From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Take a look at http://www.kleasen.org.uk
>
>Now, I see that a gun club eventually shopped this guy. Good for them.
>Yes, it was outrageous that the Police gave him a certificate. No excuses
>there at all. Total incompetence.
>However, some of the contributors here would consider that it was quite OK
>for him to have firearms.
>In particular, Peter Jackson seems to advocate freely available firearms,
>which would mean that Monsieur Kleasen would be entitled to possess anything
>he wants.
>I would be interested in the views of the panel on this charmer.
>He has, I believe, now been deported back to the country of his birth. I
>wonder if he is entitled to possess firearms back there? Anyone enlighten me
>on that one? So many people like to use the American comparison, it would be
>interesting to know how they would treat this socially inadequate perverted
>murderer.
>IG
Steve, & IG,
Minus Steve's remarks, allow me the following.
The website ref'd above has some interesting things to say.
From what I can determine -- through the 'journalistic fog' that
passes as press, it seems that Kleason is some kind of psychotic personality.
Okay, you scored one, IG. But I'll tell you this: I have to wonder why
it took so bloody long for the various clubs to oust him. Here in the US, in
the several loose associations that refer to themselves as 'clubs',
all it would
have taken is one such threat, and the man would have been history to the
group. We don't take threats lightly -- especially where firearms are
concerned.
And -- a very BIG 'and' at that -- how did <that one> manage to get any
kind of license under your fool proof system? I mean, if as you say that _you_
can detect the bad apples, what was the excuse that time? Sloppy research?
Do you guy's let just any moron into your nation? And then have the
unmitigated temerity to complain about it?!!
Now, in the matter Barton MP Shona McIsaac, I have to say that she
is an alarmist, mentioning as she does "Dunblane and Hungerford" as reasons
to act like some fluttering ninny when one loose marble is found
rolling around.
Seems to me that she's a likely a case for a close look.
Mind if I ask why a crime camera hasn't been placed appropriately
close to her residence?
Let's look carefully at your proposition that an armed society would be
a dangerous society. I recall that the US was just that at one time, and it was
even safer then, than now with the multiple layers of cop, super-cop,
ultra-cop,
mega-cop (and god knows what other kind of hyphen cop).
Imagine that! A country without any firearms laws, and no cops but the
county sheriff and his entourage. The US was a pretty peaceful place, until the
dullards back east decided it would be a good idea to imitate the Europeans and
the Hessian ideal.
Why is it, do you suppose, that bad ideas catch on faster than really
good ideas?
It wasn't until the early 1900's that firearms laws started
to cause all
manner of problems. Well, actually, as I think about it, it was in
the mid to late
1800's with all manner of 'Black Laws' abounding to oppress the
slaves and freed
slaves.
But that's another story, although it is most definitely
corollary, since
the only people who had trouble with those laws were the one's who were HIGHLY
REGULATED under them. Sound familiar?
Without the law, there was no problem; whereas with the laws there
arose a problem. An armed society is most definitely a polite society.
And, a community of few laws is one where there are the least number
of law breakers. I wonder why that is?
--
Pointing out nutcases who have gotten licenses just underlines what
a fallacy the licensing system is, IMO. Doesn't support the argument
of regulation one jot.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
