Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Options
189111314214

Comments

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Sparks wrote: »
    They do; but showing up with firearms openly carried? Against a protest led by kids?
    Back to my point about perceptions. If it were a rally, as has been done before, against a group of adults there would be no thought of inappropriateness, but against kids!!!!!!!! Won't someone think of the children.
    If anyone thinks that's going to be thought remotely acceptable in any civilised society, they need to go soak their head for a while.
    Says you.

    It's their second amendment right to do so and it's no less valid than any other right because it involves guns. Also the kids are either there are their own behest or as is the case in so many rallies at the direction of adults with ulterior motives.

    You cannot keep playing the kid card as defense. They either want to be treated as adults ( in which case they need to be told the world is not a candy coated sweet) or they don't (in which case go home to your safe space where you'll get a trophy for participating).
    Cass, someone shows up to yell at kids and brings a gun with them which they're happily displaying and yes, they're worse. Flat out, no contest, completely lunatic fringe worse.
    You Just Don't Do That.
    Sparks, yes you can as is their right and protection under the second amendment.

    Because you and other liberals don't think it's right or are offended by it does not make it illegal or wrong. As i keep saying, the kids are being used a human shields against any form of attack because it's known that any attack on kids (verbally of course) is seen as a no go.

    Sorry not buying it.

    I don't know and that's the scary part. They've had school shootings in the US since the last century; they never figured out why and then suddenly it starts to show up across the western world from the 60s onwards. It's almost like watching the spread of a disease and nobody's looking at why it's happening.
    The guns have always been there, yet its only in the last 15 to 20 years that it's becoming a more and more frequent thing. The guns and how they operate have not changed so does anyone else think it's the people wielding them and if so why not address that issue?

    Who'd you hear it from?
    You:
    Sparks wrote:
    They might not know the technical details of the firearms, the law, the history of the problem and so on - but they're kids. They're not expected to.
    What I said was
    What you said was what i've quoted above. Just scroll down a bit, its right there.
    they have a right to protest that something's broken and needs fixing
    No ones is arguing that, but they're not protesting the problem, they're protesting what they incorrrectly think to be the problem and because of political and social pressure they think they're right.
    , and that how it got fixed was a seperate thing and if they don't know that, well, (a) they're kids, they're not supposed to be experts, and (b) the experts don't know either.
    Now its because they're not experts? Above it was just because they're kids and didn't have to know. The fact that they don't know through ignorance or lack of trying is a sign that something is wrong. They look for the easy path which is guns.

    I've said before if they ban all the guns in the morning without addressing the underlying cause of what drives kids to want to murder other kids then nothing will change other than the method those murders are done by.

    By the by the kids protesting against guns are ignoring the fact that most school shooters are kids themselves. Perhaps this is a starting point to examining the real issues behind these killings.

    It's when they want specific legislation that the requirement for expertise comes in. I don't see placards saying "amend article 13.4.2.3(a) to read ...". I see placards saying the equivalent of "stop shooting at us and sort this **** out".
    So go back to the public faces of this movement you said were not fair game. They don't say "sort this out" they say ban guns, the NRA has blood on its hands, etc. No middle ground, no seeking reform. just get rid of the 2nd amendment and we'll all lvie with unicorns and rainbows.

    March-for-Our-LivesJim-WatsonAFPGetty-Images-640x480.png022118-gun-protest-march-lead.jpg?itok=X-YiPx4k
    They'll certainly try, it's what they do. Hell, ours are as bad, just look at the Healy-Raes.
    We cannot compare us to them. We have guns as a privilege, we don't have the 1st amendment either, and no TD would get elected in this country on the "power" of any gun lobby group. As for the Healy-Raes, another story for another day.
    That doesn't mean that if a bunch of kids whose school got shot up want to grab an incumbent by the neck and ask why, after over a century of this kind of thing, they haven't fixed it yet and why are they paying for their pensions anyway, well, it's a question I've wanted to ask of our lot a few times myself about things.
    Can you not see the problem with this?

    The "kids" are protesting the NRA, blaming Trump, and attacking pro-2nd/gun groups. Not the politicians, not the legislators of each state, not the representatives of their county.

    Then you'll have Schumer, Pelosi, Waters, Warren, et al, coming out and giving rousing speeches and then going back to Washington and either not bothering to do anything or introducing such a poorly worded bill that it'll get shot down immediately.

    I've posted on this very thread examples of congressmen/women giving laughably unintelligible press conferences and interviews with one admitting she didn't even understand the contents of her own bill on gun reform.

    You set term limits on Senators and Congressmen and you'll see a marked improvement in performance as they have a short period of time to get stuff done rather than trying to fill a seat for 40 years.

    My point being the "kids" are aiming their anger at the wrong people so is it any surprise they get "f**k you" in response. You ask a pro-gun person to give up their guns.
    Turning round and saying they faked the school shooting, or showing up at the protest carrying guns, or doing any of the truly ****ty ****ty things people have been doing in the US to them? No, that's just wrong.
    Don't lump a tin foil hat, paint chip eating, window licking conspiracy with a valid counter protest. Its disingenuous.
    I never got the point to that specific complaint, whether it was about democrats, republicans or actresses, to be honest.
    Its the same complaint about Hollywood going to these anti gun rallies yet making millions/billions by glorifying gun violence. If they truly oppose guns so much then stop make making movies that romanticize it and then maybe i'll listen.
    I mean, you make that jibe, the return's always going to be to point out that you can't take firearms into the NRA AGM.
    Yeeeaaaahhhh.................... perhaps you wanna fact check that.
    Yup, ****ty stupid program...
    ...as was Bush's "Wide Receiver" scheme which invented the whole "ship guns to mexico" thing in 2006.
    I'm not trying to do a "they're worse than them", but Obama was seriously anti gun, made it known, yet his administration created this cluster f...... Bush was not anti gun (which doesn't excuse it, just saying).
    Again, we literally don't know. We desperately need to and nobody's looking at it, they're all too busy having a pissing match.
    And there is your problem. Who can shout the loudest and invoke the greatest sympathy, regardless of whether it's accomplishing anything or not.
    And if that **** starts showing up over here...
    It won't and for the reason its happening in America. Irish people are too subservient for anything close to this to happen here. We don't have the same thoughts or freedom of thought they have in America. We have a problem with someone it's either don't speak to them ever again, spread rumors about them, or report them to the Gardaí/Welfare. Or some combination of the three.
    So what? Didn't stop them getting shot.
    You brought it up as a point, hence my remark:
    Sparks wrote:
    and what the hell are you yahoos doing with our taxes to say it's this bad?"
    Nobody's ever going to repeal it.
    I know, that is my point. It's a loosing battle and not one people against these school shootings and violence should be fighting. Their time, money and energy would be better spent elsewhere where it will make a difference, but some force or a level of ignorance is driving this train in the wrong path and nobody is questioning why.
    Engaging in nothing but ad hominem attacks on them is another.
    People on the pro gun side see one of two things.
    1. Kids that don't know the level at which they are playing
    2. Kids that are being manipulated by the media and other interest groups
    When they hear these young adults (they're not kids ffs) attacking their rights and freedoms from a position of ignorance and mi-information they will retaliate.

    I don't see how name calling gets anything done. It weakens your argument and makes people ignore the rest of what you have to say. However i don't believe someone is exempt from attack and to some this is a personal attack on their liberties and that will get a personal response. Also the young adults have made serious and possibly defamatory remarks about President Trump, Dana Loesch, and others on the pro gun side. So not innocent kiddies as some believe they are.
    And showing up carrying firearms openly at a protest is so far away from the concepts of dissent and rebuttal that it's ludicrous.
    The dissent and rebuttal remark was in response to your comment on the two faces of this anti gun campaign as per the quoted piece and my response, and not the kids at the march in Albuquerque which i've addressed at the start of this post.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,022 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Ah bless the poor little cherubs and seraphs.I can almost hear Mrs Lovejoy's plaintive cry "won't someone PLEASE THINK of the children." here in some arguments. Playing the "its for the children or its for the good of the children" is the tactical nuke these days in arguments...Everything from gun control to the price of North Sea oil.Heres a way to defeat it.
    I don't CARE about "the children" and neither does the person who is using this argument point.It's a cliche and an utterly lazy way of saying shut up.

    Since when does the adult world bow down to the rantings of children?Especially a foul-mouthed brat like master Hogg?
    Even at 17 if I had spoken to adults like that I'd have caught a backhander from either of my parents that I'd have woken up a week later.A generation that engages in eating laundry detergent or smoking fly spray of Facebook challenges? We are supposed to engage in a serious debate on constitutional law and firearms rights with a mindset like that??

    You put yourself in the media spotlight and public eye, well then expect no mercy,its the nature of the beast, claiming execptions because of your age or gender doesn't work.Did we hear any outrage when the media attacked Brandon Trump, describing him as "the next future school shooter" when his ol man was sworn in as president?

    As for ad hominem attacks, well when the anti-gun loons want to quit attacking us and try being somewhat civilised and discussing facts and solutions, and not bare emotionalism well then they can expect the same courtesy both online and in real life...Sometimes,you have to just get down into the ****e do deal with the ****e.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,022 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Nobody's ever going to repeal it.
    Mainly because it's the foundation of all their firearms control legislation and without it, you can buy machine guns in walmart in the morning.
    Also, SCOTUS has been pretty clear on this - you could bring in licensing or registration or any one of a dozen different changes on the federal level and they (a) would be completely compatible with the second amendment and (b) wouldn't be novel because states have had them since the founding of the US at one time or another, in one form or another.

    You do not repeal constitutional amendments, you amend them with others.IE abolishment of slavery,prohibition of alcohol, and its repeal, so it could be well possible to amend the 2nd by a further amendment prohibiting the RTKBA.That's if you can get 35 states, both houses and the president to sign off on it.And the population votes for it.

    SCOTUS judgements..Another massive can of worms,as they cant even decide whether the constitution is a living document or a fixed document.An opinion which changes regularly with who is elected to the supreme court by which party.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Been following this from a distance. I see two sides:

    1. The spate of shootings in the USA is absolutely crazy and revolting.

    It would be good if the existing laws and procedures around gun ownership there were properly enforced, as there seems to be a cultural problem around entitlement and revenge, which you don't see in the likes of Canada which has around the same rate of gun ownership.

    2. It's obvious the high school protestors are being coached by Left-Wingers.

    If you read Gene Sharp's articles about 198 methods of nonviolent protest, you will see that he has designed a template which is being used to some effect worldwide, including in Ireland

    https://www.aeinstein.org/nonviolentaction/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/

    Who is Gene Sharp? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-12522848


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,022 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Does Canada stuff lithium anti depressants into every kid with a problem in school and diagnose them with some trendy mental illiness like ADHD?Be interesting to see that sort of a correlation as well between US and Canadian mental health,and how do Canadian schools handle school bullying?

    BTW, watched an interesting film last night somewhat on this topic."Young Jeffrey Dahmer" Based on a book by one of his friends in high school in the late 70s early 80s.While not a mass school shooter, Dahmer became a mass murdering homosexual, cannibal killer.What is interesting to see is how little has changed in US high schools since then with the bullying of the outcasts and weird kids and now.Dahmer could just have easily been a school shooter, as a cannibal mass murderer.
    My take is, it is a failure in US society and a collective failure to look at itself and blame everything else except itself for producing these killers.The means are not the issue,its the motive and method and the environment.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,788 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    37D.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,022 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    ttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/march-for-our-lives-39-days-how-parkland-students-turned-grief-into-action

    [I]DAVID HOGG: On the day of the shooting, I got my camera and got on my bike and rode as fast as I could three miles from my house to the school to get as much video and to get as many interviews as I could because I knew that this could not be another mass shooting.
    [/I]
    Hogg’s statement can be seen just past the 4:30 mark of the video clip below.

    Let THAT sink in for awhile!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

    https://breaking.americanewscentral.com/2018/03/26/lie-now-david-hogg-says-wasnt-even-parkland-school-shooting-began-2/

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,788 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Maybe I'm still sleepy but what does that show us Grizz?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,022 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    That Master Hogg's story has more holes in it than my old socks?
    Claims to be hiding in a closet during the shooting making anti-gun videos.Now says in this soon to be released documentary,he was at home and cycled 3 miles to get the blood&gore of his classmates...And of course, he is let somehow, into an active shooting scene and locked down crime scene that has about a one-mile exclusion zone.... So which is it??

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Maybe I'm still sleepy but what does that show us Grizz?

    Nothing as it's a partial bit taken out of context. Don't get me wrong i like a good conspiracy theory but the truth is more important.

    He was at the school and present during the shooting, went home, but later returned to the school and its this the quote is referencing. His return to the school.

    I don't like him as he is an entitled, foul mouthed, ignorant little sh*t that thinks his 17 years of middle/upper class life makes him an authority. He was the victim of an unspeakable tragedy and has every right to be heard and speak his mind, but his actions, his words, and his carry on show his ineptitude and the biased media are pushing this as it fits their agenda/narrative on guns.

    What makes me dislike Hoggs. Well it's not that he is anti gun, it's his actions and ignorance. His first reaction upon returning to the school (as well as his reason for going) was to get footage, be interviewed and in his own words:
    I knew I wanted to talk on the news and make sure there was advocacy, especially with so many people from the [National Rifle Association] and different gun-toting Americans who watch Fox News.
    His bias and agenda is clear and from that day he has come out with other ignorant, defamatory, and uneducated statements such as:
    It just makes me think what sick f***ers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly get reelected
    When your old-a** parent is like, ‘I don’t know how to send an iMessage’, and you’re just like, ‘Give me the f***ing phone and let me handle it.' And you get it done in one second. Sadly, that’s what we have to do with our government,'

    'Our parents don’t know how to use a f***ing democracy, so we have to
    I got a call from the White House, they rang me, but i just hung on them
    Honestly, it’s alright that people are buying more guns. I just care that they are being safe individuals. And they can practice their Second Amendment rights all they want. I don’t give a f*** about that. I just want to make sure that a crazy a** individual doesn’t get an AR-15 or any weapon at all
    So the people that can actually vote, pay their taxes, and have fought to make sure he has the freedom to come out with his drivel have f**ked it up and he and his impressive 17 years can solve it so he will.

    He is an ignorant, entitled little so and so that is good on camera but falls to pieces when his view points are questioned as per his twitter rants and foul mouthed tirades. He invokes sympathy because of his situation and in none of the interviews he has done has anyone actually really challenged him because once again no one wants to be seen to challenge a kid. Well he is not a kid, he is a young adult (although he doesn't act like it) and if he wants to take part on this level then he should be treated the same as any other adult.

    Then his side kick Cameron Kasky has some good ones of his own, and is even more ignorant than Hoggs:
    We have stared down the barrel of an AR15, how dare you say we don't know what we're talking about [referencing Dana Loesch and Wayne LaPierre], We're the experts.
    They treat it as though we're attacking a right you're born with [referencing the 2nd amendment]
    If that kid [Cruz] had just seen medical professional for 5 minutes they wouldn't have said you need a gun they'd have said you need a counsellor and that was allowed to happen
    So according to Cameron being shot at makes you an expert, in much the same way being hit by a car makes you a mechanic. :rolleyes: He doesn't understand the constitution of his own country, the second amendment is a God given right under the constitution, and he completely ignores or doesn't know that Cruz was seen by numerous medical professionals and reported dozens of time and i'm sure none of them told him he needed a gun all the while ignoring [Cameron] the fact that failings of the Sheriff's Dept., the FBI, the school, etc lead to this tragedy and while they are failings none of them "allowed" this to happen.

    Hoggs was defending the inaction of the deputies at the school that day saying no police officer wants to confront a person with a gun, even though it's their job and they're trained to do it, and said the teachers should not have that responsibility either. Then who does? In a perfect world it shouldn't be necessary, but the removal of legally held firearms, or more precisely just ARs, will not make this go away and until such a time as the root cause of these shootings are addressed protection is needed and that means people having the ability to defend themselves or others.

    He [Hoggs] attacks the NRA and specifically Dana Loesch with unrelenting determination saying she has congress in her pocket and it's her fault happened while ignoring the inaction of the police, FBI, etc as above. He says she doesn't care about dead children, well that is a despicable and frankly horrendous lie. No one wants to see this happen.

    The media are allowing this to happen and allowing these kids, and in this case they are kids, to say the most outlandish statements/comments without the media having to defend the comments as they would have to had one of their anchors or reporters said it for the very reason that was given above (which is complete crap) that as kids they are above reproach and anyone who challenges them is a gun nut, baby killer, etc, etc.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,022 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Nothing as it's a partial bit taken out of context. Don't get me wrong i like a good conspiracy theory but the truth is more important.
    He was at the school and present during the shooting, went home, but later returned to the school and its this the quote is referencing. His return to the school.

    This is the whole point...
    He couldn't have returned to the school or anywhere near it,or been anywhere near it for at least a mile radius of the building, as the whole area was in lockdown with at least five various different LE agencies, local, County, Sheriffs dept, and Federal agencies.Not including fire depts, paramedics, bomb disposal, and all the rest that arrives at a crime scene of this magnitude. He is not accredited press and media, and even they are not allowed anywhere near a federal crime scene in a situation like this. So saying he had a "student high school ID and was waved thru" is utterly laughable. To process 450 odd pupils, search everyone for concealed weapons,as there might be more than one shooter, do a quick debrief of personal experience of the incident by at least three different LE agencies along with treating many injured or traumatised individuals, keeping them in a holding area and releasing only to legal parents or guardians when they show up,run the gauntlet of real media,trauma councillers and just plain morbid,takes hours! So a 17-year-old kid who has just goe thru all that,gets on his bike rides off back to the school,and starts wandering around a crime scene interviewing people and especially his classmates .....Sorry...Nope!Dont buy that at all.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,022 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    As for media bias..
    Ask why NONE of the pro-gun kids, have had zero airtime from the MSM.Ask why Colton Haab was told to "stick to the script" of a CNN anti-gun question at a CNN Townhall meeting.Haab refused to do so and withdrew from the Townhall meeting rather than compromise his beliefs.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭gunny123


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    As for media bias..
    Ask why NONE of the pro-gun kids, have had zero airtime from the MSM.

    Doesn't fit the narrative. Its a bit like the BBC not reporting the carry on in Telford. It doesn't fit their view of the world, they bury their heads in the sand.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    This is the whole point...
    He couldn't have returned to the school or anywhere near it..................

    I'm not saying everything he said is true, but some alternative sources for news are saying he was never there.

    Listen to everything, filter out the bullsh*t, verify, then make a decision on the 10% that is left.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Rosahane


    Here in North Kildare I'm aware of a number of instances where the Garda have refused additional firearms licences unless the holder give up an existing one. For instance one person had to give up his shotgun to get a rifle. In another instance a person was brought in for a meeting and told that he would have to give up one of his shotgun licences when renewal comes around - he has two shotguns and a rifle. In this case his first renewal isn't until July.

    Is this happening elsewhere?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭Gravelly


    Rosahane wrote: »
    Here in North Kildare I'm aware of a number of instances where the Garda have refused additional firearms licences unless the holder give up an existing one. For instance one person had to give up his shotgun to get a rifle. In another instance a person was brought in for a meeting and told that he would have to give up one of his shotgun licences when renewal comes around - he has two shotguns and a rifle. In this case his first renewal isn't until July.

    Is this happening elsewhere?

    Haven't heard of that happening here, and it hasn't been suggested to me (I've another new application awaiting a decision at the moment). I presume that's someone going on a solo run, as it isn't a feature of the firearms act? All districts seem to have their quirks - our district has an effective blanket ban on moderators.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,218 ✭✭✭✭Nekarsulm


    Yes, here in south Cavan the local Sergeant always asks if you will get rid of one gun before getting another. Then acts disappointed when you say "No".

    Wife is buying a gun, and it was the same. Would I get rid of one of mine before she applies for hers?
    When I said no, he arrived out one evening with another Guard in tow and asked to inspect my safe. Give it a good pulling to see it was well bolted down etc, and that each gun was present and correct.

    Then advised that he would not be passing on her application to the Super until a variety of alarm requirements were complied with, inspected by the CPO and approved.

    At no stage has he spoken to her.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭gunny123


    Gravelly wrote: »
    All districts seem to have their quirks - our district has an effective blanket ban on moderators.

    Blanket bans are not on. Each application should be granted or refused on its own merits. For a super to have a blanket ban he is ignoring the firearms act.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭Gravelly


    gunny123 wrote: »
    Blanket bans are not on. Each application should be granted or refused on its own merits. For a super to have a blanket ban he is ignoring the firearms act.

    I know, but I presume he'll keep on with a blanket ban until someone challenges it in court. That won't be me.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    There have been a good few threads on this over the years on the forum. Lads being made surrender one firearm to get another.

    Now one or two were borderline in that a chap might have a 243, 308 and wanted a 6.5 but only shoots deer. However the majority were lads looking for a hmr or 22lr when they had a 223 and being refused unless they surrendered one of the other rifles, and others were of a similar vein.

    Blanket bans are illegal and this was already sorted in court so no need to go again, but if you had to go to court it would be the district court and you'd win it easily enough if there was actually a blanket ban policy being used.

    Just thread carefully as the "Good Reason" clause of all applications is a vague statement and open to too many interpretations.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Rosahane


    Thanks for the responses folks. I'm aware of the legalities but just interested in whether this type of attitude is becoming more pervasive. I appreciate that the Supers and Chiefs legally make these decisions purely on their own volition and are influenced by a policy or politics ;)

    I was particularly concerned with the story from the person who was asked in for an interview months before his renewal to be told that he had to surrender one licence. He was given no reason for the policy either - just told that's what's going to happen.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Rosahane wrote: »
    He was given no reason for the policy either - just told that's what's going to happen.
    This is when you need to push back.

    Any revocation of a license and/or refusal to renew MUST be supported by a written reason. The majority of people i have spoken have decided not to apply/renew because they were told on the phone (never in writing) that it won't happen.

    Never accept anything unless it's in writing. An Gardaí can try and push a blanket ban policy or refuse something that is perfectly legal if there is no trail.

    A recent case without giving too much away. A lad contacts me and tells me the Super won't issue the license for the rifle he is seeking unless he surrenders one of his rimfires. The call came from the FO, not the Super however the FO said she was relaying this information as this is the "policy" of the Super.

    He told the he didn't want to surrender one of his rifles and had good reasons for all the guns including the one he was applying for. She continued to refuse to process the application until he wrote in with a request to cancel (hence surrender) one fo the rifles. At this point he contacted me. I told him the FO (a made up position) has no authority to dictate such policy, nor had the Super for that matter, and to proceed forward with the application. As a firearm owner with no convictions he was not disentitled from holding a firearm so applying for a firearm is one of the few rights we have.

    Long story short the FO gave him some lip and when he insisted the application be sent up or he would contact the FPU for advice she relented without actually saying she would send it on. Roll on three weeks and he gets the grant letter in the post for the new rifle.

    Now this is NOT a "look at me" story, but it highlights the importance of never agreeing to anything over the phone and not on paper. If it came down to a court hearing to enforce your right to apply then you need documentation to prove what you are saying is true.

    The law places no limitations on the frequency of applications or the amount of firearms you can own. The only criteria is safe/secure storage and good reason for having each firearm.

    I'm not saying anything any of you don't know, but its so important that when in the right you stand your ground and fight back with the law. In most scenarios its on your side. The flatfoot at the desk or whomever was unlucky enough to be named "FO" has no authority to refuse anything. That is the Super/Chief Super's job and it must follow a set list of rules/laws including written notification of any refusal or revocation.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,418 ✭✭✭Rosahane


    Cass wrote: »
    This is when you need to push back.

    Any revocation of a license and/or refusal to renew MUST be supported by a written reason. The majority of people i have spoken have decided not to apply/renew because they were told on the phone (never in writing) that it won't happen.

    Never accept anything unless it's in writing. An Gardaí can try and push a blanket ban policy or refuse something that is perfectly legal if there is no trail.

    A recent case without giving too much away. A lad contacts me and tells me the Super won't issue the license for the rifle he is seeking unless he surrenders one of his rimfires. The call came from the FO, not the Super however the FO said she was relaying this information as this is the "policy" of the Super.

    He told the he didn't want to surrender one of his rifles and had good reasons for all the guns including the one he was applying for. She continued to refuse to process the application until he wrote in with a request to cancel (hence surrender) one fo the rifles. At this point he contacted me. I told him the FO (a made up position) has no authority to dictate such policy, nor had the Super for that matter, and to proceed forward with the application. As a firearm owner with no convictions he was not disentitled from holding a firearm so applying for a firearm is one of the few rights we have.

    Long story short the FO gave him some lip and when he insisted the application be sent up or he would contact the FPU for advice she relented without actually saying she would send it on. Roll on three weeks and he gets the grant letter in the post for the new rifle.

    Now this is NOT a "look at me" story, but it highlights the importance of never agreeing to anything over the phone and not on paper. If it came down to a court hearing to enforce your right to apply then you need documentation to prove what you are saying is true.

    The law places no limitations on the frequency of applications or the amount of firearms you can own. The only criteria is safe/secure storage and good reason for having each firearm.

    I'm not saying anything any of you don't know, but its so important that when in the right you stand your ground and fight back with the law. In most scenarios its on your side. The flatfoot at the desk or whomever was unlucky enough to be named "FO" has no authority to refuse anything. That is the Super/Chief Super's job and it must follow a set list of rules/laws including written notification of any refusal or revocation.

    For the avoidance of doubt this is not me! It's a person who asked me for advice. However, I do have previous with this Super as he refused to renew one of my licences a couple of years ago. However he relented just before the High Court date and granted the original application.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭gunny123


    One to get yer blood pressure sky high :rolleyes:




  • Registered Users Posts: 535 ✭✭✭solarwinds


    Oh FFS.
    Words fail me and most of them. Some of those individuals would be dangerous with half a brain cell.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,022 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    "Semi full auto" :rolleyes:
    Remember folks,Feelings trump Facts these days! And any attempt to try and explain the basics to these people is "Gunsplaining":rolleyes::rolleyes:

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,788 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Some of the statements in the clip are along the lines of:

    Lots of people have been shot with an unloaded gun :pac:
    $130 for an AR15. :pac:
    Don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic :pac:
    Military style made out of something black with a larger trigger :pac:
    Some bullets have incendiary heat seeking devices on their tip :pac:
    If you need a gun for protection, move to a different area to live in :pac:
    AK45 :pac:
    Fires 30 rounds per second :pac:
    Rifles advertised that they can bring down a commercial airline at 1.5 miles :pac:
    Woman who proposed legislation didn't know what a barrel shroud was :pac:
    One Senator said it's legal to hunt humans :pac:


    Here is my favourite

    The number of high capacity magazines will decrease in the future because the bullets will have been shot and the magazines will have been used up.

    I can't be ar5ed typing any more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Well, that's true, people say stupid things about firearms when they don't know them (see, Hollywood, All Of). Of course, on the other hand:
    - you don't hunt deer with .50bmg rounds
    - you don't hunt deer with tracer rounds
    - you don't hunt deer with fully automatic firearms
    - the assault weapons ban only applied in cases where cosmetic features on the firearms matched a list
    - None of this is about the specifics of firearms anyway, but about firearms legislation.

    There was some dumb yokelry on there, but lads, be honest with yourselves for a minute (you don't have to post on here about that, but do it quietly, just to get an idea for it yourself): How many of you would ace any test question put by a hostile interviewer on the Firearms Act here? How many of you could be made look ignorant of the basics with a little bit of editing to the footage? How many people have posted here not knowing the Firearms Act? How many times have the Gardai and the Courts been wrong about it?

    Personally, I see videos like that one as an own goal because they scream to high heaven of insecurity. They're pure ad hom argument. Anyone watching who isn't on one side or the other (and lets talk about that in a second) will just read it as "they haven't got any actual argument, they're just calling the other side names". And anyone can make a video like that. Go look at youtube, you'll find a dozen of them in ten minutes.

    On the sides thing btw, that's a pretty useless concept here as well. What "side" am I on? Am I on the same side as, say, the dozen or so individuals I could name who have single-handedly over the last few decades managed to try their hand in every underhanded scheme we've found? Who've done more damage to shooting in Ireland than anyone in the Gardai or DoJ or Dail? Because I'd rather not be. Am I on the side being led by a ****ing Healy-Rae? No thank you. I don't think there are sides here. Shades, maybe. And frankly, I look at the NRA's ad campaign these days and lads, I don't want to be in that shade or side or mob. I'm not scared enough to find those ads comforting. They're just... ****ing weird.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,788 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Sparks wrote: »
    - None of this is about the specifics of firearms anyway, but about firearms legislation.

    There was some dumb yokelry on there, but lads, be honest with yourselves for a minute (you don't have to post on here about that, but do it quietly, just to get an idea for it yourself): How many of you would ace any test question put by a hostile interviewer on the Firearms Act here?

    You are being a bit kind to them there Sparks. They weren't asked questions about complicated firearms legislation. They were giving their opinion on the functionality of firearms mostly. And they were very wrong mostly. And I wouldn't mind if it was only the odd gobsh1te on the side of the road giving their opinion. Many of the clips were of politicians who create legislation that affect firearms owners.

    If you are a State Legislator, at least have some idea what you are legislating for.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,119 ✭✭✭Gravelly


    Anyone know if I can get those incendiary, heat-seeking bullets in 22LR?


Advertisement