Thread: Response to the Law and Order Select committee

Originally Posted by keneff

Jigilo, Rushy? Really??

Someone has to do the job Keneff. Ha ha ha ha

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Mate, having met Rushy, I won't be chipping in for the outfit.

A fine display of good judgement GM. I am far to much man for any kind of kini to contain.

It's a bit depressing.
Growing up trusting the Police!
And it's come to this! Really rather sad
If this is the tip of the ice berg what's the rest look like

I'm all for helping the man on the street, but if the party line is this?

Originally Posted by Sideshow

If this is the tip of the ice berg what's the rest look like

Originally Posted by Sideshow

Yep it looks good but.....I don't know!

Can't trust these guys!

Don't give them an inch!

Here he is on the radio asking us to meet him halfway? Why? Why should we meet him halfway?

Looks like he's already done a back room deal with criminals and said you know what guys carry on! Your all good, I'll stick it to the law abiding!

And as for ZB radio where was the rebuttal? Why not let him lose on his high horse! Very poor reporting no preparation!
Did even ask a hard question! Very weak if you ask me, he mars well have rolled over and had him scratch his belly!

So where in deed dose it leave us?

His meeting half way would probably mean an end to owning semi autos etc. He has stated that "nobody needs them". It's the way it always is with anti-gun lobbyists. We don't want to make life hard for "legitimate" gun owners. We just want to register everything, increase the cost of security, ideally ban or otherwise heavily restrict the ownership of semi autos, clamp down on gun imports, carry out warrentless inspections of peoples property. Can't see how any of this would be objectionable to any reasonable gun owner.

The only argument I have with some of the above comments is the gun storage, talking to people weekly who have had guns stolen, I find it strange that they don,t have a gun safe, they want quotes for guns stolen, usually with a value of a grand or more, just for the gun. How many people leave that amount of money sitting in a wardrobe, they won,t pay to prevent the thefts, but spend more on increased insurance premiums.

Originally Posted by JWB

This exercise is called bait and switch. Those of you who have thanked the minister have scored an own goal. Licence holders have gained no respite from persecution. More controls are about to be inflicted upon us. Past police policy and bullying is about to be legitimized.

Etc, etc.

I believe we should acknowledge steps in the right direction as much as we oppose steps in the wrong direction. Surely you agree that the action of the Police Minister in this instance could have worked out a lot worse for the shooting public? Of course it doesn't mean that everyone should relax thinking that commonsense has prevailed. But if the only response to a decision which actually worked reasonably in our favor is more complaints, then from a politicians viewpoint we become the group that "They're never going to be happy regardless of what we do, so why should we cost ourselves votes from the other end of the political spectrum trying? Screw them."

I for one am going to email Paula Bennett my thanks and support, along with the hope that the rights of law-abiding firearms owners will be upheld going forward.

Originally Posted by PaulNZ

I believe we should acknowledge steps in the right direction as much as we oppose steps in the wrong direction. Surely you agree that the action of the Police Minister in this instance could have worked out a lot worse for the shooting public? Of course it doesn't mean that everyone should relax thinking that commonsense has prevailed. But if the only response to a decision which actually worked reasonably in our favor is more complaints, then from a politicians viewpoint we become the group that "They're never going to be happy regardless of what we do, so why should we cost ourselves votes from the other end of the political spectrum trying? Screw them."

I for one am going to email Paula Bennett my thanks and support, along with the hope that the rights of law-abiding firearms owners will be upheld going forward.

You just don't get it do you? The minister is not upholding the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.

There will be a new arms amendment which will include the illegal practices that police have previously carried out as policy.

There will be no addressing problems in the current act. No repeal of the reverse onus conditions in the current act.

Police will continue their current policy of inflicting the Thorp report upon licence holders through bully tactics. What works so well for them will not change.

Police will have additional tools to threaten and intimidate licence holders who insist that they follow the law.

Nothing in the amended act will stop criminals being criminals.

What is needed is for a repeal of the whole act. This will allow police to stop focusing on control of sporting equipment, and get back to dealing with violent assault, murder, theft and burglary, which are all amply provided for under the crimes act.

Originally Posted by Taff

The only argument I have with some of the above comments is the gun storage, talking to people weekly who have had guns stolen, I find it strange that they don,t have a gun safe, they want quotes for guns stolen, usually with a value of a grand or more, just for the gun. How many people leave that amount of money sitting in a wardrobe, they won,t pay to prevent the thefts, but spend more on increased insurance premiums.

I agree on the storage.
I believe there should be stricter rules on A-Cat storage, which at a minimum would be a steel safe. Some of what has previously been allowed is a joke.
I know that the rules are to stop opportunist thieves, but some of the gun racks or trigger locks bolted/screwed to the wall barely stop someone armed with a screw driver/crow bar.

I definitely think that gun owners need to stand up for their rights, as there is no one else who is going to to do it. But I worry that if we just oppose any change and don't accept that there are areas that need improvement, then the Police and public are just going to think we are crazy gun people and will do what they want anyway.
Unfortunately there is an imbalance in power and guns are not popular with the general public, especially semi-auto guns.
So if we want to be seen as the good, sensible, responsible people and the Police as the bad guys we need to continue to point out wrong doings, but also accept that there needs change in some areas.

I believe some areas we can be happy to allow change is:
Security, an improvement on minimum standards are needed
Penalties, increased penalties for people who do break the law
Recording of serial numbers, I believe it should be a requirement that gun owners personally record serial numbers and information on firearms, so if their guns are stolen the police are able to tell for certain if the guns are found in subsequent investigations.

The angle the Police Association is coming from is that too many guns are being being stolen and used by criminals, so if we can come up with ways to address this problem, they will have little grounds to increase gun control.
As I said, if the Police/Government decided they really wanted to ban semi-auto they could, if they put as much pressure as they do in Europe and the USA we don't have the NRA or enough people to oppose them.

Originally Posted by Beavis

His meeting half way would probably mean an end to owning semi autos etc. He has stated that "nobody needs them". It's the way it always is with anti-gun lobbyists. We don't want to make life hard for "legitimate" gun owners. We just want to register everything, increase the cost of security, ideally ban or otherwise heavily restrict the ownership of semi autos, clamp down on gun imports, carry out warrentless inspections of peoples property. Can't see how any of this would be objectionable to any reasonable gun owner.

yip, make outrageous demands and then label you unreasonable for rejecting them.

Originally Posted by Beetroot

I agree on the storage.
I believe there should be stricter rules on A-Cat storage, which at a minimum would be a steel safe. Some of what has previously been allowed is a joke.
I know that the rules are to stop opportunist thieves, but some of the gun racks or trigger locks bolted/screwed to the wall barely stop someone armed with a screw driver/crow bar.

I definitely think that gun owners need to stand up for their rights, as there is no one else who is going to to do it. But I worry that if we just oppose any change and don't accept that there are areas that need improvement, then the Police and public are just going to think we are crazy gun people and will do what they want anyway.
Unfortunately there is an imbalance in power and guns are not popular with the general public, especially semi-auto guns.
So if we want to be seen as the good, sensible, responsible people and the Police as the bad guys we need to continue to point out wrong doings, but also accept that there needs change in some areas.

I believe some areas we can be happy to allow change is:
Security, an improvement on minimum standards are needed
Penalties, increased penalties for people who do break the law
Recording of serial numbers, I believe it should be a requirement that gun owners personally record serial numbers and information on firearms, so if their guns are stolen the police are able to tell for certain if the guns are found in subsequent investigations.

The angle the Police Association is coming from is that too many guns are being being stolen and used by criminals, so if we can come up with ways to address this problem, they will have little grounds to increase gun control.
As I said, if the Police/Government decided they really wanted to ban semi-auto they could, if they put as much pressure as they do in Europe and the USA we don't have the NRA or enough people to oppose them.

This is called "Appeasement", which means to try to conciliate or placate a potential aggressor by making concessions, at the sacrifice of ones principles.
Exponents of appeasement are known as "Nevilles" after its most famous practitioner.
History has shown appeasement to be an unsuccessful strategy in dealing with bullies.

Originally Posted by JWB

This is called "Appeasement", which means to try to conciliate or placate a potential aggressor by making concessions, at the sacrifice of ones principles.
Exponents of appeasement are known as "Nevilles" after its most famous practitioner.
History has shown appeasement to be an unsuccessful strategy in dealing with bullies.

So I guess that is this "peace in our time"

Originally Posted by JWB

This is called "Appeasement", which means to try to conciliate or placate a potential aggressor by making concessions, at the sacrifice of ones principles.
Exponents of appeasement are known as "Nevilles" after its most famous practitioner.
History has shown appeasement to be an unsuccessful strategy in dealing with bullies.

It's not appeasement if there are areas that need/can be improved on.
I'm not suggesting we make a deal to give up something in order to leave us alone for a few years, I'm suggesting that we acknowledge areas that can be improved to show that we are willing to work with them to get the result we want.
I don't see making improvements in security sacrificing ones principles, if anything opposing change just because we don't want to co-operated when some change may be beneficial, would be sacrificing ones principles.

Originally Posted by JWB

You just don't get it do you? The minister is not upholding the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.

There will be a new arms amendment which will include the illegal practices that police have previously carried out as policy.

There will be no addressing problems in the current act. No repeal of the reverse onus conditions in the current act.

Police will continue their current policy of inflicting the Thorp report upon licence holders through bully tactics. What works so well for them will not change.

Police will have additional tools to threaten and intimidate licence holders who insist that they follow the law.

Nothing in the amended act will stop criminals being criminals.

Please tell us how you know what is going to be in the arms amendment bill that hasn't been written yet.

Originally Posted by kotuku

Sir I likes your style.
now Rushy i hopes you aint been hoeing into them there horny goatweed pills they advertise as ala naturale for gettin the old bloke to stand to attention for a lady. wee know Paulas cute and cuddly and bugger me with a pineapple and call me augie ,shes a bloody poli with COMMONSENSE and a sense of FAIR PLAY,but until we get a centrefold of Paula in the camo with a trusty 12g on the hip and and ar15 tucked up under the armpit ,Im gonna hold my breath!


Ok thats a tad radical ,so im gonna start a collection for a camo mankini for Rushy to wear when he meets Paula!!!

Actually guys Im inclined to think Paula read Justice Jillian Mallons scathing comments re police conduct in the hearing over the freestanding pistol grip issue,or shes actually had a wee chat with the Honourable judge in person.If Chris Cahill could take some time to read the same judgement he may well want to temper his tantrum somewhat ,cause again like minister Madam Judge pulled no bloody punches-it was a subtle as a boot in the nuts from an irate scrub bull!

@kotuku

@Rushy has beaten you to it mate, I believe he has a whole collection of these things now.



Cheers ( I think)
Pete