Comments on: Firearm Amnesty, GunSite™ South Africa’s interpretation http://www.gunsite.co.za/content/news/firearm-amnesty-gunsite-south-africas-interpretation/ South Africa’s Firearm, Tactical & Hunting Discussion Forums. Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:28:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Peter http://www.gunsite.co.za/content/news/firearm-amnesty-gunsite-south-africas-interpretation/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Peter Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:03:39 +0000 http://www.gunsite.co.za/content/?p=333#comment-12 I like the use of pacifism to label those who would do others harm to appease their own moral conscious. However always remember that when pointing a finger at least three point back. Those that accept in silence and do not object are indeed pacifists because this is the same doctrine they follow. Silence is agreement and there is no other interpretation. I like the use of pacifism to label those who would do others harm to appease their own moral conscious.

However always remember that when pointing a finger at least three point back.

Those that accept in silence and do not object are indeed pacifists because this is the same doctrine they follow. Silence is agreement and there is no other interpretation.

]]> By: Bennet Massyn http://www.gunsite.co.za/content/news/firearm-amnesty-gunsite-south-africas-interpretation/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Bennet Massyn Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:51:03 +0000 http://www.gunsite.co.za/content/?p=333#comment-11 I am already a responsible firearm owner. The fact that they, the government and gun free liberals are infringing on my right to protect my constitutional right to life is already enough to bear. There is no need for us to support a gun amnesty as it is not applicable on law abiding citizens, Gun amnesties are between criminals and the Government. They should leave us, the law abiding gun owners alone and concentrate on criminals instead. GFSA has nothing better to do in life than infringing on law abiding citizens' constitutional rights. GFSA should be banned, not law abiding gun ownership. This is not Stalin country, and we must keep on fighting to keep it Stalin free! The problem with GFSA and gun free liberals is the following and I quote from the Martialist Phil Elmore: What is Pacifism? Pacifism is the doctrine of non-violence. It is the philosophy that the use of force is always wrong. It is the credo that one may not hurt or kill another human being even when that person uses physical violence against you or those you love. Pacifists may engage in "nonviolent" resistance -- that is to say, they may actively resist even though they will not use what we would normally consider force -- but they will not fight. A pacifist would attempt to place himself between his wife and his wife's would-be rapist, giving his life to "protect" her, but he would not actually hurt or kill the rapist. The logical outcome of this scenario is a dead husband and a violated wife (as well as an unbroken chain of violated women in the future). A group of pacifists might gather together to stand before an advancing army and throw their bodies under the treads and wheels of the invaders' war machines, but they would not actually try to kill any of the invaders. The logical outcome of this scenario is a pile of dead pacifists and a sacked city (as well as an unbroken chain of sacked cities in the future). False Moral Equivalency The fundamental flaw of pacifism is that of false moral equivalency. There is a difference between initiated and retaliatory force. If you do not make this distinction -- if you do not see the difference between attacking someone and defending against that attack -- you are, in effect, declaring both attacker and defender to be morally equal. You are saying that there is no difference between the rapist and the raped, the mugger and the mugged, the murderer and the murdered. You are saying that there is no moral difference between the September 11th hijackers and those they slashed to death, no difference between Osama bin Laden and those condemned to be torn and blown to pieces in fiery collisions.It is very easy to play the part of nihilist, of relativist, wandering in the forest of affected profundity, wondering aloud if a distinction between initiated and retaliatory force can really be made. Anyone actually applying philosophy to life in a practical manner will immediately perceive the difference. Our first social interactions with other children are marked by the distinction, something as simple as understanding who "started it" when two individuals come into conflict. If we have a verbal disagreement and I strike you, I have initiated force. If we have a verbal disagreement and you tell me you are going to strike me as you take a step toward me and cock your arm, I am using retaliatory force when I strike you before you can complete your attack. All conflicts in life are permutations of these simple examples. While the complexity of these interactions on a national level can make moral judgment much more difficult, it does not make necessary judgment impossible. I am already a responsible firearm owner. The fact that they, the government and gun free liberals are infringing on my right to protect my constitutional right to life is already enough to bear.
There is no need for us to support a gun amnesty as it is not applicable on law abiding citizens, Gun amnesties are between criminals and the Government.
They should leave us, the law abiding gun owners alone and concentrate on criminals instead. GFSA has nothing better to do in life than infringing on law abiding citizens’ constitutional rights. GFSA should be banned, not law abiding gun ownership. This is not Stalin country, and we must keep on fighting to keep it Stalin free!
The problem with GFSA and gun free liberals is the following and I quote from the Martialist Phil Elmore:
What is Pacifism?
Pacifism is the doctrine of non-violence. It is the philosophy that the use of force is always wrong. It is the credo that one may not hurt or kill another human being even when that person uses physical violence against you or those you love. Pacifists may engage in “nonviolent” resistance — that is to say, they may actively resist even though they will not use what we would normally consider force — but they will not fight. A pacifist would attempt to place himself between his wife and his wife’s would-be rapist, giving his life to “protect” her, but he would not actually hurt or kill the rapist. The logical outcome of this scenario is a dead husband and a violated wife (as well as an unbroken chain of violated women in the future). A group of pacifists might gather together to stand before an advancing army and throw their bodies under the treads and wheels of the invaders’ war machines, but they would not actually try to kill any of the invaders. The logical outcome of this scenario is a pile of dead pacifists and a sacked city (as well as an unbroken chain of sacked cities in the future).
False Moral Equivalency
The fundamental flaw of pacifism is that of false moral equivalency. There is a difference between initiated and retaliatory force. If you do not make this distinction — if you do not see the difference between attacking someone and defending against that attack — you are, in effect, declaring both attacker and defender to be morally equal. You are saying that there is no difference between the rapist and the raped, the mugger and the mugged, the murderer and the murdered. You are saying that there is no moral difference between the September 11th hijackers and those they slashed to death, no difference between Osama bin Laden and those condemned to be torn and blown to pieces in fiery collisions.It is very easy to play the part of nihilist, of relativist, wandering in the forest of affected profundity, wondering aloud if a distinction between initiated and retaliatory force can really be made. Anyone actually applying philosophy to life in a practical manner will immediately perceive the difference. Our first social interactions with other children are marked by the distinction, something as simple as understanding who “started it” when two individuals come into conflict. If we have a verbal disagreement and I strike you, I have initiated force. If we have a verbal disagreement and you tell me you are going to strike me as you take a step toward me and cock your arm, I am using retaliatory force when I strike you before you can complete your attack. All conflicts in life are permutations of these simple examples. While the complexity of these interactions on a national level can make moral judgment much more difficult, it does not make necessary judgment impossible.

]]> By: Paul http://www.gunsite.co.za/content/news/firearm-amnesty-gunsite-south-africas-interpretation/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Paul Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:02:07 +0000 http://www.gunsite.co.za/content/?p=333#comment-10 "It’s our opinion, subsequent to the JASA case, that compensation is payable on request for all licensed guns surrendered to SAPS." It's more than an opinion! It's the uncontested and uncontestable judgement of the Cape High Court! In this case the State conceded all JASA/GOSA's points. In other words they admitted that they had been wrong all along, but requested that Acting Judge President Traverso please not rule them to have acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally. Justice Traverso was NOT feeling charitable and gave the State both barrels! She ruled that the State had acted both unlawfully AND unconstitutionally. This judgement can NEVER be appealed. It is part of the edifice of South African law forever. The Police Minister and the National Commissioner, by denying this, are perpetrating a fraud on the Sourth African public. “It’s our opinion, subsequent to the JASA case, that compensation is payable on request for all licensed guns surrendered to SAPS.”

It’s more than an opinion!

It’s the uncontested and uncontestable judgement of the Cape High Court!

In this case the State conceded all JASA/GOSA’s points. In other words they admitted that they had been wrong all along, but requested that Acting Judge President Traverso please not rule them to have acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally. Justice Traverso was NOT feeling charitable and gave the State both barrels!

She ruled that the State had acted both unlawfully AND unconstitutionally.

This judgement can NEVER be appealed. It is part of the edifice of South African law forever. The Police Minister and the National Commissioner, by denying this, are perpetrating a fraud on the Sourth African public.

]]>