Bolt-action rifle ordered turned in by Australian officials as it’s too ‘assaulty’ (VIDEO)

[Lutherf]

Bolt-action rifle ordered turned in by Australian officals as it's too 'assaulty' (VIDEO)

The Riverman Gun Works’ OAF series rifles are made in Idaho and about 100 or so (numbers vary) have been imported into Australia. Now, as reported by News 7 Brisbane, although a straight-pull bolt action, the gun is now outlawed and officials want them turned over to Border Force.

This is what those of us opposed to "common sense" gun laws ae concerned with. The letter quite literally reclassifies the weapon based on nothing more than appearance. There's nothing "common sense" about that.

The letter explaining the reclassification is here - http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Riverman-OAF-ABF.pdf

 

[cuban smokes]

absolutely asinine doesn't even come close here .............

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Death by a thousand cuts, also the Democrats vision for America.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Bolt-action rifle ordered turned in by Australian officals as it's too 'assaulty' (VIDEO)



This is what those of us opposed to "common sense" gun laws ae concerned with. The letter quite literally reclassifies the weapon based on nothing more than appearance. There's nothing "common sense" about that.

The letter explaining the reclassification is here - http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Riverman-OAF-ABF.pdf

You posted a friggen youtube clip posted by a website called "guns.com" and you are trying to pretend that's what liberals mean with common sense

The dishonesty from people like you is unreal. If you can't argue with facts, logic and reasoning, things people are actually arguing, you shouldn't be posting on a forum, as it is clear you have no argument to what people are actually arguing for

 

[trixare4kids]

You posted a friggen youtube clip posted by a website called "guns.com" and you are trying to pretend that's what liberals mean with common sense

The dishonesty from people like you is unreal. If you can't argue with facts, logic and reasoning, things people are actually arguing, you shouldn't be posting on a forum, as it is clear you have no argument to what people are actually arguing for

But some from the left do want guns banned/confiscated based on how scary looking they are.

The truth is that there is no classification known as assault weapons, hence ridiculous to ban a gun because it looks "assaulty". Banning firearms because of their cosmetic features is misguided.
Not saying you would do this or all liberals believe this but there are some gun-grabbers who want nothing more than to ban guns on their appearance.

 

[Lutherf]

You posted a friggen youtube clip posted by a website called "guns.com" and you are trying to pretend that's what liberals mean with common sense

The dishonesty from people like you is unreal. If you can't argue with facts, logic and reasoning, things people are actually arguing, you shouldn't be posting on a forum, as it is clear you have no argument to what people are actually arguing for

Dishonesty? Look, if you want to make this personal then that's up to you but the fact of the matter is that current legislation in this country proposes to ban certain firearms based on cosmetic features, just like this Australia rule does. Flash suppressors, pistol grips, telescoping stocks and barrel shrouds have nothing to do a weapon's performance but past, present and pending legislation in this country bans or seeks to ban firearms based, at least in part, on exactly these features.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

 

[Moot]

Bolt-action rifle ordered turned in by Australian officals as it's too 'assaulty' (VIDEO)



This is what those of us opposed to "common sense" gun laws ae concerned with. The letter quite literally reclassifies the weapon based on nothing more than appearance. There's nothing "common sense" about that.

The letter explaining the reclassification is here - http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Riverman-OAF-ABF.pdf

Somehow I don't think the victims care.

 

[Moot]

Dishonesty? Look, if you want to make this personal then that's up to you but the fact of the matter is that current legislation in this country proposes to ban certain firearms based on cosmetic features, just like this Australia rule does. Flash suppressors, pistol grips, telescoping stocks and barrel shrouds have nothing to do a weapon's performance but past, present and pending legislation in this country bans or seeks to ban firearms based, at least in part, on exactly these features.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

Could a cop or a victim tell the difference between a military assault rifle and one that just looks like one from a hundred feet away?

 

[Sampson Simpson]

But some from the left do want guns banned/confiscated based on how scary looking they are.

The truth is that there is no classification known as assault weapons, hence ridiculous to ban a gun because it looks "assaulty". Banning firearms because of their cosmetic features is misguided.
Not saying you would do this or all liberals believe this but there are some gun-grabbers who want nothing more than to ban guns on their appearance.

I'm saying this OP is complete BS. First off, its Australia so has nothing to do with here and its a stupid youtube clip. Secondly, it wouldn't be common sense coming from an extremist person. This is the typical dishonesty that comes from conservatives, they make up this fictitious "liberal" or point to some wacko and then argue against that and try to claim that's actually what the majority of liberals believe. It's such dishonest nonsense, and its done because they can't actually argue a liberals position on the merits.

Deflections and strawmen, over and over again

Dishonesty? Look, if you want to make this personal then that's up to you but the fact of the matter is that current legislation in this country proposes to ban certain firearms based on cosmetic features, just like this Australia rule does. Flash suppressors, pistol grips, telescoping stocks and barrel shrouds have nothing to do a weapon's performance but past, present and pending legislation in this country bans or seeks to ban firearms based, at least in part, on exactly these features.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

And deflection, of course, wouldn't expect anything less. Nothing to refute my claim.

Personal? I talked specifically about your post, and it was dishonest. I pointed out why, and you can't refute it. Australia has nothing to do with liberals in the US and what they believe are common sense gun laws. Jesus christ, why does that even need to be explained?

 

[notquiteright]

Death by a thousand cuts, also the Democrats vision for America.

Oh how the rabid right loves to twist n shout.... :roll:

First this happened in AUSTRALIA, not the USofA... we have a 2nd amendment, they don't, the 'slap action' AR derivative has been around for at least 15 years and most of you 'gun' rubbers knew not a damn thing about it...

Now having spent a little time on a slap action, I'd opine the term bolt action can cover a wide variety of weapons as they all have bolts. Slap actions are hybrids- far faster and easier to operate than the more traditional turn bolt or straight pull rifles. (Calling it a straight pull or bolt action is a bit incorrect)

I do have to laugh at the rabid 'gun' rubber right which is highly selective of what examples they drag in from over seas, you cry- damn you all for trying to claim European healthcare is 'better' than ours- we ain't Old Europe- when it suits you...

So we ain't like any other form of democracy that lacks a 2nd Amendment to the Constitution that protects the right to bear arms...

If you were to be just a little bit truthful you'd admit it is only a very small radical part of the left that has a thousand cut agenda, just like I'll admit not every rightie wants to disenfranchise gays and tell every woman what she can do with her body... eace

 

[Lutherf]

Could a cop or a victim tell the difference between a military assault rifle and one that just looks like one from a hundred feet away?

What difference does that make? There are several cases where a cop or a "victim" thought a cell phone was a gun. There have been umbrellas reported as rifles. Some schools found chewed bread or a piece of cardboard to look like a dangerous weapon. TSA has confiscated jewelry that they figure looks like a gun.

Just because someone feels the need to **** themselves over the mere though of a firearm does not make firearms dangerous.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Could a cop or a victim tell the difference between a military assault rifle and one that just looks like one from a hundred feet away?

Why would someone simply having a (scary looking?) rifle 100 feet away from you pose a threat? "OMG, that guy over there has a scary looking rifle so he should be shot" is not exactly common sense gun control.

 

[trixare4kids]

I'm saying this OP is complete BS. First off, its Australia so has nothing to do with here and its a stupid youtube clip. Secondly, it wouldn't be common sense coming from an extremist person. This is the typical dishonesty that comes from conservatives, they make up this fictitious "liberal" or point to some wacko and then argue against that and try to claim that's actually what the majority of liberals believe. It's such dishonest nonsense, and its done because they can't actually argue a liberals position on the merits.

Deflections and strawmen, over and over again





And deflection, of course, wouldn't expect anything less. Nothing to refute my claim.

Personal? I talked specifically about your post, and it was dishonest. I pointed out why, and you can't refute it. Australia has nothing to do with liberals in the US and what they believe are common sense gun laws. Jesus christ, why does that even need to be explained?

Are you saying that there is not a movement in this country launched by the left to get "assaulty type weapons" banned? Because if you are, you're wrong.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Somehow I don't think the victims care.

Hmm... what gun cannot be abused to make someone become a victim?

It is precisely statements (arguments?) like yours that make folks sure that a gun ban is the ultimate goal and that calls for "reasonable restrictions" are simply to establish precedent for ever more "reasonable restrictions".

 

[ttwtt78640]

You posted a friggen youtube clip posted by a website called "guns.com" and you are trying to pretend that's what liberals mean with common sense

The dishonesty from people like you is unreal. If you can't argue with facts, logic and reasoning, things people are actually arguing, you shouldn't be posting on a forum, as it is clear you have no argument to what people are actually arguing for

Nope, the video clip was from a news station accurately reporting the nonsense of a policy having taxpayers buy back scary looking guns from folks that legally purchased them for lawful purposes. The dishonesty is all on your part.

 

[Moot]

What difference does that make? There are several cases where a cop or a "victim" thought a cell phone was a gun. There have been umbrellas reported as rifles. Some schools found chewed bread or a piece of cardboard to look like a dangerous weapon. TSA has confiscated jewelry that they figure looks like a gun.

Just because someone feels the need to **** themselves over the mere though of a firearm does not make firearms dangerous.

So a cop or the victim should just know that a gun that looks like a military assault rifle, really isn't one?

That you think firearms aren't dangerous is very telling. I think you just shot a big hole in your argument.

 

[Moot]

Hmm... what gun cannot be abused to make someone become a victim?

It is precisely statements (arguments?) like yours that make folks sure that a gun ban is the ultimate goal and that calls for "reasonable restrictions" are simply to establish precedent for ever more "reasonable restrictions".

Guns aren't toys...but you seem to think they are and that's where your argument fails.

 

[Lutherf]

So a cop or the victim should just know that a gun that looks like a military assault rifle, really isn't one?

That you think firearms aren't dangerous is very telling. I think you just shot a big hole in your argument.

I know this is a difficult concept for some people but the gun by itself is not a threat. What the person with the gun is doing, however, would be the determining factor in whether a threat existed or not. Even the type of gun isn't particularly important, though carrying certain guns in certain areas or in a certain manner might warrant a second look. For example, the idiot in Phoenix who decided to exercise his right to open carry an AR in Sky Harbor airport probably raised an eyebrow or two and rightly so. That being said, as long as he kept it shoulder slung he really wasn't a threat.

 

[Moot]

Why would someone simply having a (scary looking?) rifle 100 feet away from you pose a threat? "OMG, that guy over there has a scary looking rifle so he should be shot" is not exactly common sense gun control.

Keep your guns at home for self defense...but guns have no business being in public. So yeah, that guy over there with a scary looking rifle should be taken off our streets.

 

[Moot]

I know this is a difficult concept for some people but the gun by itself is not a threat. What the person with the gun is doing, however, would be the determining factor in whether a threat existed or not. Even the type of gun isn't particularly important, though carrying certain guns in certain areas or in a certain manner might warrant a second look. For example, the idiot in Phoenix who decided to exercise his right to open carry an AR in Sky Harbor airport probably raised an eyebrow or two and rightly so. That being said, as long as he kept it shoulder slung he really wasn't a threat.

I disagree...the idiot in Phoenix was a threat.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Guns aren't toys...but you seem to think they are and that's where your argument fails.

Of course, guns are not toys and I have never made a claim otherwise. I stated a fact - that all guns can be abused to claim victims. That has nothing to do with guns being toys. Your position was that a gun which could be abused to claim a victim should be banned. That is, to say the least, an extremist position and, obviously, in conflict with the 2A. Either debate honestly or stop replying to my posts..

 

[KevinKohler]

So a cop or the victim should just know that a gun that looks like a military assault rifle, really isn't one?

That you think firearms aren't dangerous is very telling. I think you just shot a big hole in your argument.

So, your solution is to restrict anything that LOOKS dangerous, lol?

 

[KevinKohler]

I disagree...the idiot in Phoenix was a threat.

That's not a disagreement, it's an agreement.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So, your solution is to restrict anything that LOOKS dangerous, lol?

Obviously, it is the look of a gun that poses the threat (of immediate pants wetting?).

 

[Maccabee]

You posted a friggen youtube clip posted by a website called "guns.com" and you are trying to pretend that's what liberals mean with common sense

The dishonesty from people like you is unreal. If you can't argue with facts, logic and reasoning, things people are actually arguing, you shouldn't be posting on a forum, as it is clear you have no argument to what people are actually arguing for

So factually soeaking is the video correct? Is Australia banning guns simply on appearance?