THE DANGEROUS WEAPONS BILL - Do your bit!

I received an e-mail regarding te petition also this post here
http://www.gunsite.co.za/forums/show...LL-Do-your-bit!

I e-mailed this letter to Major General P C Jacobs - amongst others.

Quote:

---

SAPS
Attention:

Dear Sir/Madam
RE: RIGHTS OF SA CITIZENS
The high level and intensity of crime that citizens are being subjected to in South Africa refers. We are all aware of the unabated deaths of not only citizens but of police men and women on a daily occurrence. The police, who are also citizens, have been appointed with the provisions of the Law to Protect and Serve.
I grew up with a respect for any uniformed member of the armed services, who were respected for the very nature of their duty, which brings them into direct contact with the worst that crime has to offer.
Unfortunately the level of crime has escalated to a level where a handful of police can not be expected to contain or challange crime alone. If this was not the case then crime would be almost none existent – and South Africa would not be considered as one of the most dangerous countries with one of the highest crime rates in the world.
It is to this end that I wish to submit a reasoning that a by-law attempt to make citizens even more vulnerable and defenceless against criminals as well as make the police more susceptible to become victims as a small entity that has to face crime on it's own.
This by-law has also created a distance between citizens and the police by allowing the infringement of the public's rights as afforded by the Constitution, which has created another reason to distrust the intentions of police actions and their administration.
The specific Law I am referring to is the FCA Act 60 of 2000, which infringe / threaten the following Rights under the Constitution -
The “Right to Life” Chapter 2 Section 11
The inability of every law abiding citizen who chooses to, to obtain a firearm for self-defence within a reasonable period of time. A person obtains a firearm to defend himself, NOW – not months and years later since it may not matter any more by then.
Enforcing an expiry date on a license would imply that the individual’s 'Right to Life' also expires, which is ridiculous. Keep in mind that a firearm is internationally recognized as a suitable means of self-defence without which the 'Right to Life' cannot be protected. The expectancy is 'life long' and can not be limited by a license expiry date.
Expecting any individual to defend themself against criminals who are armed even with automatic assault rifles in some cases without a fire arm is ludicrous.
If the individual’s Right to Life, as the most basic right, is denied then they will ultimately not be bound by any other laws or rules.
Individuals will seek other means to defend themselves - even if it means illegal firearms – since failing to defend themselves could lead to their extinction.
If the individual's “Right to Life” is not recognised, how can it be expected of the individual not to resort to other illegal means of self defence, hence is forced to become a criminal in order to protect themself.
Right to “Property” Section 25
Depriving thousands of licensed firearm owners of their property and expecting them to accept this infringement.
If the right to property exists then the right to defend that property surely also exists, or this right would be meaningless.
The 'Right to Property' was never intended to be controlled or prescribed by the police. It is every individual's Right to decide which firearm and for what purpose he wants to obtain it, as it is with any other property the individual chooses to obtain.
Many more people are killed in vehicle accidents than with firearms, so how can a person have a drivers license but not aquire a firearm license. A firearm is a property like any other, and like many other properties requires a sense of responsibility.
The idea is to get rid of criminals and illegal firearms, so why beat the law abiding individual up who applies legally within his rights for a firearm license to obtain a firearm.
Right to “Privacy” Section 14
Announcing the ability to 'track and control' licensed firearms on TV by the police has breached the security and privacy of trusting citizens. There is however clearly no control over illegal firearms.
Apart from criminals not honouring the individual's privacy, it is made even worse if the police are now also allowed the right to demand the individual's firearm for what ever reason, seemingly on demand.
A police officer confiscating or taking a firearm without proper legal justification is in possession of an illegal firearm and it is also theft. A firearm is per se' a personal private possession and is not for exploitation at any police officer's will or private reasons.
Right to Just Administrative Action” Section 33
The delay in processing applications for months and years is unlawful and unconstitutional.
Considering that seemingly ~60% of rejected applications are overturned by the Appeal Board - this indicates wilful obstruction and/or incompetence by the police.
Rejecting applications on the grounds of “not supplying sufficient motivation of the need” is absurd and indicates a lack of understanding the criminal threat prevalent in SA. Perhaps explaining 'trying to stay alive when attacked' would clear the irrational 'motivation of need' up.
Rejecting applications on the grounds of “not supplying a reason for the specific firearm” makes no sense since the firearm has been legally imported for sale, as well as the individual's right to buy whichever firearm he wants for which ever reason he chooses. Self defence, sport shooting, hunting or collecting should be more than adequate.
Rejecting the application on the grounds of “not providing sufficient motivation of use” is absurd for the same reason as above.
The competency required is absurd since it will not prepare the average person for the possible situations they may encounter and has sadly become a money making racquet, especially since you will suddenly become incompetent overnight after exactly 5 years. It is the individual's own responsibility to achieve a level of competency and it is the individual's right to choose for how long he wants to own a firearm.
Varied validity dates of licenses for same firearms used for different purposes will render the individual unlicensed to use the firearm for self-defence (5 years) but licensed for occasional sport (10 years) ? Someone clearly did not put mind to matter here. A firearm license should be issued for life as stated before.
“Right to “Freedom and Security of the Person” Section 12
The wilful attack by criminals on any person infringes on this right since the defender has no choice but to react to the threat.
It further breaches security since criminals in police clothes impersonating police officers now have easy access to any individual's firearm(s). This may lead to either a threat to 'Right to Life' or 'Obstruction of the Law' in the case of a legit officer who is refused.
Inspection of an individual's safe makes the location of a safe and what type of safe and firearms kept in it common knowledge. If money is also kept in the safe it may further increase the risk. It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure they have a place of safekeeping for the firearm.
Rights pertaining to “Arrest, Detained or Accused” Section 35
“Innocent until Proven Guilty” should apply to all cases where self-defence has been necessary and not prosecution, detention and removal of property assumed as the standard procedure.
To confiscate the firearm, detain, and prosecute a defending individual, after being attacked without any choice, defeats the rights of the individual, as well as the purpose of defending him and his in the first place.
Right to “Human Dignity” Section 10
Arresting and detaining a person who defended themselves allows no dignity and is a humiliating experience. Keep in mind the defender has no choice but is forced into this situation.
It further questions the integrity of the police since the defender's property and family is now left in a situation where they have to face a challenging situation, consider the barriers broken, the property is now undefended and the wife and children also may have no way to defend themselves.
It is also humiliating if someone cannot attend work and has to explain to customers / employer why he/she is detained by the police, seems in some cases for unreasonable prolonged periods extending to even years.
“Interpretation of Bill of Rights” Section 39
No court, forum, individual may infringe / threaten these rights.
The Constitution clearly and cleverly allow no rights to a victim, which by implication means that the public is not supposed to become a victim under the Rights given to them – the right to defend your life, the right to defend your property etc.
If a sensible amendment wants to be considered it should be that a criminal waves his rights as he is wilfully and deliberately going to deprive another of their rights – be it theft to deliberately taking another's life, thus becoming a victim by his own actions. Consider that we have various restrictions in place to prevent access to property (walls, alarms, fences, dogs...) and it is unreasonable to expect the individual to expect a criminal NOT to have the worst of intentions as the criminal proceeds through the various barriers to gain access to property. Also consider that the criminals are usually not alone, gangs of up to fourteen or more, some of who are usually armed with firearms is not uncommon. Some of those that believe that criminals have no criminal intentions are dead already.
Personal property is often not considered serious, but take into consideration that if a person had to work for, in some instances, years to obtain that property, when it is stolen or destroyed, it is that many years that is destroyed of the person's life obtaining the property. I fail to see how a criminal with malicious intentions to life and property can claim any rights.
Conclusion
From the above it should be clear that the by-law is raping the public's rights, and is deviding the police and the public as opposition.
The public faces three Enemies
The criminals that are attacking the public's property and life and in the process become “victims with rights” after transgressing the laws and Rights of others.
The Police who are attempting to disarm and arrest the public that dare defend their life and property with a firearm. Instead of the police protecting the public's rights and supporting the public, they are infringing and threatening the public's rights.
The Justice System that fails to recognise the overwhelming threat that is being elevated against individuals who are acting within their rights and capabilities. The Justice system is supposed to protect the public's individual, their rights, and consider them as innocent until proven guilty and is not a tool to deliberately prosecute the individual.
The public is the country. Every citizen is charged with the responsibility to protect themselves and their property to ensure that an open and democratic society is maintained – If not, the public does not need any rights or laws at all. It is however expected of the public to function without any decisive or reasonable action or resources, as should be available from the Police and the Justice system.
It is thus no wonder that the public and police are not functioning as an integral unit in the fight against crime. It is also evident that the public will not trust an entity that does not act in it’s interest, with the apparent sole purpose of prosecuting them even if they act within their rights.
When the police start recognizing the rights of the public, whom they are a part of, and realise that the police's role is to support the public and protecting the public's rights THEN the fight against crime will become a coordinated effort and a true defence against criminal activities. The idea should be to ally the police and the public against crime, supported by the Law.
The Police are after all from the SOCIETY, paid by the SOCIETY to serve the SOCIETY and was never intended to become a threat to society.
Please get rid of the FCA Act 60 of 2000. It infringe on and threaten the public's rights under the Constitution as indicated above. The threat is not firearms, the threat is criminals.
Thank you for considering.
Regards
Fanie

---

---------- Post added at 23:16 ---------- Previous post was at 22:52 ----------

If the proper attention to the Constitutional Rights we have that was raped by the Act 60 of 2000 (FCA) were given the proper respect and protection, we would not be sitting with the 'DANGEROUS WEAPONS BILL' problems.

My advice to Major General P C Jacobs would be to go back and resolve the firearm act 60 of 2000 (FCA) and the rest will follow.

You cannot allow laws to be broken 'half-way' then think they won'd be broken all the way.



BTW, since I am the only unhappy person who waited 2 months for the police to submit my firearm application, and still waiting for my firearm licence I can now say I was informed today that they are first waiting for the competency that has to be approved (not sure why I got a certificate) and it will take another 4 to 5 months, after that my firearm license will be 'considered' and that will take anything from 3 months onward.

Not sure what the big whoo haa about the Dangerous Weapons Bill now suddenly is. We have been expected to survive without firearms for years despite the situation we are in. As a matter of fact I have a pile of 5000 bricks in my yard that are Dangerous Weapons, I just hope the visitors also regard them as 'dangerous'.

Ta

---------- Post added at 23:34 ---------- Previous post was at 23:16 ----------

I also got some statistics since last time I was crapped out about the conditions prior to 'the new improved government since 1994' to now.

Also JM openly announced on again on TV last week that 'the whites' killed thousands of them ( ignoring the declaration of war he made) and must pay.

In the 45 years of 'apartheid' it seems only about 2000 black people were killed by security forces, and another 20 000 black people were killed in inter-tribal wars which had nothing to do with white people.

This year's statistics that was released last week were 15940 murders for the year, so in four years it is more than 65 000 killings in South Africa - and this is in peacefull times. Perhaps 'apartheid' wasn't so fcuked up after all.

The four year long full scale vietnam war had 65 000 soldiers killed and missing in action.

And it takes months and years for us to obtain a firearm !

Fanie

"In the 45 years of 'apartheid' it seems only about 2000 black people were killed by security forces, and another 20 000 black people were killed in inter-tribal wars which had nothing to do with white people."

please supply veriable source of information .

thank you.

Wild wild statements,no facts.Fanie really dude

http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&sou...bgSmEg&cad=rja

I think Fanie is interpreting Max Coleman

Also he is only looking at 4 years out of the 19 year Vietnam war.

The only thing you proving is that you can prove anything with statistics

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/sou...N0QGPFJ9O3M667

Quote:

---

BY Vusile Tshabalala, journalist,(a black journalist)
August 2001-- At the start of the year 1900, the number of African South Africans was found to be 3,5-million according to the British colonial government census. By 1954, our African population had soared to 8,5-million -- and by 1990, there were a full 35-million of us -- all carefully managed, closely policed, counted, shunted around in homelands and townships -- and all of us chafing and griping under the suppressive yoke of the Afrikaner Broederbond's rigid racial segregation system.
During apartheid, our population grew apace however because we also had the benefit of the Broers' medical knowledge and their excellent agricultural skills.
Our population growth and our average life expectancy in fact showed us Africans in South Africa to be in better than average health when compared to other Africans on the rest of the continent: in the decades prior to the official policy of apartheid,(which was started in 1948), the average life expectancy of African South Africans was only 38 years.
However, during the last decade of the apartheid era from 1948 to 1994, our average life expectancy had risen to 64 years -- on a par with Europe's average life expectancy. Moreover, our infant death rates had by then also been reduced from 174 to 55 infant deaths per thousand, higher than Europe's, but considerably lower than the rest of the African continent's.
And the African population in South Africa had by then also increased by 50% percent.(source: "a crime against humanity: analysing repression of the Apartheid State", by Max Coleman of the Human Rights Committee).
Deaths due to political violence during apartheid:
Max Coleman's authoritative book analyses all deaths due to political violence from 1948 to 1994 in South Africa and Namibia.
According to the HRC statistics, 21,000 people died in political violence in South Africa during apartheid - of whom 14,000 people died during the six-year transition process from 1990 to 1994. The book lists the number of incidents, dates, and those involved.
This includes SA Defence Force actions, for instance the 600 deaths at Kassinga in Angola during the war in 1978.
Of those deaths, the vast majority, 92%, have been primarily due to Africans killing Africans -- such as the inter-tribal battles for territory: this book's detailed analyses of the period June 1990 to July 1993 indicates a total of 8580 (92%) of the 9,325 violent deaths during the period June 1990 to July 1993 were caused by Africans killing Africans, or as the news media often calls it, "Black on Black" violence - hostel killings, Inkatha Freedom Party versus ANC killlings, and taxi and turf war violence.
The activities of the Civil Cooperation Bureau as outlined by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, were also included in these figures.
The security forces caused 518 deaths (5.6%) throughout this period
And again, during the transitional period, the primary causes of deaths were not security forces nor white right-wing violence against blacks, but mainly due to "black-on-black necklace murders", tribal conflict between the ANC-IFP, bombs by the ANC and PAC's military wings in shopping centers, landmines on farm roads, etc.
After apartheid:
The present Aids-HIV epidemic -- against which the Mbeki-regime undertakes no action and still is publicly failing to properly acknowledge -- the World Health Organisation estimates that more than 6-million African South Africans will be dead within the forthcoming decade. And the Mbeki-led ANC regime, which could have undertaken a huge prevention campaign such as Uganda's a long time ago, has done nothing to stave off this terrible death rate.
SA hospitals "becoming places of death" -
In November last year it was being reported in The Star that South African hospitals are becoming places for dying -- instead of healing. In June this year, it was reported that our cemeteries were filling up so rapidly that upright funerals were being contemplated to save space. Still, Aids is not being spoken about at our funerals, and the silence and utterly unscientific public statements about HIV-Aids from Mbeki's continue unabated while our people are dying.
Democratic Alliance spokesman Jack Bloom warned late last year that the 20% rise in deaths over the past four years among patients treated at Johannesburg Hospital could only be blamed on the high crime rate and the very serious decline in patient care. Why is our patient care so poor now, and our crime rate so high? The answer is simple: our public funds are being looted by the ANC hierarchy. And the police seem helpless to stop it.
Tuberculosis funds looted:
On July 10, 2001, the SA health department announced that it was going to stop R6,6-million in annual funding to the SA National Tuberculosis Assocation because of the ongoing looting of its funds and the lavish lifestyles of its (African) executives, who award themselves R400,000 annual salaries and spend R5000 a month on cellphone calls alone... while millions of South African TB patients go untreated and are wasting away of a deadly, but curable disease.
During apartheid, please note that the SANTA executives were seen to be extremely frugal with the governments' funding -- that many thousands of patients were cured annually, and that many doctors and nurses even VOLUNTEERED their services free of charge.
The question is this: "why is this man still CEO of SANTA? Why has he not been fired on the spot?"
Violent deaths from 1994 to 2000:
And the SA Police reports this month -- access their website's statistics at http://www.saps.org.za -- that a total of 174,220 people died violent deaths, from crime-related violence, between 1994 and the year 2000.
So my question is this: "did apartheid ever kill as many Africans as are now being killed by the deliberate neglect and looting of our tax funds by the current, supposedly democratic Mbeki regime?"
joe is offline Reply With Quote

THE SOURCE:
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/321.htm

---

---------- Post added at 22:17 ---------- Previous post was at 22:03 ----------

Quote:

---

Wild wild statements,no facts.Fanie really dude

http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&sou...bgSmEg&cad=rja

---

Thanks for pointing that out DUDE, it's actually less per year than was killed in the full scale war in 10 years. Compare to how many got killed here in SA over the last 10 years. We must be in a full scale war here which makes Vietnam looks like a walk in the park (...that a total of 174,220 people died violent deaths, from crime-related violence, between 1994 and the year 2000 in SA) - only 6 years in 'piece' time.

Quote:

---

Between 1965 and 1975, the United States spent $111 billion on the war ($686 billion in FY2008 dollars).[280] This resulted in a large federal budget deficit.

More than 3 million Americans served in the Vietnam War, some 1.5 million of whom actually saw combat in Vietnam.[281] James E. Westheider wrote that "At the height of American involvement in 1968, for example, there were 543,000 American military personnel in Vietnam, but only 80,000 were considered combat troops."[282] Conscription in the United States had been controlled by the President since World War II, but ended in 1973."

By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed,[A 2] more than 150,000 were wounded, and at least 21,000 were permanently disabled.[283] According to Dale Kueter, "Sixty-one percent of those killed were age 21 or younger. Of those killed in combat, 86.3 percent were white, 12.5 percent were black and the remainder from other races."

---

---------- Post added at 22:24 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------

In case your math is up to also, after 1994, in 6 years of piece time in SA there were almost three times more people killed than in the whole full ten years of the full scale Vietnam war.

---------- Post added at 22:28 ---------- Previous post was at 22:24 ----------

And don't miss this part

Quote:

---

The security forces caused 518 deaths (5.6%) throughout this period

---

So next time JM comes on TV and announces the 'whites' killed thousands of them, you can tell him to go fcuk himself.

---------- Post added at 22:41 ---------- Previous post was at 22:28 ----------

Let me make your day even further. Here is how badly us 'racists' treated the poor blacks.

Quote:

---

What White Apartheid did for Blacks

Emeritus Arch Bishop of Cape Town is at it again and in the news for asking whites to pay a reparation tax or wealth tax because they all apparently benefitted from Apartheid.
Along came his cheerleading constitutional expert and praise singer Piere de Vos from UCT and said, “The problem is, of course, that some white people – out of shame or ignorance or maybe a bit of both – do not want to admit that white South Africans almost all benefited from apartheid vis-à-vis black South Africans.”
Almost All? Who were the ones that did not benefit? Again facts sucked out of each other’s thumbs.
As I have proved in Opening Pandora’s Apartheid Box…everyone in South Africa benefitted form Apartheid, Black and White. Blacks had the highest literary standards and the highest life standard of all the blacks in Africa.
Self hating liberal idiot, De Vos reckons, “If I had been born black and poor, I almost certainly would not have gone to University and I would almost certainly never have been a Law Professor at UCT (University of Cape Town), earning quite a nice salary, thank you.”
I love the way he chooses his words. “Almost All”…”Almost Certainly”…As always both De Vos and The Arch fails to explain how it was at all possible for Tutu to study and become a teacher just like his father was.
They also fail to explain how Nelson Mandela and countless other blacks managed to become lawyers during Apartheid South Africa a lawyer just like De Vos.
They further failed to explain how the Apartheid government built ten Universities for blacks including Medunsa which is a unique medical university that turned out 200 highly qualified black doctors every year all at state costs, paid for by the white taxpayers. It also trained paramedics and nurses.
Since 1970 the budget for black education was raised by about 30% per year every year. More than any other government department.
In the period 1955 -1984 the amount of black school students increased 31 times from 35,000 to 1,096 000.
65% of black South African children were at school compared to Egypt 64%, Nigeria 57%, Ghana52%, Tanzania50% and Ethiopia 29%.
Amongst the adults of South Africa, 71% could read and write (80% between the ages 12 and 22). Compare this to Kenya 47%, Egypt 38%, Nigeria 34% and Mozambique at 26%.
In South Africa, the whites built 15 new classrooms for blacks every working day, every year. At 40 children per class it meant space for an additional 600 black students every day!!!
In 1985 there were 42,000 Blacks at 5 universities in South Africa, about the same amount at the universities of the homelands.
In an article called “Die Afrikaner” 11 Feb 1987, the quarterly magazine called “Vox Africana Nr 29 4/87 stated that,

South Africa had 4,8 million whites and 18,2 million blacks in 1987. The whites paid 77% of the taxes and the blacks only 15%...despite this...56% of the government budget was spent on blacks.

During the time of Dr. Verwoerd. the living standards of Blacks were rising at 5,4% per year against that of the whites at 3,9% per year. In 1965 the economic growth of South Africa was the second highest in the world at 7,9%. The rate of inflation was a mere 2% per annum and the prime interest rate only 3% per annum. Domestic savings were so great that South Africa needed no foreign loans for normal economic expansion.
Even Lord Deedes admitted, “White South Africa grew to become the economic giant of the continent, the other members of the Commonwealth virtually sank into poverty.”

At the hight of Apartheid in 1978 Soweto had 115 football fields, 3 Rugby fields, 4 athletic tracks, 11 Cricket fields, 2 Golf courses, 47 Tennis courts, 7 swimming pools built to Olympic standards, 5 Bowling alleys, 81 Netball fields, 39 children play parks, and countless civic halls, movie houses and clubhouses.

In addition to this, Soweto had 300 churches, 365 schools, 2 Technical Colleges, 8 clinics, 63 child day care centres, 11 Post Offices, and its own fruit and vegetable market.

There were 2300 registered companies that belonged to black businessmen, about 1000 private taxi companies. 3% of the 50,000 vehicle owners in 1978 were Mercedes Benz owners. Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time.

Today Soweto has modern shopping malls like, Dobsonville Shopping Centre. In 2005 the Protea Gardens Mall opened. This was followed by the Baramall Shopping Centre and the Jabulani Shopping complex and the Maponya Mall. Experts say that Soweto has as much as 25% oversupply of retail space.

The Canadian Medical Doctor, Dr Kenneth Walker wrote about Soweto, (I freely translate from “Verrat an Südafrika”, Klaus Vaque, 1987,pg 41)

“In Soweto I saw many homes that costs about $100,000 (1978) and that had a BMW in the driveway. All houses are single storey. Many are recently painted. Many had flowerpots in the windows and lawn in the front. Only 2% were shacks. If I had the choice to live in Soweto or in the apartment dwellings or “Projects” of New York, Chicago, or Detroit where there is so much crime, then I would not hesitate for one moment and choose Soweto.”

The biggest hospital in the world, Baragwanath with 3200 beds and at its peak almost 8000 staff had 23 operation theatres fitted out with the most modern medical equipment that existed in the world. Blacks were treated here, operated on...at full state costs to the white-taxpayers for unlimited periods. The budget of this hospital was and is higher than the yearly budget of most small member states of the United Nations.

Next door to Baragwanath is the St. John’s Eye Clinic. The clinic is world famous for the treatment of Glaucoma, Cataracts, traumatic eye injuries and rare tropical diseases. All built and maintained by white taxpayer’s money for blacks.

Baragwanath in 1978 employed 450 medical doctors in full-time service. It treated 112 000 in-patients and 1.62 million out-patients per year. The children and infant death rate with 34.8 per 1000 was lower than Harlem in New York.

In 1982 alone, this hospital performed 898 heart operations of world quality.
Ironically...90% of the blood donors for this hospital were whites, who donated blood free of charge, totally voluntarily...to save black lives. (Quoted from The Citizen, 2 April 1987).

Whites have already given blacks their blood. What more do they want?

De Vos calls for a “ones off reconstruction tax”….did he forget that 20,000 “Victims of Apartheid” were compensated R30,000 each back in the days of the TRC?
Personally I think that Prof Pierre De Vos and Bishop Tutu should go get an education about the truth about Apartheid. They can start by reading my Pandora Series.
Whites have given blacks the entire country for free. In tact. There is nothing more to give. Today blacks are destroying all the infrastructure that we paid for and built. Then still has the audacity to tell whites they should leave.
What I want to know is who are going to compensate whites for all the schools, hospitals, dams, airports, harbours, railroads, etc that they have built? It is high time for blacks to start paying whites. Nothing is for free.
Bishop Tutu and De Vos can start by selling their mansions and BMW’s and give it to the poor white fund of Solidarity “Helpende Hand”.

http://praag.co.uk/columns/mike-smit...th-africa.html

---

Dont you now feel better backing up your statements with some facts?Did that not help you illustrate your points more clearly/rationally?If you apply this everytime instead of just mouthing off/ranting,less people will be irritated/alienated,and more people will actually hear your message....

Some advice:you will find usefull to let go of this anger/hatred/chip on your shoulder/etc that you are projecting here,you are alienating potential friends/allies to your cause.

If you think I've got no right to critizise,let me tell you that myself,and quite a few others here,if not directly involved,also have family members living on farms who have been
robbed,raped,brutalised,etc.

The only reason I posted this is because I was accused of being a racist and I live back in the old bad apartheid days... It seems the moment some finds out I'm Afrikaans I get placed into this 'apartheid / racist' box by people who has never done anything to find the real truth, and I'm really tired of that.

There is only two things the Boere and Afrikaners did wrong in the past and that was they read the Bible too much and should have done what the Americans did.

I see there are no Afrikaans threads on the forum. Are you guys still living back in the old Brittish colonial days where Afrikaans was banned ?

Fanie, dit was heeltemal onnodig om die bybel by die bespreking in te trek.

Fanie you will cease and desist all talk of race and related topics on this site from now on. Your rants are not in fitting with the core values of Gunsite. IMO you are attempting to push an agenda which will not be pushed on this site.

There may be places where that is welcome I truley couldn't care. It will not happen on this site.

This is not a topic for discussion. There will be no bitching or whinging about it. You are welcome to talk guns on this site. But you are banned from politics. We will not have people pushing an us and them mentality here.

An op-ed and some Christian site or other for verifiable stats? Afrikaans threads even when it is plainly stated this is an English language website? That is just pathetic, Fanie. And as bad as the ANC is and has been, the fact is that under the Nats you would be waiting for a knock on your door in the middle of the night now if you had posted such in favour of the ANC back then, and you know it.

Go somewhere else to spread your hate.