Thread: New Updated Arms Code 2017

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...

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 can read fine Gadget, can u not understand...?

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...

Originally Posted by Sidney

I can read fine Gadget, can u not understand...?

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...

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.

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....

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.

That does remind me of a good joke. Might see if I can find it somewhere.

however even if what you claim was what was intended, you still don't meet the standard and its a lower one.....

you might want to ignore that but you can't actually...

Originally Posted by Sidney

you might want to ignore that but you can't actually...

You simply cannot accept that it does most definitely meet the standard.

Wheres the agreement to do anything "bad"

/thread pls

Originally Posted by Sidney

Wheres the agreement to do anything "bad"

Have you not worked out what this thread is about?

Originally Posted by Sidney

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...

The court's role is interpreting the law....the Police are the executive.
...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. 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....

Originally Posted by Sidney

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

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.