Well....'pretty sure' does not cut the mustard. No lies were/will be told. I want that gun. I can get it legally by: 1. Joining the SSAA. 2. Attending a safety course. And....Bob's me Uncle. All sweet.
Cute. But...not true. They ask the questions, I give them the answers to their questions. Not my problem if they don't ask the right questions.
We both know that that is not how they would look at it if they caught you in the lie while still applying for that license. Just own up. Be truthful about it. You're taking advantage of the system in order to get what you want because you believe that the law prohibiting self defense is unjust. Own it.
This is not about Assaunge. But if you really want to make it about that then fine. They are supposedly going after him for hacking or convincing Manning to get the damning material for him (as opposed to Manning simply giving it to him through no action or convincing on Assaunges part). Both are illegal. Whether either of those claims are true or not I don't know. I do know that if they tried to go after him for only printing the damning information and nothing else they would be slapped down by the courts here in the US. That at least both sides of the political spectrum still agree on would happen. Now do you see why bringing up Assaunge did not help your case at all? Particularly since they have not raided Wikileaks. Compared to what Australia did with the ABC company there? You used an apples to airplane comparison and it does not help your case in the slightest.
All that for a 136 year old manually activated firearm chambered in an inferior caliber? Under what conditions would you be allowed to use this antique/curio/relic in defense of your home exactly? Don't you lot have to use proportional force only?
Ah but your nation and states have some awful large caveats for "need arises" and "defense of self in home is required". Why don't you explain for the class what those caveats are?
The link you offered declared you needed to provide them with your genuine reason for needing a gun. Here in this post, you initially offered, unprompted and without any actual requirement you do so, to complete strangers in your own words in writing in a place where you are essentially anonymous so there can be no claim of coercion, you stated your genuine reason was defense of self in the home. That's why you got the gun. But to your government, you claimed your genuine reason was recreational shooting, rather than defense of self. You have therefore lied to the government about your GENUINE REASON and violated your Law (since you like to capitalize it).
Except here Bush Lawyer freely told us his genuine reason was self defense in the home, not recreational shooting. Unlike your son in law who owns the rifles for the genuine reason of hunting. The nuance being your son in law has not freely admitted without coercion or even prompting that his true purpose is defense rather than hunting. Its important to have the genuine purpose stated as that's what your silly, onerous, and frankly human rights violating gun laws require.
So basically, you can't debate nor defend **** about the facts... so you go on some tirade about the method in which the facts were presented with a whole bunch of platitudes and non-sense. The facts are tough to defend. I get it.
Actually you're required to disclose your GENUINE reason for needing a gun. Which you initially offered here today as self defense in the home, which is not an acceptable genuine reason under the statute. Therefore, you have admitted, you claimed recreational shooting as your genuine reason, despite admitting it was not in fact your reason for wanting a gun.
And your truthful answer to what is your genuine reason, as you expressed freely here, was "for self defense in the home" not "for recreational shooting".
It's not hair splitting. We've established that there is no legal right to own a weapon for home defense.
That she is a smart intelligent articulate woman that can avoid misleading the public and running down rabbit holes. Basically, a professional. Plus she kicks ass and takes names.
Ya know, it is never helpful to mark one's own homework. I said I suspected we were heading for an Assange discussion, and I did not say the situations were the same.
Nah, because it simply is not true. It is your overlay on a very simple position. I want the .410 and I want to get it legally. I am doing that. Case closed.
That .410 five shots will achieve what is necessary in the event I was in danger at home. Yes, we cannot just fire at will, and there must be a genuine threat to my welfare before I can use lethal force on an intruder.
Would you care to direct me to the relevant Australian Law which backs your assertion about 'required to disclose GENUINE reason.' Then I will reply that there can be mire than one genuine reason, and it would be perfectly legal for me to use the .410 in self defence is that was justified in Australian Law.
