Not those words. But surreptitious, subversive, harmful, wrong, bad, ... cover it pretty nicely. Can you not read Sidney? They are all terms other than illegal that are very good matches.
Printable View
Not those words. But surreptitious, subversive, harmful, wrong, bad, ... cover it pretty nicely. Can you not read Sidney? They are all terms other than illegal that are very good matches.
I'm still laid up pretty bad. Managed to get up for 1/2 an hour but was pretty much crawling back to lie down. Not looking too flash. :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by tiroatedson
Still this trolling lark is a fun way to take my mind of the pain. Not that I'm intentionally trying to troll, just pointing out that one word in particular is not tied to a narrow trade definition.
All good gadget. Just taking the Micky a little bit. I know where you're coming from I have suspicions myselfQuote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We're in agreement overall, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark."Quote:
Originally Posted by tiroatedson
Yep. Hope ya back sorts itself out.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mauser...
I don't agree that you do understand...
the police's business is interpreting law... they have to maintain their own budgets but its their call. They are always asking the court for interpretations, making appeals, and that case is just normal business.
The Dept of Labour/OSH thing is not comparative, they were avoiding potential prosecution... this is not their core business...
I agree that they don't like losing, I disagree that that loss was any huge disadvantage.. Want proof of that... watch this space, the legislation will get changed.
and its still not a conspiracy...:D
I can read fine Gadget, can u not understand...?Quote:
Not those words. But surreptitious, subversive, harmful, wrong, bad, ... cover it pretty nicely. Can you not read Sidney? They are all terms other than illegal that are very good matches.
Words can be used anywhere, and the meaning might even pass the standard of the ill-informed, but that doesn't make it correct or even appropriate.
Its a discussion involving legality, using the word in that context implies a legal meaning, so the use of the word needs to be considered in that light. The logic of that seems to escape you.
However, even your softer and less rigorous meanings all require illegality, being wrong, doing evil, being subvertive (which is illegal) being bad whatever that means....... none of which has actually happened that you can establish. If you are going to define bad or wrong with just your opinion that don't count, I am guessing that most the wider community won't have a problem with more restrictive gun laws.
Not only has that not happened, a conspiracy requires an agreement to be all or some of the above, and to form an agreement intentionally.... and you haven't established that either.
So it just doesn't apply, whether you are capable of understanding it or not.... the outcomes do not fit the standard that even your definitions specify and there is no agreement and no intention that you can establish.
The only thing I am learning out of this is that clearly my communication skills are letting me down.... I obviously have to work on that..
Its more polite to assume that than the other... :D
Again, no legal implication was implied, nor need it be. Once you grasp that simple concept it all fits. That's what all those other words next to illegal mean in the dictionary quotes. I never stated a conspiracy to commit X crime, which would imply illegality. I simply said that they met in a close session to implement other groups which does constitute conspiracy. If you cannot grasp that simple fact there is no point arguing until you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
if that was your intention, that just leaves you being mistaken then doesn't it.. because every person in the street is going to think that that a conspiracy involves illegality...
The general meaning is exactly that in peoples minds... which of course is the reason that you used the word in the first place...
however if what you claim was what was intended, you still don't meet the standard and its a lower one...
but you're right we have reached the end....
Everyone I have asked thinks that illegality is not a requirement. Every dictionary has illegality as one of many subjects of the conspiracy, but not a requirement. It appears you are the one who is implying illegality is a requirement, which is at complete odds to all the dictionaries and everyone I've met.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
That does remind me of a good joke. Might see if I can find it somewhere.
you might want to ignore that but you can't actually...Quote:
however even if what you claim was what was intended, you still don't meet the standard and its a lower one.....
You simply cannot accept that it does most definitely meet the standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Wheres the agreement to do anything "bad"
/thread pls
:wtfsmilie:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Have you not worked out what this thread is about?
The court's role is interpreting the law....the Police are the executive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
...and if the court finds against the Police, then they have acted outside the law.
The life has been sucked from this thread - and I have read the whole thing.:D End correspondence.
Mate the executive is cabinet. or more particularly the formed govt. ffs everyone got an opinion even if they just dont know what they just dont know
I recently had my 20 year FAL renewal. It took 9 months from application to actual licence being renewed...Good job Police, very efficient. Lucky my company does not take as long to do things or I would be broke. Anyway...a lot of dumb questions like " what to you think of your ex wife and how do you get on with her. I said I hated the bitch and we never spoke. Later I decided that was not the correct answer but then it was too late. Anyway, I have a large gun storage area that conforms to E Cat, even though I only have A cats. Anyways the interrogation started then, she wanted models and makes and calibers. I was very unhappy about it and questioned it, she stated it was policy now, I asked whos policy and she said her senior FAL officers. Everything I said or did was scribbled down on her documents. She did eventually get all gun makes and models. She then started on collecting serial numbers and I said, " seriously ???? now we have to start again" and she lost interest. Since then , me being me have decided its time to get rid of a lot of my guns and re invest in others. At no stage during the interview was I privy to what she was writing down, she got me to sign it without giving me fair time to read it and then left. I do wonder how stupid I was to sign it. But the whole time I was trying not to piss her off and when she was queried it did not go down that well. Police over step...yes.
its a conspiracy....
My unreserved apologies - a mistake on my part, but you could be forgiven for assuming the Police (given their current approach) think they are the Executive, judge, jury and executioner.... My other points still stand: in my humble opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Good of you to finally concede. Though you'd already lost when you put up a challenge for me to find dictionary definitions that had things other than illegal acts as the subject of the conspiracy. That done you then tried to ignore those overwhelming definitions. I really expected better from you.Quote:
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 ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
any chance this was a dopey bitch interviewer in christchurch? arms office is good but their vetter is a pain in the arseQuote:
Originally Posted by paulyc
Move out to Oxford/Rangiora the vetter out here is great, although unfortunately not a young man so probably won't be doing it next time I need to re-new in 10 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonetropo
Starting to wonder how crazy it's going to be in a couple of years time when I have to update mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by stug
Its not just the Vetter, its the Police as a whole. More over the past years I have been feeling more and more "watched". I have been contacted by the Police for putting my business address on a NZ Visa entry card and was accused of breaking the law by moving and not advising them. Additionally to note I am 50. Never been in any trouble and then this happens.... I had an altercation with a neighbour, nothing serious just swore at him and gave him the finger. Anyway I get a phone call from the Police, wanting "a friendly little chat" . So I went to the Police station as asked and was promptly moved to a private room and read my rights. I was then told that the neighbour had made a complaint about me and BECAUSE I had a FAL they decided to interview me. I spent the next hour explaining myself like I was a criminal. I eventually proved that the person lied and was escorted out. When was it that a law abiding gun owner became a criminal waiting to happen ?
Next time that happens and they read you your rights, exercise your right to a lawyer, shutup and say nothing. Ask if you have been arrested.
Your rights with Police | New Zealand Police
Your rights with Police
If you are questioned, detained or arrested by Police, your legal rights are:
You have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer, in private and without delay
You have the right to refrain from making a statement
You have the right to ask why you are being questioned, detained, or arrested.
Police have a list of the names and phone numbers of lawyers qualified to give advice and who have agreed to be contacted any time, day or night. Ask the Police for the list of Police Detention Legal Assistance Lawyers (link is external).
Our guy is mid 70s. Initially took on the job part time to help out.......now 10 years later.....Quote:
Originally Posted by stug
Found him to be very good/professional, no bullshit like others are experiencing.
No querky left field questions like I am hearing elsewhere.
Just goes to show up the issue of non standardisation region to region.
Have 2 shooting mates who are retired AOs (should I admit to know in them ha ha). Both in their 70s when they retired.
stug, your guy may have a bit of mileage left in him yet.
Is that the guy for Counties Manukau? He was great, even hung around while I was looking for another bolt to put in the floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmer
YupQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve123
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
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..
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...Quote:
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.
Thats not pleasant..Quote:
Its not just the Vetter, its the Police as a whole. More over the past years I have been feeling more and more "watched". I have been contacted by the Police for putting my business address on a NZ Visa entry card and was accused of breaking the law by moving and not advising them. Additionally to note I am 50. Never been in any trouble and then this happens.... I had an altercation with a neighbour, nothing serious just swore at him and gave him the finger. Anyway I get a phone call from the Police, wanting "a friendly little chat" . So I went to the Police station as asked and was promptly moved to a private room and read my rights. I was then told that the neighbour had made a complaint about me and BECAUSE I had a FAL they decided to interview me. I spent the next hour explaining myself like I was a criminal. I eventually proved that the person lied and was escorted out. When was it that a law abiding gun owner became a criminal waiting to happen ?
But they don't know you, would you suggest that the police don't investigate those situations?
Domestic situations, families neighbours are the majority cause of serious outcomes...
What is the solution to that do you think? How would you feel if your daughter had a potentially dodgy neighbour with a FAL and the police didn't check it out after she made a complaint?
Stug is right...in general... but that decision has to be based on what impression you want to convey. Refusal to talk increases interest..
So the dictionaries are all incorrect and the only acceptable opinion in this world is yours? Just because the legal fraternity has borrowed a common word and used it that word is no longer usable in it's non legal context? You have yet again failed to grasp the basics. I am not talking about any level of legal threshold. Simply put conspire means 'to plan' and conspiracy means 'a plan'.
The references in this thread merely indicate the participants belief that Police have a plan to implement changes, legal or not, that will negatively affect their firearms ownership. It is only YOU that seems to think that there is some sort of implication that there is some illegality.
Conspire Synonyms, Conspire Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
The criteria is simple:
Two or more people formulate a plan to do something harmful, bad, illegal, .... pick whatever you want. This can be done over the interweb via closed forum, email, phone, face to face.
And as far as my wee head goes, post your accredited IQ and see if it beats mine.
I agree. It is what we sign up for when we apply for a FAL. Also why we tend to be the most compliant group they have to deal with, we have to keep the record fairly clean or they can make life difficult. They have been caught out by not acting in the past and that has resulted in this whole MSSA fiasco.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
gadge u could have a very big head, what has that got to do with the size of your IQ? thats not how it works.. lol
didn't say they were incorrect, you just don't appear to understand them - the other words they use to convey meaning, also have meaning
u must have missed this bit.. well apparently u have missed all the other argument..
the point being that it doesn't.. it has to be an objective assessment of a serious nature not subjective disadvantage to a small group...Quote:
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.
Its also within the legal purvue of the police role... so it still doesn't apply..
C'mon claim IQ... be nice to see some use for it
My AO / vetter is also an older gent. Kinda reminds me of an older Hunter S. Thompson. Very easy to get on with, showed me some pictures of some engineer who'd created an 80 round 10/22 magazine the last time I saw him.Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmer
And some comprehension in return would come in handy too. That criteria is not required to be met. As has been stated many, many, many times this is the common non legal system use of the word. You are yet again trying to meet some threshold that is inapplicable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
And you are right about head size, I have trouble finding helmets small enough. Ended up changing motorbikes to one that matched the only helmet I could buy that fitted.
Fuck up you cunts. Talk about derail a fucking thread with your ego shit
I had an older ex fire fighter vet me first time round. He was really good and helpful. From handing in the form to getting the plastic was 2-3 weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan