but he's close to it. And he's certainly got a few of the media talking heads fooled.

A union president described at being a "right wing redneck reactionary"?

All the union officials I've ever been involved with have been the very opposite of right wing.

Are you sure you're not confusing 'red neck' with the 'red flag'? They sung that at the last union meeting I went to.

The people's flag is deepest red
It shrouded oft our martyred dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
Their hearts' blood dyed to every fold

Then raise the scarlet standard high
Beneath it's folds we'll live and die
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here

Originally Posted by systolic

Why should it matter if they are currently high or were high last night?

Using drugs is still illegal either way.

It's like saying "I fucked a 9 year girl last night, but I'm not fucking her now, so that's okay".

That is quite possibly the most retarded statement I have ever read on these forums and there has been a few. Just sit back read it then read it again, love to hear you stance on medicinal marijuana usage? Ever broke the speed limit? If you have better turn yourself in.

Originally Posted by systolic

.

What happens when one of those nine pellets, fired by a cop, misses the felon and hits a bystander? What happens if the bad guy is 40m away, well outside the effective range of a shotgun?

Your idea is laughable.

Well they're shooting bystanders with bushmasters anyway, at a shitload less than 40 metres (Northwestern Motorway) so what the fuck are you on about, systolic? If you're trying to say the cops give a fuck about bystanders, I haven't yet seen much evidence of it. They crash chase cars into civilians, shoot bystanders and I think "training", for a lot of them consists of too much Hawaii 50. Your bias is obvious, but that's okay - we're all entitled to have an opinion - it's just tidier if at least it has some logic.I arrived in Melbourne in 1981 and approached a cop on the corner of Flinders and Swanston Sts and asked for directions to a suburb. He put his hand on his revolver and said "Buy a fukn map". We know that being a fuckwit and an arsehole is way up there in the Victoria Police job description, lbut I was a bit disppointed by his crap attitude. It comes down to the attitude instilled at the police colleges and in the stations. There was a female member of the dog club I was secretary of, who went off to become a WPC. She was acually instructed that nobody was a friend unless they were a police officer. Her whole attitude had changed from being a warm, friendly enthusiastic young woman to being a total cnut. And she always had her piece in her handbag, even at club days, because she was instructed that even when she was off-duty, she was never off duty. And she used to brag about all this shit. I have a cousin in London. He and his wife are both cops, and a really nice couple of people. They both said they'd hate to be armed fulltime, but also hated not to be, because there was no knowing when some radical arsehole might go apeshit with a knife or a gun. I have sympathy for both sides of the argument and like most in this forum can see the pros and the cons. But unlike O'Connor and systolic, I think the police are adequately armed for most situations as is. Okay, if some shit-for-brains comes charging out of the bushes swinging an axe or something, you're in deep poo, but you'd still be in the same amount even with a Glock on your belt. And chances are, said Glock would end up in the very wrong hands. And Savage, kudos to you that you kept possession of your weapon in "scuffles" - but what if you hadn't? Wonder what your position would be now on the subject? Are you able to be objective enough to consider that? This whole argument has just about been done to death. O'Connor is starting to sound like a spluttering lunatic - or a stuck record, and he and his pet so-called "journalists" would be boring if they weren't so fucking dangerous to our freedoms and rights and privileges. By the way, @kotuku once wrote a very well-informed post on the subject of firearms ownership in dear old confused NZ. My stand is that we haven't yet degenerated quite as much as the USA or frigging Aussie, and haven't yet reached a point where we need our police force to carry sidearms at all times. But arm them and see how long it takes for them to have to start using them. And see how long it takes for at least some of them to start becoming as arrogant and pig-igorant as that prick of a Victorian cop I mentioned. Today's rant over.

Originally Posted by systolic

A union president described at being a "right wing redneck reactionary"?

All the union officials I've ever been involved with have been the very opposite of right wing.

Are you sure you're not confusing 'red neck' with the 'red flag'? They sung that at the last union meeting I went to.

The people's flag is deepest red
It shrouded oft our martyred dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold
Their hearts' blood dyed to every fold

Then raise the scarlet standard high
Beneath it's folds we'll live and die
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here

Goddamn Commie hahahahahaha

Originally Posted by systolic

Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?

What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed?

Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?

Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.

Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.

Drug convictions should result in automatic and immediate lose of any firearms licence held.

Originally Posted by systolic

Why should it matter if they are currently high or were high last night?

Using drugs is still illegal either way.

It's like saying "I fucked a 9 year girl last night, but I'm not fucking her now, so that's okay".

Wow, you're special.

Originally Posted by systolic

Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?

What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed?

Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?

Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.

Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.

Drug convictions should result in automatic and immediate lose of any firearms licence held.

Well there ya go WE have something we agree 100% on!!! I've been to Amsterdam and put up with the stone poms in the streets! It's discussing. Even the Dutch are cleaning up

Originally Posted by nzfubz

That is quite possibly the most retarded statement I have ever read on these forums and there has been a few. Just sit back read it then read it again, love to hear you stance on medicinal marijuana usage? Ever broke the speed limit? If you have better turn yourself in.

Excuses me thinks?

Originally Posted by keneff

Well they're shooting bystanders with bushmasters anyway, at a shitload less than 40 metres (Northwestern Motorway) so what the fuck are you on about, systolic? If you're trying to say the cops give a fuck about bystanders, I haven't yet seen much evidence of it. They crash chase cars into civilians, shoot bystanders and I think "training", for a lot of them consists of too much Hawaii 50. Your bias is obvious, but that's okay - we're all entitled to have an opinion - it's just tidier if at least it has some logic.I arrived in Melbourne in 1981 and approached a cop on the corner of Flinders and Swanston Sts and asked for directions to a suburb. He put his hand on his revolver and said "Buy a fukn map". We know that being a fuckwit and an arsehole is way up there in the Victoria Police job description, lbut I was a bit disppointed by his crap attitude. It comes down to the attitude instilled at the police colleges and in the stations. There was a female member of the dog club I was secretary of, who went off to become a WPC. She was acually instructed that nobody was a friend unless they were a police officer. Her whole attitude had changed from being a warm, friendly enthusiastic young woman to being a total cnut. And she always had her piece in her handbag, even at club days, because she was instructed that even when she was off-duty, she was never off duty. And she used to brag about all this shit. I have a cousin in London. He and his wife are both cops, and a really nice couple of people. They both said they'd hate to be armed fulltime, but also hated not to be, because there was no knowing when some radical arsehole might go apeshit with a knife or a gun. I have sympathy for both sides of the argument and like most in this forum can see the pros and the cons. But unlike O'Connor and systolic, I think the police are adequately armed for most situations as is. Okay, if some shit-for-brains comes charging out of the bushes swinging an axe or something, you're in deep poo, but you'd still be in the same amount even with a Glock on your belt. And chances are, said Glock would end up in the very wrong hands. And Savage, kudos to you that you kept possession of your weapon in "scuffles" - but what if you hadn't? Wonder what your position would be now on the subject? Are you able to be objective enough to consider that? This whole argument has just about been done to death. O'Connor is starting to sound like a spluttering lunatic - or a stuck record, and he and his pet so-called "journalists" would be boring if they weren't so fucking dangerous to our freedoms and rights and privileges. By the way, @kotuku once wrote a very well-informed post on the subject of firearms ownership in dear old confused NZ. My stand is that we haven't yet degenerated quite as much as the USA or frigging Aussie, and haven't yet reached a point where we need our police force to carry sidearms at all times. But arm them and see how long it takes for them to have to start using them. And see how long it takes for at least some of them to start becoming as arrogant and pig-igorant as that prick of a Victorian cop I mentioned. Today's rant over.

Too long. Didn't read.

Originally Posted by systolic

Too long. Didn't read.

Sums it up.

Originally Posted by systolic

Legalise weed? How much extra are we going to have to pay in benefits for all the extra dope smokers who can't work because they're too unmotivated to get out of bed in the morning and then, because it's legal claim, a sickness benefit fore not being able to work?

What about all the extra costs for mental health services for those, usually younger people, who fuck up their brains smoking weed?

Stoned drivers kill and main enough people now. Do you think the number would reduce if it was legal to smoke?

Filthy druggies should be forced into rehab programs on offshore islands for a minimum of a six month program.

Beneficiaries should be drug tested regularly and any illegal drugs found in their system should result in the benefits being cancelled.

Drug convictions should result in automatic and immediate lose of any firearms licence held.

1- no extra for benifits because the unmotovated ones are already smoking pot and on them-even sickness benifits for drug adiction.

2-why would there be extra costs? people are already doing the drugs? lets fund the care better but taxing the drugs

4- I doubt it would reduce unless a test like the one Jexla mentons was intraduced at drink driving stops. I doubt there would be an increase as well.

4- rehab programs sound like a fantastic idea, for all drugs-even legit ones, but forcing people into them has a very low sucsess rate. lets get some extra funding from taxing the drugs.

5-I want to agree with you on this,I really do as if I have to pass drug tests to work then I dont like those who live on the tax I pay geting to do what ever they want,BUT cuting bennifits off often leads to crime and therefore a higher cost to the country. very open to other ways of dealing with drug taking bludgers

6- dont any convictions already lead to loss of licences? if not,why not?

Originally Posted by GravelBen

They said lowering the drinking age was going to do that, and they were as obviously wrong about that one too

I should explain this better.

right now everyone buys pot from crims, most crims sell to anyone regardless of age. make it a legit product and it becomes sold by reglulatd companies who mostly obay laws like miname age of buyer. this would make it harder for younger people to get than it curently is.

Originally Posted by systolic

Why should it matter if they are currently high or were high last night?

Using drugs is still illegal either way.

It's like saying "I fucked a 9 year girl last night, but I'm not fucking her now, so that's okay".

reading comprehenshion matters, im talking about if pot became legal then the ability to tell would be important. as it curently stands I have just fired people for failing the test, couldent do that if it was a legit thing for them to have done as long as they wernt under the influance at work

for the record I think pot is bad, but prohabishion is not working and I care more about harm minamisation than punishing people who would rather a joint that a beer-esp when beer and the like is hardly harmless