Gun Of The Month...




Posted by Landon

Just because it's been a while... ;)

16" Bushmaster M4, Magpul M93 Collapsable Stock, Phantom Flash Hider 1.5X6X40 Illuminated Recticle Scope w/ German Post-And-Triangle recticle, 1/4 MOA click adjustments- 30 Round Bushmaster Teflon magazine shown in pic.

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/vilsk/S2010027.jpg[/IMG]

Shoots 3/4" groups at 100 yards, and the coolest part is that the scope also acts as a reflex sight, so it's SUPER fast to engage targets close up. :cookie:

As you can imagine, this gun makes some people cry :(




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

reccomend me a handgun that's affordable for a brokeass college student, and is easy to wear in a shoulder holster. I want my dad's PPK, but he ain't giving it up.




Posted by Landon

There are literally a ton of options.
Since the interstate commerce of firearms is controlled by the fedgov, you can't order from the wholesale clearinghouses and have the gun shipped to your house like licensed dealers can.
(Oddly enough, people scream about guns being sold 'over the internet' as if you can just point and click your way to a new Glock, which is total bull****)

That said, many dealers (Called "FFL's" which stands for Federal Firearms License) will transfer you in a firearm for a fee, ranging from $5-$50 depending on where you live.
The first part of the process is finding out what dealers in your area will do this and what they charge.
Once you have a good dealer who will do transfers, it's shopping time.

Go to cdnninvestments.com and download their catalog.
For under $400, you can buy a police trade-in or closeout sidearm from them that will last you the duration of your life.
Glock, Sig, Ruger, pretty much whatever you want.

Right now, they have Ruger 9mms for like $249. They aren't 'tacti-cool' like a Glock, but as a working gun, they will literally last you forever and never jam. I probably own more handguns as an individual than half of the Police Departments in England, and I have great faith in Rugers (and have Glocks, Sigs, CZ's, Brownings and 1911's to compare tehm against)

CDNN has some police trade-in Glock 9MM's and .40's in the $350-$400 range, and right now they have SCREAMING deals on police trade-in Sig P226's and P229's @ under $400 (The Sig 229 in .357 Sig is the same sidearm carried by the US Secret Service.
Those guns brand new are like $700+.
They also have some superb Belgian Browning Hi Powers for $400+.

The best thing you can do is to not listen to the blowhard idiot behind the counter at the gun store who is trying to sell you whatever he has. Handle a number of different guns, try the triggers and controls and see what fits you best.
Once you find what model is for you, buy it and don't look back.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

are you aware of any special restrictions seeing as how I live in AL ( I doubt there are any, seeing as how you can get a concealed weap license by emailing the sheriff's dpt) or is that pretty much something I'll have to look into.




Posted by Landon

AL is a right to carry state, no problems getting a Concealed Carry Permit.
This means that they can't deny you for one if you aren't a felon or have certain crimes on your record.

AL is also a Right To Keep And Bear friendly state, so no dumb laws to worry about as far as what you can have and what you can't.

This is a good site for stuff like this
[url]www.packing.org[/url]




Posted by Bebop

Read it and weep boys





Posted by Landon

Holy ****!
Tripod!

I'm absolutely floored...




Posted by Bebop

Innit. Ain't no 1.5X6X40 Illuminated Recticle Scope w/ German Post-And-Triangle recticle will protect you from the sheer force behind this water cannon which can fire water up to 50 ft wih multiple fireing heads AND shoulder strap!




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

I hate that I de-repped bebop earlier, that last post deserves rep




Posted by Speedfreak

Unlike firearms, stunguns make their targets boogie on down. This alone makes them superior.




Posted by Wicked Sushi

That gun is soooooo awesome.




Posted by Richaod


Quoting Speedfreak: Unlike firearms, stunguns make their targets boogie on down. This alone makes them superior.


whee

Not wanting to start any arguments, but...
[quote=Landon]Shoots 3/4" groups at 100 yards, and the coolest part is that the scope also acts as a reflex sight, so it's SUPER fast to engage targets close up.
[SIZE="5"]SUPER FAST KILLING ACTION! PEOPLE DIE MORE QUICKLY![/SIZE]
Someone was going to make that comment.



Posted by Arwon

I dunno, boogying on down is a powerful argument.

CAN'T STOP DOING THE MONKEY




Posted by Landon


Quoting Richaod:
[SIZE="5"]SUPER FAST KILLING ACTION! PEOPLE DIE MORE QUICKLY![/SIZE]
Someone was going to make that comment.


I suppose if you are the sort of person who is inclined to shoot at people, you shouldn't own such a thing.

Anyway, the greatest mass murder in US History was perpetrated by 19 guys with box cutters.



Posted by Richaod


Quoting Landon: I suppose if you are the sort of person who is inclined to shoot at people, you shouldn't own such a thing.
Too true. I don't know, it just sounded like you were excited by teh gun.

[quote=Landon]Anyway, the greatest mass murder in US History was perpetrated by 19 guys with box cutters.

Do wars count? :)



Posted by higbvuyb

[IMG]http://www.screensavershot.com/automation/artillery.jpg[/IMG]
win

No, wars don't count. To murder is to kill unlawfully. American soldiers are fighting lawully.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

oh God, ruiners of threads




Posted by Landon


Quoting Richaod: Too true. I don't know, it just sounded like you were excited by teh gun.


Seeing as I bought it, I guess i'm excited about it right now, but as is the case with any new toys, the 'new' wears off after a while and you want something else.

[quote]Do wars count? :)

Sure!
Give me an example.



Posted by Arwon

I don't suppose mass murder of Amerindians count?




Posted by Lord of Spam

I plan on just getting a simple handgun. Something that will hopefully never get used, but would also never jam or wear in case it is. Also, cheap.

SUGGESTIONS, PLS.




Posted by Speedfreak



E-web.




Posted by billards

If you want a good affroadable gun you can't go wrong with with a Glock. I would either suggest the Glock 17(9mm) or the Glock 22(.40). Springfield Armory has come out with the XD which I have heard good things about.

Im deciding wether or not I want a AR-15 16" model with M4 frame and Callapsable stock or get a pistol in a year and half. Grrr stupid decisions.

Glocks are a very proven gun. They have a low jam percentage even under the worse conditions. Thats why we equiped the new Iraqie Security forces with them. We knew they wouldn't take care of their guns, so we gave them a gun that would be able to take the abuse. They are very good gun. They aren't the prettiest gun, but they are effective.




Posted by The Judge





Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=billards]Im deciding wether or not I want a AR-15 16" model with M4 frame and Callapsable stock or get a pistol in a year and half. Grrr stupid decisions.

It really depends on how many people you want to kill. I'd wouldn't settle for anything less than a moon-sized battlestation, frankly. Rule through fear of force rather than force itself, as the late Grand Moff Tarkin used to say.




Posted by billards

Well I want a rifle to go out and just shoot and ARs are a badass rifle. If I got a pistol I would get a CCW and carry it everyday.

I just wanted to add a shotgun would be the best home defense gun. Load it up with 00buck to minimize over penetration. Plus with a shotgun you have a bigger error percentage because of the spray.




Posted by Lord of Spam

And I still say that a shot gun is the worst choice. There isnt much sense in blowing your house to hell in the name of protecting it.




Posted by Shin-Ra

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/Shin-Ra/7ddfd58d.jpg[/IMG]

It's my right as an American.




Posted by Klarth


Orbital flamethrower. Has the nasty side-effect of setting the atmosphere on fire, though.




Posted by billards


Quoting Lord of Spam: And I still say that a shot gun is the worst choice. There isnt much sense in blowing your house to hell in the name of protecting it.


you are more likely to hit the subject with a shotgun than anything else...so you will have less holes in your house.



Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=billards]you are more likely to hit the subject with a shotgun than anything else...so you will have less holes in your house.

Or you could pick a holdout pistol and have no holes in your house.




Posted by Bebop

I swear this exact thread has occurred before.

Lanodn mad a thread asking about which gun was better, members posted humour pictures of better weapons e.g. deathstar and than a dicussion about 2 other guns ,ones that weren't part of the actual thread to begin with, and which is better emerges.




Posted by billards


Quoting Speedfreak: Or you could pick a holdout pistol and have no holes in your house.


Lets see...you got a little bullet vs a lot of little bullets that in a big pattern. You are more likely to hit with a shotgun. Unless you have shot a gun under stress you have no idea what you are talkin about.



Posted by Landon


Quoting billards:
Im deciding wether or not I want a AR-15 16" model with M4 frame and Callapsable stock or get a pistol in a year and half. Grrr stupid decisions.


Handguns will be around for a long, long time.
AR15's are one change in legislative powers away from being unobtainable.

The history of American Jurisprudence isn't inclined to 'take away' like Europe or Australia. We are far more inclined to grandfather existing owners, so buy today what you can reasonably expect might be unavailable tomorrow.
That would be the AR.

I think AIM Surplus has brand new Bushmasters right now for under $700.



Posted by billards


Quoting Landon: Handguns will be around for a long, long time.
AR15's are one change in legislative powers away from being unobtainable.

The history of American Jurisprudence isn't inclined to 'take away' like Europe or Australia. We are far more inclined to grandfather existing owners, so buy today what you can reasonably expect might be unavailable tomorrow.
That would be the AR.

I think AIM Surplus has brand new Bushmasters right now for under $700.


They gun shop out here has a the brand new A3(removable handle and other improvements) 16" model with the 6 position stock for 995. They also have the older A2 model for around 850ish. Im not to worried about the banning of the AR because of where I live. We like our guns, where I came from(Cali) I couldn't own one. The only way is federally, but that doesn't look like there will be another AWB for awhile. So Im kinda torn, I love the ARs, but I also want a carry gun. Im gonna try to save for both.



Posted by Landon

There is nothing wrong with a fixed handle A2, but I agree that the A3 is a far better system as it allows you to mount optics.
That M4'gery I have in the pic is an A3, but I own a few 20" A2's that are fearsome.

There is no way that a state level AWB will hit AZ, but I have much less faith than you do in a Federal plan. They had 10 years to figure out what they did wrong with the last one. The next round, there won't be any 'exemptions' just by removing flash hiders and bayonet lugs. The next Federal AWB will be along the lines of the California State AWB.

A carry gun will be more 'useful', so maybe that would be a better decision.
But I am 100% sure than an AR is far more 'endangered'.
Really, once you get a good sidearm, a good fighting rifle, a good defensive shotgun and a good precision bolt gun, you are set.




Posted by billards


Quoting Landon: There is nothing wrong with a fixed handle A2, but I agree that the A3 is a far better system as it allows you to mount optics.
That M4'gery I have in the pic is an A3, but I own a few 20" A2's that are fearsome.

There is no way that a state level AWB will hit AZ, but I have much less faith than you do in a Federal plan. They had 10 years to figure out what they did wrong with the last one. The next round, there won't be any 'exemptions' just by removing flash hiders and bayonet lugs. The next Federal AWB will be along the lines of the California State AWB.

A carry gun will be more 'useful', so maybe that would be a better decision.
But I am 100% sure than an AR is far more 'endangered'.
Really, once you get a good sidearm, a good fighting rifle, a good defensive shotgun and a good precision bolt gun, you are set.


Yeah Im gonna get the A3 because I want that option for the optics. I also want a M1A Socom 16. I will get a picture up later, a nice short percision rifle with a little more punch than a AR. After that I want a M1 Garand. You just can't go wrong with a Granad. I love those rifles and blast to shoot. Just don't get your thumb caught;) .

I don't believe there will be a new AWB in the next 3 years. With the congress make up right now I don't think one will pass.I know Bush will sign one if it gets to his desk, but hopefully it won't. Im gonna get an AR just to be on the safe side. I want to have one of those babies.



Posted by Richaod

[quote=Arwon]I don't suppose mass murder of Amerindians count?
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Arwon again.




Posted by Landon


Quoting Arwon: I don't suppose mass murder of Amerindians count?


No, not much anymore.
Having to reach hundreds of years into the past in order to find something to ***** about doesn't have much applicability in an honest discussion.

Besides, you guys have your own dirty laundry when it comes to the 'natives'





Posted by Richaod


Quoting Landon: No, not much anymore.
Having to reach hundreds of years into the past in order to find something to ***** about doesn't have much applicability in an honest discussion.

Besides, you guys have your own dirty laundry when it comes to the 'natives'

Indeed, but surely that's a bigger mass murder than whatever 19 guys with box-cutters did.



Posted by Landon


Quoting Richaod: Indeed, but surely that's a bigger mass murder than whatever 19 guys with box-cutters did.


If we are going to use open-ended logic, then I guess the 19 guys with box cutters indirectly caused to more deaths than those in America on 9/11 by virtue of the US' justified response on Afghanistan- a figure that very well could be greater than the number of Indians we killed a hundred plus years ago.

My, how this discussion has taken a stupid turn for the worse. Leave it to Australia to introduce irrelevancy to whatever they do...



Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=billards]Lets see...you got a little bullet vs a lot of little bullets that in a big pattern. You are more likely to hit with a shotgun. Unless you have shot a gun under stress you have no idea what you are talkin about.

And you're more likely to not have lots of holes in your house with a hold-out pistol. Read my fucking post you dipshit. Did I say it was easier to hit someone with a hold-out pistol? NO. Would you have to be a pretty crap shot to not be able to hit someone with a pistol in your own house? YES.




Posted by Bj Blaskowitz


Quoting Arwon: I don't suppose mass murder of Amerindians count?

Blame the Spanish.



Posted by Landon


Quoting Speedfreak: And you're more likely to not have lots of holes in your house with a hold-out pistol. Read my fucking post you dipshit. Did I say it was easier to hit someone with a hold-out pistol? NO. Would you have to be a pretty crap shot to not be able to hit someone with a pistol in your own house? YES.


The shotguns advantage is it's terminal impact.
A payload of shot impacting at close range and creating multiple wound channels is very, very devastating whereas a pistol isn't nearly as able to 'stop'.

Hollywood is totally full of sh1t when they portray shotguns as throwing broad, indiscriminate patterns at close range.
To be honest, inside of 10 yards (which is DEFINITELY 'inside the house' range) the pattern of a shotgun isn't much more than a few inches in diameter.



Posted by billards


Quoting Speedfreak: And you're more likely to not have lots of holes in your house with a hold-out pistol. Read my fucking post you dipshit. Did I say it was easier to hit someone with a hold-out pistol? NO. Would you have to be a pretty crap shot to not be able to hit someone with a pistol in your own house? YES.


Alright tell me when the last time you shot a pistol at someone? Tell me the last time you have shot a gun even? Its funny that british person is saying a crap shot is or isn't. Figure you adrenaline(sp?) you start to shake and have tunnel vision. I can say with a fact when you faced with fear you aren't looking down your sites, unless you have trained and traine and trained. Plus after one shot you have to realign you sight picture, which 99% of the people don't do. So with rapid fire you aren't hitting the person cause you aren't look at your sights, you are looking at the person, you aren't realigning the sight picture cause you focuse on the person. You ask me how I know this, because I have read books an actual shootings and I have trained on the police Firearms Trainin System. Isn't not as easily as it looks to shoot someone when you are under stress.

So in essence a shotgun would be a better shot. It is in a tight formation but it is wide enough to increase accuracy. Plus if you miss there will be smaller holes not a big one like a pistol would leave.



Posted by Speedfreak

I shot a couple of guns in Virginia. One was a 410 guage shotgun which I shot a cardboard box with at a range of about...10 feet, I'd say. The other was a Remington 22.250 calibur rifle (with scope). I was a pretty goos shot with the rifle, too. At about 30 feet I was roughlly 1cm off target. I've also been paintballing a few times, if that counts, and I kick some a[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]s at Time Crisis, so I wouldn't say I have no experience with guns, no.

Anyway, if some retard invaded my house I wouldn't want to kill him. Not even sure I'd want to maim him. I'd cap his knees and knock him over. I don't find killing people very cool, but that's just me. I do find it kinda funny that you're doubting the killing ability of a firearm, though.

EDIT: Oh, oh! I also almost hit a magpie whilst playing golf the other day, too!




Posted by billards


Quoting Speedfreak: I shot a couple of guns in Virginia. One was a 410 guage shotgun which I shot a cardboard box with at a range of about...10 feet, I'd say. The other was a Remington 22.250 calibur rifle (with scope). I was a pretty goos shot with the rifle, too. At about 30 feet I was roughlly 1cm off target. I've also been paintballing a few times, if that counts, and I kick some a[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]s at Time Crisis, so I wouldn't say I have no experience with guns, no.

Anyway, if some retard invaded my house I wouldn't want to kill him. Not even sure I'd want to maim him. I'd cap his knees and knock him over. I don't find killing people very cool, but that's just me. I do find it kinda funny that you're doubting the killing ability of a firearm, though.

EDIT: Oh, oh! I also almost hit a magpie whilst playing golf the other day, too!


...cause you know shooting at paper target is the same as shooting at a person under stress.



Posted by Speedfreak

You asked if I had shot a gun, I f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking told you. Either accept my answer or p[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]ss off. What the hell do you want from me? A list of people I've killed with various kinds of weaponry? Uh, how many people have you shot in the face whilst they've invaded your home? Come on, let's see it. Let's see your big manly list of all the people whose lives you've ended. Lets see how cool you are.
As for pressure, well if I'm s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]itting myself too much to hold a frickin' holdout pistol steady (probably the lightest peice of weaponry on the planet, unless you're some kind of toothpick ninja), how the heck am I going to be able to hold a massive shotgun steady enough to not result in any holes in my house, which in case you've forgotten is what we're actually talking about here?




Posted by billards


Quoting Speedfreak: You asked if I had shot a gun, I f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking told you. Either accept my answer or p[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]ss off. What the hell do you want from me? A list of people I've killed with various kinds of weaponry? Uh, how many people have you shot in the face whilst they've invaded your home? Come on, let's see it. Let's see your big manly list of all the people whose lives you've ended. Lets see how cool you are.
As for pressure, well if I'm s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]itting myself too much to hold a frickin' holdout pistol steady (probably the lightest peice of weaponry on the planet, unless you're some kind of toothpick ninja), how the heck am I going to be able to hold a massive shotgun steady enough to not result in any holes in my house, which in case you've forgotten is what we're actually talking about here?


I accept that you shot a gun...wOOt. What Im saying is that under stress your chances go up in missing the target, especially with a small round like a pistol. It has nothing to do with how heavy it is. With a shotgun you get a bigger round and thus easier to hit a target understress.

Like I said I have had stress shooting training with a Police Department. When you being shot at or precived to being shot at I can contest that you aren't looking down the sights. This is due to tunnel vision where your only focus is the subject. All am saying is that it is way hard to hit someone than you think. Its not as easy as shooting a paper target under laxed conditions.

Im not saying a you are a bad shot, Im a pretty good shot with a handgun. But understress it can go both ways. These are two scenario were watched by three officers grading your performance on wehter it was justified and they rewind it to see where you hit. This like a video game and you can rewind it to see where you hit.

The first scenario was a femal you pulled over for whatever, your partner gets shot and she starts to drive away, as she starts to drive away my partner and I returned fire. We missed our first couple of shoots hitting the window, the next were headshots and missed, we barely missed her son who popped up in the backseat.

The other one, you pull over a vehicle and at the end he backs up and hits your partner. I returned fire but missed him entirely. I hit the car most of the rounds.

Its a pretty good system, it can make you stressed and you are supposed to learn how to control yourself during a shooting. one other thing I noticed during this training is that when you are shooting back you don't stop till the subject is down or until you are out of ammo. It was interest, as I look back I don't remember really ever looking down the sights, and both of us just unloaded till we ran out of ammo or the scenario stopped.



Posted by Axis

This was such a funny thread too.....




Posted by higbvuyb


Quoting billards: and thus easier to hit a target understress.

I doubt that you'd even have to shoot in most circumstances, just point the gun at the guy and he'll run away.



Posted by billards


Quoting higbvuyb: I doubt that you'd even have to shoot in most circumstances, just point the gun at the guy and he'll run away.


...thats also a reminder. Shotguns are great for homes for another reason. The sound of someone racking a gun tends to deter a lot criminals. The sheer terror of that sound and what it can bring sends a lot off.

Speedfreak, if you don't want to kill someone get a shotgun and load it up with rock salt. Thats some good ****;-).



Posted by Arwon


Quoting Landon: No, not much anymore.
Having to reach hundreds of years into the past in order to find something to ***** about doesn't have much applicability in an honest discussion.

Besides, you guys have your own dirty laundry when it comes to the 'natives'




Worse actually. You guys at least to the treaty and reservation and calling them "nations" thing. We had Terra Nullius until 199freaking2.



Posted by Landon


Quoting Arwon: Worse actually. You guys at least to the treaty and reservation and calling them "nations" thing. We had Terra Nullius until 199freaking2.


Intellectual honesty is rare and refreshing.
Since you have shown that you are capable of it, let me ask you an honest question.

Say you worked your entire life at whatever job it was that you made your life’s work and purchased your own home.
Your dream home.
An Aboriginal group came along and was able to clearly prove that the house you built was on some tribal/ancestral/super important piece of land that used to belong to them.

The government says ‘sorry. The land belongs to (you) the homeowner’.
Would you be willing to give up your dream home in order to prove how wrong the concept of Terra Nullis was all along? “Here, Aboriginals. Take this home of mine. This land once belonged to you, thus I am giving it back.”

Would you be willing to do it?

Terra Nullis was a policy of a Colonial power that had long term impacts, but created our reality nevertheless. Here we are, you in Australia and me in the US; both lands that once belonged to enchanting little brown people who played strange music and had odd customs.
No matter, our ancestors with their voo-doo smokepoles and fancy tactics conquered their ancestors and took their land. It's now ours. It isn't fair, but neither is life.



Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=billards]...thats also a reminder. Shotguns are great for homes for another reason. The sound of someone racking a gun tends to deter a lot criminals. The sheer terror of that sound and what it can bring sends a lot off.

Speedfreak, if you don't want to kill someone get a shotgun and load it up with rock salt. Thats some good ****;-).

And end up with rock salt all over the house? I have a better idea. Instead of guns, collect swords. If a thief sees you weilding a katana the first thing that's going to pop into his head is "this guy is f*cking crazy".




Posted by Bebop





Posted by Speedfreak



AM I DOING IT RIGHT?




Posted by Bebop

... fail




Posted by Landon


Quoting Speedfreak: And end up with rock salt all over the house? I have a better idea. Instead of guns, collect swords. If a thief sees you weilding a katana the first thing that's going to pop into his head is "this guy is f*cking crazy".


Why bother with swords?

The fact is, you will never be able to own a firearm, so I guess you are making due with swords. It's unfortunate, but it's the situation you're in.



Posted by Arwon

Well Landon the honest answer is that Wik and Mabo (the High Court decisions that overturned Terra Nullius as a legal principle in Australian law) and the Native Title legislation only have extremely limited applicability and must compete with other claims. There's two separate issues here -- land claims, where aboriginal groups can apply to claim Crown Land which isn't otherwise owned. But they can only claim Crown land, which, for example, basically puts the entirity of my state off-limits because most of Western NSW that's otherwise un-owned is in the hands of the State Government. For some reason.

Then there's Native Title which is the principle that the Crown claimed the land under fulse pretenses in the first place, and doesn't have exclusive claim to it now. It basically means traditional ownership can/should co-exist with other property rights when there's a clear case for it. I don't think anyone is arguing for or expecting excluslve land ownership to be transferred back if there are competing interests. No-one's claiming mutual exclusivity here, but there needs to be more respect and recognition paid to the original people and their laws and stuff, which historically have just been completely brushed aside and ignored with disastrous consequences.

The other answer I'd give is that all the Aboriginal groups that lived in and around Sydney (and all the other major cities too, I believe) are basically wiped out so there's none that could prove ownership in this city. Indeed, the Native Title Tribunal claims that've been made around here have all been defeated. Even if they could, no court would grant the claiming of a private urban property because that ain't friggin Crown Land and Native Title is about common law recognising aboriginal land rights, not granting them absolute overriding authority.

The land rights issue basically revolves around large tracts of land in areas where there's still Indigenous groups living in numbers as the main inhabitants of that land... northern South Australia, northern and western Queensland, most of the Northern Territory and large parts of West Australia. The Mabo decision held that the Crown doesn't automatically have total sovereignty over land in this country that isn't otherwise owned, the Wik decision held that given this, the leases of pastoral leaseholders who held land for grazing didn't extinguish Native Title if an indigenous group could prove a connection to the area and so the grazers didn't have exclusive access to that land.

So the common sense answer is that I personally think Native Title needs to go further, as it stands to reason that people wanting to use land in a particular area should at least have to deal with and negotiate with local indigenous groups (like, for example, if mining companies had to do this and maybe even GASP pay them for using their land), but obviously this must coexist and compete with other claims in the context of modern Australia.

This hysterical mularky about ABORIGINALS GONNA TAKE YOUR HOME is absolute rubbish and it's held the process back. [url=http://www.warrensnowdon.com/speeches/020320.htm]Even Lord Vestey got to keep most of his cattle station.[/url]




Posted by Echo



lol do i win yet?




Posted by Arwon

If you can build it or buy it.




Posted by mis0

As far as Speeds and Billiards arguement goes, they should also consider, unless trained not to, people tend to fire off every round they have without even thinking about it, because they're terrified. I think either way your house is going to be Swiss-cheese.




Posted by Arwon

I suppose it can be argued that you're gonna be dealing with losses from property damage/theft either way, so really you get to choose whether it's patching up some drywall and maybe reinforcing some support beams, or replacing your stereo or whatever. I'm sure I could slip the phrase "opportunity cost" in here and not look out of place...




Posted by Speedfreak

[quote=Landon]Why bother with swords?

The fact is, you will never be able to own a firearm, so I guess you are making due with swords. It's unfortunate, but it's the situation you're in.

I live in a decent area, only break-ins I've ever heard of happen to old people or with no one in them at all.




Posted by Slade

I had one strange experience where the local police chief told my family to kill anyone who broke into our house, not just hurt them. Lately, injured 'attempted-robbers' have sued and won.

But yeah, all I own legally(I think) is a BB pistol. ...I shot myself in the leg once. There's this huge hunting rifle that I use about once a year, but I have no clue what make it is.




Posted by BEZ1

I want this gun!>>> http://www.uploadhut.com/upload/371084.wmv