Conflict Resolotion 101 - Rebels style

Semantics, Can be fired again instantly without any loading.

Theo

 

No, the gov't exempted them. We woulldn't be able to compete in the
olympics without them.

And what about the Police Glocks?

Theo

 

Ta.

 

I never said it couldn't be fired again instantly without any loading,
but (and it's not just semantics) that's not how a semi-auto works.

They require reloading before firing but the gun does the reloading, one
shot at a time.

It's important to use the correct terms when discussing regulation or
else one ends up with legislation that has unexpected effects (like the
inconsistencies in the regulations on firearms).


G-S

 

And yet they chose not to exempt semi-auto rifles needed to compete in
other sporting events... more inconsistency.

The armed forces and the police received special exemptions I understand.


G-S



G-S

 

Of course.

 

I'll 'av half a pint and a small pork pie ta (hold the peas).


G-S

 

When I was shooting I had a .22 Browning pistol with a ten shot mag, a
Vostok for free-pistol and a Feinewerkbau air pistol.

But the Cap and Ball black powder .44 six-shooter was much more fun.
Just took five minutes to load and wasn't very accurate.

Theo

 

it was not a simple response to me only , it was a run out of argument
and trapped with no place to go sorta thung... and his helmut was
discoloured

 

w hat about them ?
most of the coppas cant hit their own arse and plenty of civilians own
self loaders.

 

Well, you sparked the debate you wanted, and it was interesting. One
thing nobody picked up on was the use of the word 'outlaw'. It used to
mean something legally, but that was 1500 years ago - even by the time
the title was being applied to bandits in the Wild West the law had
pretty much dropped off the statute books, and it was being used as a
term of abuse only.

Hitler and the rest of his Nazi cohorts used the term extensively to
justify all sorts of inhumanities. To justify, say, torture, it is only
necessary to demonise the tortured; to declare that they deserve
whatever they get because they are beyond the protection of the law or
the Geneva convention i.e. out-law.

I know the patch club members like the "outlaw" moniker. You know that
too. However, I think that it's reasonable to challenge your use of the
term: if you want to argue that they have no legal or moral right to
bully people such as Ulysses club members into not wearing rockers,
you'd be a lot better off not trashing your own case by careless
language in the first place.

 

AND you can follow the passage of the ball from the muzzle to the target.

BOOM! - whooooosh - thwock!

....and you go home filthy.

(memories)

 

Pedantic I admit, but there were no statute books per se in England 1500
years ago. Were you referring to some other country ? If so then of
dubious relevance to Australian law.

JL
(In fact very limited statute law until the 1600s - nothing
pre-norman(common law only), and almost nothing until Magna Carta, and
still sod-all until Cromwell/Reformation etc )

 

A valid point - especially if I were trying to convince a judge or
jury.

However... whilst this forum most definitely will act as my judge and
jury anyway, beyond expressing my opinion, I don't actually give a
rat's arse which way these fuckers choose to jump, Andrew.

I've long since written many of them off as morons who just happen to
have mastered sufficient road sense so as not to be dead... yet.

The mere fact that a goodly percentage of them are hypnotised by all
manner of contests in which the fastest rider is elevated to hero
status identifes them as petrol-sniffing bike riding morons.

This is underscored by the fact that many of them think they have a
God given right to use public roads as their personal race tracks.

Talk about Planet of the Apes, Andrew... Really !!!

But back to le topique du jour...

Unlike Outlaws clubs, I am not, on the one hand claiming to reject the
laws of the society in which I reside, whilst on the other, trying to
impose _my_ laws on the whole fucking community and threatening dire
consequences for those who do not obey me.

I would have thought that if this newsgroup was a reliable mirror of
the bike riding community, it would have, by now, seen these Outlaws
for what they are - dickheads giving the bike riding community a bad
rep, and therefore resoundingly disowned them and told them to bugger
off in no uncertain manner.

Instead, I find all sorts of Outlaw apologists spruiking all sorts of
obfuscatory rhetoric, begging consideration for a bunch of thugs
which, quite frankly , I don't think they deserve.

One dickhead is trying to convince everyone that these dudes are just
the loveliest of blokes. Take 'em home to your mum... No worries...

Another, having listened to Eric Burdon and the Animals once too
often, whilst under the influence of unspecified drugs, thinks they
are "just souls whose intentions are good, Oh Lord, please don't let
them be misunderstood", and keeps mumbling some mantra about "harm
minimisation"... I mean, REALLY...

They're all on drugs, I tell you , Andrew...

The fucking lot of them !!!

I'm the only rational one here... BELIEVE me...


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

What a joke you are, Douggie...

Just for a week I'd like a smartarse like you to be a case manager in
a police investigation. It's fucking near impossible to prove that "a
club" is complicit.

Even if you nail 80% of the top level of the hierarchy, you still
can't say "the club is complicit." You fucking moron!

Do you think this would be a good time for me to dig up some of your
tripe about "terrorist organisations"?
( Clue: The David Hicks debate)

You're full of shit, you are...

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Or the army , or the navy, or the air force...

But yours is still a meretricious stunt, Iain..

Because we both know that there are laws proscribing such pretentions,
whereas there are _no_ laws proscribing pretentions to be goth, or a
ballarina, or Alice in Wonderland, or a motorcyclist, or a fucking
idiot who dresses up in "colours". And idiots who choose to dress up
in "colours" have no standing under law to prosecute pretenders.

Now, I'm pretty certain that you are aware of all of this, so I am
scratching my head about why you are running such a shyster scam...

Could it be that this is another case of a moral compass gone haywire?

****...


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Great idea, Fruitloop.

Let's hear you decry his sexism, racism and terrorist activities whilst
a member of a real terrorist organisation vs. your assertion that bikers
should be denied due process because they tell dickhead wannabes to take
their rockers off.

In your addled brain, they're terrorists yet Hicks isn't.

Don't look to me to feed your pathetic need for attention. Go see a
professional.

 

Please keep sexual deviances to yourself.

 

depends on the dress code of the club

 

Just by the way, and I dunno if it might change your view of him, but he
does ride a motorcycle. ;-)

regards,
CrazyCam