> repsonse to your statement that you would not turn in your
 > weapons if ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the law were
 > changed.

 NP> A statement I did not make!

  Then what the hell were you talking about?

 > It *has* been changed.

 NP> In Tasmania it has. Not nationally as yet

  And NSW... the rest of Australia is just the rest of NSW.

 NP> Do _you_know_ what types of weapons the tasmanian Government
 NP> has banned ? 

  Yes.

 > What comes next is gaol. Say hello to Bryant for me.
 NP> Still got your mind made up that I am criminal I see.

  You stated that you would not hand in your weapons if they changed
the law. If that were so (and you say you don't have an SLR anyway),
then if follows that you would become a criminal. What comes next is
gaol. As I said. Can't you follow simple English? Or simple logic?

 NP> It is the INCORRECT statements made by YOU based on what you
 NP> _think_ I own in the way of firearms, and how I would act in a
 NP> given situation.

  I only know what I read in AVT. If you don't want me to think that
you won't hand in your weapons, don't say that you won't hand in your
wapons. You're not the only one, btw. Half the gun lobby has said it 
live on National TV. Dickheads, all.

 NP> Check my original message and you will see that I was asking
 NP> you a question as to what you thought the public reaction would
 NP> be to a given scenario. 

  Hit me but don't shit me, Niels. Be sincere in your belief and stick
yo it - or change, I don't care - but don't weasel out of it by saying
you didn't mean it anyway.

Regards,
Bob
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---