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: 592 95.8%
  • No

    Votes: 26 4.2%

  • Total voters
    618

Hellhound105

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
6,884
Is this real? :mad:

I will now openly laugh at all politicians affected by crime. Now where's that EFF councillor gets gunned down thread from today?

Can't really say about the authenticity of the "report". But yes we can then say the EFF should have stayed at home then.
 

Wary GOM

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
1,632
Ah, but was he camping or out hiking?
I have no firm idea, but can confidently guess that the EFF member was trying to destroy the country, even if only in his own warped mind, NOT enjoying simple pursuits in which we should all be safe enjoying.
 

Wary GOM

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
1,632
Not sure though.

Might be those 46 pager motivations. Maybe the police oak just had too much to read and the brain misplaced a few digits.

If 100% true, then the situation is getting bad.
Not getting - has GOT bad. At a number of levels.
 

Wary GOM

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
1,632
Not getting - has GOT bad. At a number of levels.
A completely off topic aside:
Often posts use the word "oak" in referring to an unnamed/unknown person instead of "oke"
Is this a reflection on the thickness of the person to whom the writer is referring or just an auto-correct Americanism? ;)
 

George Netherby

Expert Member
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
1,489
OOOOOP's. These are simple rules...
  • Always treat a firearm as it was loaded.
  • Always point the firearm in the safe direction.
  • Always keep you finger off the trigger
  • Always know your target and what is beyond it.

 

wingnut771

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
15,025
OOOOOP's. These are simple rules...
  • Always treat a firearm as it was loaded.
  • Always point the firearm in the safe direction.
  • Always keep you finger off the trigger
  • Always know your target and what is beyond it.

How would that have changed the outcome when the part in the scene when the shooting starts?

The better question is how do blanks kill?
 

Hellhound105

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
6,884
OOOOOP's. These are simple rules...
  • Always treat a firearm as it was loaded.
  • Always point the firearm in the safe direction.
  • Always keep you finger off the trigger
  • Always know your target and what is beyond it.


So if this is your opinion on a movie set I dont want to know what you recommend in a life/death scenario.

You must have read these kak books.

Example one:

1635059504720.png

Next up you will say why was he not kneeling.
 
Last edited:

Hellhound105

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
6,884
How would that have changed the outcome when the part in the scene when the shooting starts?

The better question is how do blanks kill?
Blanks shouldn't, however you never know if debris might be in the chamber that gets ejected when the explosion happens.
 

Enzo Matrix

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
10,990
OOOOOP's. These are simple rules...
  • Always treat a firearm as it was loaded.
  • Always point the firearm in the safe direction.
  • Always keep you finger off the trigger
  • Always know your target and what is beyond it.

Oh look, someone did their proficiency test

This case is really strange. An actor on a set should never have to deal with even the remote possibility that there is a loaded gun. Especially not an anti-gun person.

Should he have checked it? No. Its acting, why on god's green earth was there a live gun on set?
 

wingnut771

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
15,025
Blanks shouldn't, however you never know if debris might be in the chamber that gets ejected when the explosion happens.
I would like to see the autopsy report. I find it hard to believe that debris can have that much of an impact. It sounds like production plays Russian roulette every time they do a scene.
 

wingnut771

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
15,025
Oh look, someone did their proficiency test

This case is really strange. An actor on a set should never have to deal with even the remote possibility that there is a loaded gun. Especially not an anti-gun person.

Should he have checked it? No. Its acting, why on god's green earth was there a live gun on set?
Is that the part in the scene where the perp tries to fire the gun only to find it empty then proceeds to throw it away in disgust and run?
 

Hellhound105

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
6,884
I would like to see the autopsy report. I find it hard to believe that debris can have that much of an impact. It sounds like production plays Russian roulette every time they do a scene.

Heard people say watch out for blanks at 2 meters. I don't use blanks so not an expert.


If anyone shoots a blank at me from 10 meters away, I'd still give them a **** klap. But I'm not in a movie.
 

George Netherby

Expert Member
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
1,489
Well, well, well....

Hi All I have posted four pages from a court case where the chairperson of the appeal advocate Lugwela Shandu signed a affidavit on oath where she denied on several occasions that she participated in a decision to refuse an appeal .
The document numbered 4 is part of the record filed in the court proceedings by her state attorney and you can clearly see that she signed the decision to refuse the appeal as chairperson of the appeal board.
I cannot think of a more blatant lie on oath and more importantly by an advocate of the High Court.
This is the person that sits as an appeal authority for decisions of the National Commissioner to refuse firearm licenses yet in cases involving the appeal board and the Natcom she signs papers on behalf of him and the appeal board where there is a clear conflict of interest . The conduct of the appeal board doing this was censored and criticised in the High Court decision of Black many years ago.
She is also the person that was instrumental in drafting the amendment bill to take away our firearms and the committee report that made fundamentally simple and stupid mistakes in interpreting research data commissioned by the secretariat of police, the same organisation she helped write the report for upon which the amendment bill was based.
Be very afraid when a person who can influence your firearm rights is dishonest, , dogmatically opposed to firearm ownership and who does do not understand basic constitutional and legal principles.
Oh, btw this is the same person whose response in this court case was , when justifying the refusal of a section 21 permit for self defence was to say ... do not put yourself in dangerous situations! Martin Hood.
 

Ponderer

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
6,393
Well, well, well....

Hi All I have posted four pages from a court case where the chairperson of the appeal advocate Lugwela Shandu signed a affidavit on oath where she denied on several occasions that she participated in a decision to refuse an appeal .
The document numbered 4 is part of the record filed in the court proceedings by her state attorney and you can clearly see that she signed the decision to refuse the appeal as chairperson of the appeal board.
I cannot think of a more blatant lie on oath and more importantly by an advocate of the High Court.
This is the person that sits as an appeal authority for decisions of the National Commissioner to refuse firearm licenses yet in cases involving the appeal board and the Natcom she signs papers on behalf of him and the appeal board where there is a clear conflict of interest . The conduct of the appeal board doing this was censored and criticised in the High Court decision of Black many years ago.
She is also the person that was instrumental in drafting the amendment bill to take away our firearms and the committee report that made fundamentally simple and stupid mistakes in interpreting research data commissioned by the secretariat of police, the same organisation she helped write the report for upon which the amendment bill was based.
Be very afraid when a person who can influence your firearm rights is dishonest, , dogmatically opposed to firearm ownership and who does do not understand basic constitutional and legal principles.
Oh, btw this is the same person whose response in this court case was , when justifying the refusal of a section 21 permit for self defence was to say ... do not put yourself in dangerous situations! Martin Hood.

The Marxists/Communists want to take away our ability to defend ourselves. :mad:
 
Top