Self defence will not be a valid reason to own a gun in SA under a newly-revived draft law

Should "self defence" continue to be a valid reason for owning a firearm?

  • Yes

    Votes: 570 96.0%
  • No

    Votes: 24 4.0%

  • Total voters
    594

Benedict A55h0le

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2020
Messages
1,722
They seem to think they will use some god given right to keep their glock and take on the entire SAPS to defend this “right”. There will be only one outcome in that scenario and gods little fighter will be on the losing side.
Really? You clearly do not know how useless the SAPS are. If they disarm people these people will keep their guns illegally, not to fight the police but to defend themselves against criminals. After the looting that happened now, SAPS will not be able to disarm people. People will fight to keep their guns and that is a war that SAPS will not want to undertake because they will loose badly.
 

Aghori

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
12,245
Black market arms are cheap as chips nowadays too. During the riots we saw a lot of them.
 

Howdy

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
719
Tick one and only one:

[ ] Defend family who lives, intruder dies
[ ] Don't defend family who dies, intruder lives
 

Iwojima

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
3,468
I am passing no comment on the dangers of having to live with the current crime dangers in South Africa. I understand why people are fearful of the possible outcome of the removal of firearms as a method of self defence but that doesn’t change the issue of the fantasists and geevees who think they can take on the government, the police or the army to retain possession of those firearms once the govt declares them illlegal.



As I’ve already posted in this thread, I saw the writing on the wall and removed myself and my family from these dangers. That doesn’t change the fact that I likely have more experience and knowledge of the situation due to my previous jobs, especially when compared to some of the youths with guns who post on this forum from a position of deluded ignorance.

They seem to think they will use some god given right to keep their glock and take on the entire SAPS to defend this “right”. There will be only one outcome in that scenario and gods little fighter will be on the losing side.
Out of interest, what did you vote in the attached poll?
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
57,054
Ok I'll try again...

Your facts 1 and 2 simply agree with my point.

So what is yours?

They aren’t, you’re in a make believe land where the laws don’t exist. The law does exist so your entire premise is incorrect.

The Act exists, you possess a firearm at the pleasure of the government (as per the Act provisions). The government can remove that privilege at any time it wishes to by amending the Act.

If you then keep the firearm you’ll be a criminal, and an easy criminal to catch the first time you use the gun, the EFF won’t protect you, there won’t be mass protests, you’ll simply be a Wit Wolf or some other made up sensationalist name in your local press as they throw you in jail.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
57,054
People will fight to keep their guns and that is a war that SAPS will not want to undertake because they will loose badly.

Back to the fantasies again, a group of civilians aren’t going to beat the police, even if they manage to catch the first ones by surprise the next lot will be better prepared and better armed. The only thing that will be lost is your life in the finale of your fantasy home movie.


Ps
It’s lose, not loose. Loose is what causes your pants to fall down.
 

alanB

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
526
They aren’t, you’re in a make believe land where the laws don’t exist. The law does exist so your entire premise is incorrect.

The Act exists, you possess a firearm at the pleasure of the government (as per the Act provisions). The government can remove that privilege at any time it wishes to by amending the Act.

If you then keep the firearm you’ll be a criminal, and an easy criminal to catch the first time you use the gun, the EFF won’t protect you, there won’t be mass protests, you’ll simply be a Wit Wolf or some other made up sensationalist name in your local press as they throw you in jail.
You really are completely missing my point, nor understanding what I said.

I'll try one more time..

In a free country, people can do anything, unless prohibited by law. So the authorities do not grant people rights, they already have them.

The laws define what is prohibited. Anything not prohibited is allowed.

We do not need need permission from the government, or anyone else, to do every little thing, we just need to comply with the law, which restricts certain things.

That is what I am trying to get across, and having a very hard time doing so.

My point is that people naturally enjoy freedom, if the country is free, and we do not need explicit permission to do so. The laws of the land then define what one CANNOT do, rather than defining what one CAN do.

In a free country one can do anything, unless it is against the law.

It a very important distinction.

In totalitarian systems, or police states etc, this principle is inverted. One can do NOTHING, unless given permission to do so by the authorities. Many people do not seem to understand the difference.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
57,054
You really are completely missing my point, nor understanding what I said.

I'll try one more time..

In a free country, people can do anything, unless prohibited by law. So the authorities do not grant people rights, they already have them.

Except all that is irrelevant, you don’t live in a country that works like that. There is firearm legislation that defines how and when you may possess a firearm and how you apply for that privilege.

You can go check the SA constitution for your rights if you want. The right to possess a firearm isn’t there.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
57,054
Tell you what @alanB why don’t you go and buy a full auto AK47 and start shooting with it in your back yard. When the police arrive tell them it’s your right to have and use it as you live in a free country...
 

alanB

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
526
Tell you what @alanB why don’t you go and buy a full auto AK47 and start shooting with it in your back yard. When the police arrive tell them it’s your right to have and use it as you live in a free country...

What has that got to do with anything?

I tried hard but you are just not getting it.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
57,054
What has that got to do with anything?

I tried hard but you are just not getting it.

It’s got everything to do with it.

You can’t possess a full auto rifle because the state prohibits it.
You can’t start a shooting range in your garden because the state prohibits it.

V
v
v

You can’t possess a firearm for self defence because the state prohibits it.

See the follow on?

You really don’t live in the type of “free country” you think you do.
 

The Trutherizer

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
4,883
Right. So the SAPS can't use lethal force since Marikana, whether a whole city is being looted and plundered by civilians or not.
And in a recent situation it was clear enough that if communities did not actively protect their own neighbourhoods from looters and plunderers, then the damage would have been much, much worse, and the death toll likely a lot higher as well.

I honestly do not see how they believe this can have a positive impact. If one could have faith in the police - TO DO WHAT THE POLICE ARE THERE FOR - then what must civilians do? Roll over?
 

alanB

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
526
It’s got everything to do with it.

You can’t possess a full auto rifle because the state prohibits it.
You can’t start a shooting range in your garden because the state prohibits it.

V
v
v

You can’t possess a firearm for self defence because the state prohibits it.

See the follow on?

You really don’t live in the type of “free country” you think you do

So why do you keep agreeing with what I am saying, then thinking that defeats my argument?

I said the law prohibits certain things (as you list).

Yet the key point you keep missing.

But whatever - arguing with someone who cannot see the point, just becomes a waste of time.

Enough!
 

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,370
What has that got to do with anything?

I tried hard but you are just not getting it.

Did you notice how he quote-mined your post and then attacked the piece of your post he cut out!!
What a loony, I think he just likes arguing for the sake of arguing, your point is pretty clear for all to see, he just likes the sound of his own voice and to be seen to be right, even if it means being entirely disingenuous.
 

Dave

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
57,054
Did you notice how he quote-mined your post and then attacked the piece of your post he cut out!!

So not only don’t you understand how forums work, you don’t even understand how quoting works? It’s considered good etiquette not to bloat quote, but you might learn how it all works one day.

You really are a dense little mommy’s boy, aren’t you?
 

SoldierMan

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,370
So not only don’t you understand how forums work, you don’t even understand how quoting works? It’s considered good etiquette not to bloat quote, but you might learn how it all works one day.

You really are a dense little mommy’s boy, aren’t you?

Yeah I love my mom, imagine that. I take it then you don't......
 

TheChamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
39,636
Right. So the SAPS can't use lethal force since Marikana, whether a whole city is being looted and plundered by civilians or not.
And in a recent situation it was clear enough that if communities did not actively protect their own neighbourhoods from looters and plunderers, then the damage would have been much, much worse, and the death toll likely a lot higher as well.

I honestly do not see how they believe this can have a positive impact. If one could have faith in the police - TO DO WHAT THE POLICE ARE THERE FOR - then what must civilians do? Roll over?
I think it has been like that long before Marikana.
 
Top