So those (white) SA male citizens would have no problem getting a job. Similarly, MK and APLA retreads are well-balanced individuals superbly qualified to psychologically screen firearm applications. Yeah, right. Their ability to spell ‘No’ and to wield an ‘Application Rejected’ rubber stamp is unsurpassed.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be watching the FIFA World Cup Final?
So those (white) SA male citizens would have no problem getting a job. Similarly, MK and APLA retreads are well-balanced individuals superbly qualified to psychologically screen firearm applications. Yeah, right. Their ability to spell ‘No’ and to wield an ‘Application Rejected’ rubber stamp is unsurpassed.
F
Fudzy
Guest
I'm not sure but I certainly don't appreciate the sarcasm, if you represent the average gun owner out there you have me worried.
I’m not talking about private armies (any government would be uneasy about those). The area-bound citizen force commando’s, which males had to join after their military service until they were too old for active duty (40 was the cut-off I think), are the one’s I meant. The ones that were subject to the policies and discipline of the full-time army and wore the same uniform and used the same weapons. The only difference was they weren’t full-time and hair length regulations were relaxed.
BigBullBully
Senior Member
Ok, anti gun talk gets my blood boiling so pardon my aggressiveness earlier.
S.A.G.A, B.G.O.A.S.A, P.H.A.S.A, G.R.A.S.A as well as security company representatives (Coin, Fidelity ect) all told the minister at the time they wanted to implement the act it would not be feasible, they suggested a joint effort to address all parties interests. The government spat in their faces, giving the impression "we don’t want stricter rules, we want your guns". This left the organisations no choice but to defend themselves and their members rights, so court applications were lodged to stop the act on it's un-constitutional basis. This doesn’t include the lawsuits for compensation for all the people that handed their firearms in, which in my view is government sponsored theft.
You see the government is between a rock and a hard place, if they scrap the whole thing lawsuits will rain from the sky upon them, if they keep on with this sham, the coffers will run dry and then what. No money for crime fighting means civil revolt which is exactly what they wanted to prevent by taking our guns away. They are screwed, if only they accepted the olive branch when it was offered this all could have been avoided. Btw of the 2 000 000 + licensed owners only about 10-15 % have complied with relicensing, what does that tell you.
I think many policies the government openly promotes, or atleast allows discussion on, move closer to a socialised (I mean this is the extreme sense, EG. Mines nationalisation, not the welfare sense) system. If you do have a look at the most extreme forms of this system, it is easier to keep the population under control by taking away their arms.
However, saying that, despite being allied with SACP and Cosatu, a lot of official economic policy documents are quite pro market in certain key areas, foreign policy is one that allows for diplomacy and trade and not invasion (Unlike the US) so there are actual plenty of positive things by our government, if one bothers to get down to the nitty gritty of some of the policies that comes out, and not just media propaganda.
I have always been pro right to bear arms (Individual freedom/choice). As for when the laws changed, I think the intention was to make it harder for criminals to get weapons, not to disarm the ordinary law abiding citizens (Even if that was one of the consequences of the new laws).
However the more you restrict supply of weapons on the open market, the more profit can be made selling on the black market. Fact of reality. Prohibition doesn't work, be it alcohol, marijuana or guns (Limited prohibition).
I don't think it is really the states or ANC's actual agenda to disarm the population, but one of the important reasons to be an armed individual is to give yourself some chance of protecting your rights. No one is infereing that they will be abused for sure, but you can never rule it out, particularly in light of the fact we are a young african democracy, and we just can't seem to shake the ghost of apartheid off our backs.
There are a lot of angry, misguided Julias' out there with money and politicial influence. After Zuma, who steps up? And after him?
I think unfortunately you will have the odd accident etc. The real world is not a utopia. But legislation will never affect criminals.
F
Fudzy
Guest
True that, but then the guys who mow down their families and then themselves aren't usually criminals before that happens. Well at least criminals that used guns as their modus operandi anyway.
I do! That has been the agenda from the get-go (see post #17) and it’s not been subtle either. Disarming the population because of crime is a specious reason. Arm the criminals-in-uniform. Steal or ‘lose’ SAPS and military firearms. What about the various stashes of ‘revolutionary’ firearms around the country? First disarm anyone who may object to our scummy behaviour. Safer.
"Applicant has slight dyslexia and doesn't know how many days are in September. Application denied."
But most of those examples are military, which is controled by the state. I would prefer military disarmament and for ordinary citizens to be armed.
At the end of the day you cannot claim the police is a government agency and not the military. After all, military's have been used by governments to control the populace.
At the end of the day, the biggest deterrant to a criminal is how much he fears getting caught and what those consequences would be.
Trial + jail, not that big of a deal, atleast not when compared to the possibility of being killed by an armed home owner.
At the end of the day the biggest deterrant to crime is your potential victims being armed. Yes it is highly probable that this will result in an escalation of conflict, but someone has to be back down, either you or the criminal. Let gun owners have the right to kill trespassers on their property if they deem their lives to be under threat (Not the state)... and any criminals caught/shot and claiming harm from owners defending themselves must be thrown in jail and all cases immediately dismissed.
Guns make the "battlefield" even, the laws should make the legal system one sided in favour of legitimate property owners.
Last edited:
marine1
Honorary Master
This is not the topic for you, maybe go and start a gun free SA one
Last edited:
Golly. And there was me thinking it was equality, good governance, effective policing and lack of poverty.
I have so much to learn.
You should know better being a good liberal. Biggest deterrent to crime is to just give people stuff for free so they don't have to bother stealing it.
F
Fudzy
Guest
Thank you Alan and marine1 for going off topic to attack a poster.
Are there any states like this?
Are there any states like this?
theratman
Honorary Master
-1.