New Updated Arms Code 2017

its the system chap.. its a framework for process and its not capable of forming intent just to get you....

my automatic assumption is that those that claim conspiracy either don't know what they are talking about, haven't done their homework, prefer to blame anyone else except themselves, or they just broke the rules.... blaming other people is always tempting but generally its pretty indicitive of where blame may lie... and I'm going to be right 99 times out of a hundred....

but you're that special 1 percenter right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sidney

its the system chap.. its a framework for process and its not capable of forming intent just to get you....

my automatic assumption is that those that claim conspiracy either don't know what they are talking about, haven't done their homework, prefer to blame anyone else except themselves, or they just broke the rules.... blaming other people is always tempting but generally its pretty indicitive of where blame may lie... and I'm going to be right 99 times out of a hundred....

but you're that special 1 percenter right?

---

Yes, the lazy government left them with a blank cheque. Now they've been caught out elsewhere, and have their noses out of joint, they've decided they're going to cash that cheque. Shows that they have indeed been conspiring behind closed doors. I think it is you that does not know what a conspiracy is.

And yes, tests have indicated that I am well with the top 1 percentile.

not at the moment my friend.... :)

making excuses for oneself does not amount to a conspiracy...

i'm not claiming system infallibility, i'm claiming lack of capacity to form intent..

now people on the other hand have the ability to conspire, but given the context of legality in which this discussion is based the only definition that is appropriate is a legal one.

Conspiracy = conversations, with intent to commit a crime are the requirement, and action that amounts to more than mere preparation..

policy discussions, strategising to change the law, to make excuses for performance does not meet the standard

neither does employing knobs as arms officers

neither does producing incompetant policy documents that are not law..

by the way gadget, you did realise that the one percenter just means special victim status... ?

I know I'm special... not everyone wants to be :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sidney

making excuses for oneself does not amount to a conspiracy...

i'm not claiming system infallibility, i'm claiming lack of capacity to form intent..

now people on the other hand have the ability to conspire, but given the context of legality in which this discussion is based the only definition that is appropriate is a legal one.

Conspiracy = conversations, with intent to commit a crime are the requirement, and action that amounts to more than mere preparation..

policy discussions, strategising to change the law, to make excuses for performance does not meet the standard

neither does employing knobs as arms officers

neither does producing incompetant policy documents that are not law..

---

I'm not talking about your narrow 'conspiracy to break the law'. As I said I'm using the wider conspiracy, making secret plans, which is obviously true and 300% fits that criteria. It is obvious that PNHQ have come up with a dream list of wants as far as firearms are concerned. That list is not one that has been derived by talking to licensed firearm owners or dealers, or other interested parties, and they seem hell bent on trying to implement that list by hook or by crook. They have been caught subliminally trying to do it by crook so have simply pulled out that little trump card they've been given.

Not sure the intent of giving them that card was this, but hey they've got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sidney

by the way gadget, you did realise that the one percenter just means special victim status... ?

I know I'm special... not everyone wants to be :D

---

I'm very special, yes that fits too.

its not narrow fella its accurate

I am not interested in your pop culture, chicken little interpretation when discussing legal issues... and this is a legal issue... the issue is clearly whether or not it is lawful for the police to formulate policy about their areas of responsiblity and plainly it is. Policy meetings are always private, so that component is irelevant...

you want to talk about the nasty little policemen wanting to take away our guns as having an agenda... fine...

you want to argue that they are not entitled to have political interests... fine as well, but damm that will be difficult cause they can just hide behind health and safety for that..

its just not a conspiracy.... full bloody stop ... it may be a policy.......

and by the way.... we would have to go to court to resolve the argument, so I am pretty sure which way the decision would go there..... :D

Ah.Sidney the knowall-well please provide your interpretation of the judgement of justice Jillian Mallon in the case of the freestanding pistol grips.Im reasonably well educated and Ive read it and down loaded the bloody thing -all 33 pages of it.
Justice Mallon quite clearly tells the coppers the are not bloody judge jury and executioner -MPs make laws ,courts interperet them and coppers uphold them -To me thats fairly commonsense.
Now i realise you dwell in the world of M'lud ,my learned friend devious but ?moral debate and somewhat archaic paegentery and you love to put down others with a sarcastic legal gougers interpretation of the issue ,with all the psychobabble learnt at law school etc etc,plus a two dimensional FACT POV,, but your utterances in fact show you up as grossly intolerant of anyones POV besides you own.

you might wonder at my generally negitive reaction to your self KT.... but if you start out with an insult perhaps you can work it out why...? this one I'll let pass as a sign of good faith

absolutely.... they are not judge jury and eq....... however law exists before it gets to be considered by a court. Law is applied before it gets considered by a court and the police are one of the many agencies that do exactly that...

in pragmatic terms the court adjudicates on interpretations, or they clarify the interpretation.. or they make rulings that provide interpretation...

the police like all of us make our own interpretations of what the law means, the court decides who is right...

No one is arguing that the police don't push boundaries... they do, but you could also argue that they should because it forces the law to get tidied up if undesireable outcomes result.

The system only works if accountability is obvious... that case is a prime example..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sidney

its not narrow fella its accurate

I am not interested in your pop culture, chicken little interpretation when discussing legal issues... and this is a legal issue... the issue is clearly whether or not it is lawful for the police to formulate policy about their areas of responsiblity and plainly it is. Policy meetings are always private, so that component is irelevant...

you want to talk about the nasty little policemen wanting to take away our guns as having an agenda... fine...

you want to argue that they are not entitled to have political interests... fine as well, but damm that will be difficult cause they can just hide behind health and safety for that..

its just not a conspiracy.... full bloody stop ... it may be a policy.......

and by the way.... we would have to go to court to resolve the argument, so I am pretty sure which way the decision would go there..... :D

---

Quote:

---

con·spir·a·cy (kən-spîr′ə-sē)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

---

You may want to work on your comprehension skills. I did not say the action was illegal. I did say there was a conspiracy and what you have said backs that wider definition perfectly. It is not illegal to conspire. Hey, the all blacks coaches could conspire with the lions coaches to conspire a plan to defeat the Aussies. Wow, who'd have thought it?

:D

Taken to court the Police would likely win, unless the intent of the law change they are using could be shown to not be followed.

sort of self defeating GM.... come on now...

a) its not illegal, wrongful or subversive - you not liking it doesn't meet that standard

b) to be a group of conspirators a) has to be met

c) its not an illegal action

d) does not involve people...

Wow!! you two guys sure know how to kill a thread

yeah I should have left it as it was....what's the point of actually having some competance in an internet forum....? :D

Hmmm I'm sure I had a don't feed the troll's sign around here somewhere 😉

Sent from my SM-G389F using Tapatalk