Thread: New Updated Arms Code 2017

no wonder you don't get it gadg.. u can't even pick up sarcasm.... its not even close...lol

don't worry about expecting better from me... you have to understand the arguments before you can determine deficancy..

Originally Posted by Sidney

no wonder you don't get it gadg.. u can't even pick up sarcasm.... its not even close...lol

don't worry about expecting better from me... you have to understand the arguments before you can determine deficancy..

I know it was sarcasm, along with my initial response above. However you have not put up one single argument, not shown any reference, to back your disagreement with anyone's use of the word conspiracy. The word conspire is derived from the Latin con - together and spire - breathe and simple means to get together and quietly plan, to share breath, to plan. Conspiracy is simply the plan that results. I know where the deficiency lies. If you seriously do not think PNHQ have a plan ...

Originally Posted by gadgetman

I know it was sarcasm, along with my initial response above. However you have not put up one single argument, not shown any reference, to back your disagreement with anyone's use of the word conspiracy. The word conspire is derived from the Latin con - together and spire - breathe and simple means to get together and quietly plan, to share breath, to plan. Conspiracy is simply the plan that results. I know where the deficiency lies. If you seriously do not think PNHQ have a plan ...

see there u go again.... not understanding the arguments, or in your case apparently not even seeing the arguments...its pretty obvious, well it is if this actually what you do....

First don't try the original meaning crap... nobody on here interprets "to conspire" as being to "to breath together" and that meaning is acknowledged as not being comtemporary in the general commentary.

to conspire = is to plan a "bad" outcome... at the most basic simplistic level. Secrecy/privacy is not a key component.

First level analysis
plan = intentional agreement..
bad = in every definition illegality is descriptive of what is meant, other words used are descriptive of illegality... subvert, wrong, evil.."bad" .etc most of which will be illegal. Words like "disadvantaged and undermine" that you used are not sufficient.
result/outcome = has to be capable of being delivered, must be "bad"

Next level..
Intentional- the result must be intended.. by all making the agreement... incompetant individuals are not evidence of intentional agreement
agreement- the intention has to exist to do something "bad".... ignorance of the law is not an excuse, however for the intention to exist its differcult to seperate "guilty knowledge" in terms of the agreement... the agreement must be proven..
result - in the abscence of result conspiracy may have existed, but its just harder to prove.

Effect
all of the key components are required before a conspiracy is established. a plan and a result is not a conspiracy..
It must be an intentional plan formed by mutual agreement, to do something that for all intents and purposes reaches the level of illegality or similar level of seriousness. That result must be achievable, but does not have to be achieved.

And that is the general interpretation, of what is contempory meaning. The purely legal application simply firms up illegality.

Now frankly your level of comprehension about this is questionable in the way you applied it here..

You cannot establish any agreement exists to do something "bad"... the intention of the police may well be disadvantagous to us, but it doesn't reach the level of seriousness required to qualify. The rest of the discussion becomes irrelevant at that point.

Secondally the argument of public safety mitigates what you might consider a "bad" outcome for private firearms ownership restriction. The police are reponsible for public safety. That role is legitimate and created in legislation. You can argue about it all you like in terms of its effect on you, but a strategy to reduce private arms ownership, if that exists it cannot be considered "bad" objectively... and that is the measure here, not your subjective opinion.

It therefore follows that intentional knowledge cannot be established either. If its not "bad" the intent cannot exist.

Results/Outcome = are inconclusive in terms of being evidence of something "bad". An errant Arms Code with a misapplication of "things that can be used to create a firearm" (creating only ineffectiveness and misunderstanding) or AO's that don't understand the effect of the law, speaks to incompetance, more than a systematic organised and effective conspiritorial plan. Thats hysterical.

Implied meaning... you may have not intended any of this in your use of "conspiracy"... but nobody has the ability to see inside your little head to understand what exactly you mean by it, at the time that you use the word. The intention and the meaning can only be implied from where it is being put. This discussion was and is legal in context its perfectly rational to question the use of "conspiricy" in that context.

Your correctly argue that conspiracy can have a softer interpretation, but that is a more descriptive and metaphoric meaning and the type of meaning is again dervived from the context where it is used.

Where a word has multiple possible meanings or applications, what is intended can only be derived from the context in where it is placed.

Your use was a misapplication in this discussion, a conspiracy cannot be established to be the case, and your intention in using it was at the least hyperbolic and more likely to be deliberately inflammatory. That is not helpful. A realistic appraisel of the threats to our interests does not include the implied conspiracy/tin foil hat paranoia strategy, because that directly affects our credibilty.

Now a wee hint for you.. all of the above is explanation and argument. Most of the above is contained in my earlier posts. I previously paid you a certain level of compliment by not completely breaking it down, assuming capacity. Now, we have established your need for a more comphrehensive explanation, evidenced by analysis of this level of competance..

However you have not put up one single argument, not shown any reference, to back your disagreement with anyone's use of the word conspiracy.

Being an internet forum, I am not going to reference everything for you.... I am relying on my knowledge, my education, my recall and my analytical skills to create argument. I guess you've got wiki...