Nuwe wysigings Vuurwapen wet - Voorstelle

[jaracal]

Eerstens wil ek sê dat ek graag 'n dokument wil saamstel wat uit Jaracal geledere kom met weldeurdagte voorstelle.
Hierdie moet nie 'n galbraak sessie wees nie maar wel goeie voorstelle.
Doen die moeite en lees die stukke deur. Doen navorsing en bring jouself op hoogte.
Die 5_SEIAS_Report bevat bv die volgende stelling:
In 2012, research by the Medical Research Council (MRC) of South Africa claims that 57% of women killed in South Africa are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends and that licenced firearms are used in 75% of cases where a firearm is used.

Ek is nog opsoek na daardie "Research" maar het 'n soortgelyke studie gevind wat die volgende bevat:

07-043786-F1.jpg

Verder bevat dit die volgende:
" The greater proportion of perpetrators employed in the police, army or private security industry reflects the easier access to guns in these professions. "
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/7/07-043786/en/
Bulletin of the World Health OrganizationPast issuesVolume 86: 2008Volume 86, Number 7, July 2008, 497-576
Ek dink sulke data kan ons tot voordeel wees.

Hiermee die dokumente wat afgelaai kan word om jouself op hoogte te bring:
Publisering van die "notice" en watter veranderinge voorgestel word:
http://www.policesecretariat.gov.za/dow ... A_BILL.pdf
Ek het op hierdie afgekom as die rede vir die voorgestelde verandering op die wet:
http://www.policesecretariat.gov.za/dow ... B_COMM.pdf
Hier is die voorgestelde veranderinge:
http://www.policesecretariat.gov.za/dow ... C_Bill.pdf
Heinrich

[jaracal]

FAC_Bill Comments:
RE: Proposed amendments to the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000

Dear Sirs
I read “The Initial Impact Assessment: Firearms Control Amendment Bill” on which the current proposals are based which aims to ensure that the policy is on the right track ..... It should help drafters avoid finalising an inappropriate solution because they moved too quickly to select a strategy without adequately analysing the roots of the problem and considering alternative measures....” a statement I applaud and support wholeheartedly.
The Problem is the defined as “The proliferation of firearms creates a serious social problem in South Africa”, with several serious crime statistics being quoted with the following conclusion, “This could possibly indicate the greater availability of firearms.”... “On p334 of the National Development Plan 2030 it is stated that access to firearms is one of the contributing factors to violence and injury and it falls under Health Goal 5 to reduce injury, accidents and violence by 50 percent from 2010 levels.
The writer/s then quoted only half of the truth by stating “In 2012, research by the Medical Research Council (MRC) of South Africa claims that 57% of women killed in South Africa are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends and that licenced firearms are used in 75% of cases where a firearm is used.” Reading the statement, it brings forth a notion that 57% of women killed in South Africa are done by their husbands/boyfriends and that 75% of those are done with a firearm and then most likely legally owned.
According to the Website – Sonke Gender Justice, the same quote is used but in context and more accurate: “A national study found that more women (57%) were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends (called intimate femicide) than by strangers or criminals. Firearms, which are often said to be brought into the home to protect loved ones, played a major role in these murders, accounting for 17% of the cases seen. https://genderjustice.org.za/publicatio ... -violence/
Statements quoted with wrong information or part truths to proof a point is malicious and undermines our trust and speaks of a sinister ulterior motive.
The question arises if the proliferation of firearms can cause more violent crime i.e., more firearms more violent crime?
If we look at several countries with higher firearm numbers than South Africa and compare their violent crime statistics care of https://www.nationmaster.com/country-in ... rica/Crime, the opposite is in fact true.

Short take on the data:
The top 20 countries with the most guns per 100 people (on average, 36,6) are the countries with much less violent crimes (on average 17,34 violent crimes per million) than the countries with fewer guns i.e. 6,6 guns per 100 people with 381,93 violent crimes per million.
It is interesting to note that the top 14 countries with the most violent crime rate per million people, all have fewer guns per 100 people than South Africa except for Guatemala. It is also interesting to note that the top 15 countries with the least number of violent crimes per 1 million people, all have more guns per 100 people than South Africa except Japan and Singapore.

Data from another source www.gunpolicy.org (International Firearm Injury Prevention and Policy) shows exactly the same tendency that the number of firearms in a country is not linked to the number of gun deaths in that country. For example, Lesotho have only 105 000 firearms listed but have the most gun related deaths per 100 000 people, i.e., 25.69.
The U.S.A have 400 000 000 (yes that is right, 400 million) guns with a figure of 4.36 gun related deaths per 100 000 people, 5 times lower than Lesotho and 3 times lower than South Africa (12.92) deaths per 100 000 people with South Africa having an estimate of 7,2 million guns.

It is clear that the statistics between gun deaths and gun owning on a global scale was never research. It is also clear that the research from Dr R Matzopoulos from the MRC who sits on the board of directors of Gun Free South Africa and his colleagues influence the data the proposers used without doing due diligence. See link to article: https://ewn.co.za/2015/01/29/Response-t ... ica-claims

To thus identify the problem as “The proliferation of firearms creates a serious social problem in South Africa” is a blatant lie. If the problem is thus wrongly identified it cannot be fixed by trying to reduce the number of firearms by limiting ordinary law-abiding citizens from owning firearms. The current draft legislation is doomed to fail from the start because it is not dealing with the problem and the focus is misplaced.
We in South Africa should all be able to have a peaceful and non-violent life, live in harmony with our neighbours and enjoy a dignified life. My home is still my “Castle” and I should not have to live in fear of attack and/or house invasions. Neither should I have to fear high jacking driving with my vehicle down the road during the day or at night but unfortunately that is what happened in South Africa.
We are now required to have safes in our houses to own a firearm, are not allowed to leave a gun in a vehicle because crime is rife and so we as law abiding citizens get over legislated and need to go to the extremes to safeguard our properties and to try and protect ourselves from criminals. In South Africa it seems like criminals have more freedom than law abiding citizens.
The Police have lost over 20 000 guns from 2004 to 2011 with most of the guns not yet recovered. In 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 - 785 and 505 respectively was lost or stolen from the Police and yet registered gunowners need to be disarmed to stop guns landing in the wrong hands.
No legislation will unfortunately curb the distribution or dealings in illegal guns in South Africa and no legislation will curb perpetrators from entering homes illegally to murder, rape and steal property including firearms which do not belong to them. Only an effective, visible, competent and corruption free Police Service will help in the fight against crime while the correct root of the social problem in South Africa is identified and addressed.
As for specifics on the proposed amendments:
Self-defence:
It is absolutely ridiculous to take away our first line of defence against criminals that have no respect for life or the law. The police cannot protect us, especially us living on farms. The most vulnerable, (women) will be left defenceless and it will take away our right as law abiding citizens to defend our families against criminals with guns.
Hunting, sport shooting, reloading and collectors:
The limitations proposed is absolute proof that the proposers of these limitations have no insight into the industry i.e., diversity of the game and areas in South Africa and neighbouring countries to be hunted, the guiding of foreign clients by professional hunters, the multi-facets of sport shooting including the different disciplines of sport shooting with different firearms including shotguns, pistols and rifles, which brings us to the reloading part. The proposers too have no idea of the money invested to acquire the reloading equipment, the time invested to develop the best load for the specific rifle and or handgun at a fraction of the cost of buying ammunition which may or may not be accurate in the firearm.
This is more a step in the disarmament of citizens because of the paranoia of those in power who do not want to trust their citizens with firearms than to try and combat crime.
Sincerely

Heinrich Funck

[jaracal]

Dit is my comments op die Draft Bill
Julle is welkom om enige inligting te gebruik maar ek beveel julle aan om ook julle eie navorsing te doen.
Indien julle enige voorstelle het tov van veranderings laat weet asb.

Heinrich

[tripodmvr]

1. Stem saam dat polisie se swak vermoëns om misdaad te bekamp nou voor ons deur gelê word. Die werklike probleem word nie aangespreek nie.
2. Die aantal vuurwapens wat ek as toegewyde persoon het, gaan nie bepaal hoeveel probleme ek kan veroorsaak as ek sou uithaak nie. Prakties sal ek miskien 3 wapens kan saamdra.
3. Watter getal wettige gewone burgers is betrokke by geweld met 'n vuurwapen. Hiermee bedoel ek kriminele optrede van hul kant af en nie selfverdediging nie.
4. 'n Motorvoertuig kort bande na dit 'n sekere afstand afgelê het. Netso slyt lope uit en moet dit vervang word om weer akkuraatheid terug te kry. Hierdie beginsel moet gevestig word en moet makliker gemaak word om te doen. 'n Volle lisensieringsproses is onprakties en is feitelik bewys deur die huidige stelsel.

[naas222]

Net n vraag.. watter land lisensieer die persoon en nie die wapen nie.. kan mens nie daai voorstel opsit nie??? Of is ek nou heeltemal op die verkeerde bladsy hier

[knipmes]

Ek weet van Duitsland maar is nie seker oor ander Europese lande nie

[naas222]

Soos ek n Duitser ken is dit seker n 2 jaar kursus.

[tripodmvr]

1. Competency = vaardigheid en kennis wat jy aan voldoen, so jy as persoon is reeds bevoeg verklaar. Waarom dan nog motiveer vir 'n ander wapen?
2. Vergeet om by my lys te voeg en iets wat baie belangrik is. Die elektroniese stelsel vir aansoeke en ander administrasie moet in plek gestel word. Hierdie papier oorlog is uitgedien.

[Henna308]

Baie dankie Heinrich, dit gee my definitief ander insigte tot my kommentaar brief wat nog in wording is.

[Desperatezulu]

Net n vraag.. watter land lisensieer die persoon en nie die wapen nie.. kan mens nie daai voorstel opsit nie??? Of is ek nou heeltemal op die verkeerde bladsy hier

UK

[Frederik]

Ons moet ook nie vergeet van ons toekoms en nuwe generasies nie die nuwe voorgeskrewe beleid laat dit nie toe vir enige kind onder 16 om 'n vuurwapen te vuur nie selfs onder toesig en ook geen vuurwapen lisensie te besit onder die ouderdom van 21 nie asook Bekwaamheid/Compentency nie.

[Dawie Malan]

Ek wil glad nie die momentum uit die besware haal nie, maar Martin Hood het gister 'n brief geskryf aan die SAPD waarin hy bevestig het dat die e-pos adres waar besware gestuur kan word nou vol is en enige vêrdere besware verwerp. Hierdie skep 'n nuwe probleem vir die deurvoer van die wysigingswet. Lyk of hulle klaar handoek ingooi...

[jaracal]

Ek het gelukkig nog 'n reply email gekry dat myne ontvang is.

[Eugene]

Dawie, verlede week kon ek nie die e-pos deurkry nie. Vanmiddag weer probeer en kon toe daarin slaag en het ook bewys ontvang dat dit afgelewer en ontvang is. Ek het ook maar my kommentaar op petisies soos "Dear South Africa" en ander geplaas.

Hein, ek het bietjie by jou geleen en ook hier en daar op ander plekke.

Hier is my poging:

We noted with apprehension the controversial Firearms Control Amendment Bill’s proposed restriction on legal firearm owners, specifically the removal of self-defense as a valid motivation.

The Bill, if passed, will also enforce unreasonable restrictions on re-loaders, sport shooters, game hunters and private collectors and potentially harm the private security sector, inevitably adversely impacting our ailing economy.

We strongly reject this amendment to gun ownership laws, which still place unfair restrictions on legal firearm owners, without providing any solution to illegal weapons in the hands of criminals.

Every day, the law-abiding people of South Africa are besieged by crime and live in fear in their own homes, while criminal syndicates act with impunity and with out fear of apprehension.

The proposed Firearms Control Amendment Bill will do nothing to prevent the criminals that already have no regard for our Criminal Justice System from illegally obtaining firearms, as criminals obtain their weapons illegally. Disarming and placing unreasonable restrictions on law-abiding citizens, however, will only make the lives of criminals easier and further weaken the victims of their actions.

In the face of an over-burdened and under-resourced SAPS, the only measure of protection available to most South Africans, is to defend themselves and their families, with legally-owned firearms. We cannot allow this last measure of protection to be removed.

Instead of targeting honest South Africans who are left to defend themselves, our law-enforcement agencies should focus on disarming criminals as part of a holistic effort to turn the tide on violent crime.

Further more, the statistics used to promote this amendments, are not based on facts and in some cases, have no factual basis at all.
As example:
The Problem is defined as “The proliferation of firearms creates a serious social problem in South Africa”, with several serious crime statistics being quoted with the following conclusion, “This could possibly indicate the greater availability of firearms.”... “On p334 of the National Development Plan 2030 it is stated that access to firearms is one of the contributing factors to violence and injury and it falls under Health Goal 5 to reduce injury, accidents and violence by 50 percent from 2010 levels.
The writer/s then quoted only half of the truth by stating “In 2012, research by the Medical Research Council (MRC) of South Africa claims that 57% of women killed in South Africa are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends and that licensed firearms are used in 75% of cases where a firearm is used.” Reading the statement, it brings forth a notion that 57% of women killed in South Africa are done by their husbands/boyfriends and that 75% of those are done with a firearm and then most likely legally owned.
According to the Website – Sonke Gender Justice, the same quote is used, but in context and more accurate: “A national study found that more women (57%) were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends (called intimate femicide) than by strangers or criminals. Firearms, which are often said to be brought into the home to protect loved ones, played a major role in these murders, accounting for 17% of the cases seen.

This is a blatant distortion of the facts, with the sole purpose to promote an emotional agenda and to blindside the general public.

In regards to the restrictions placed on minors using firearms for legal purposes, dedicated hunters and sport shooters and reloading, we fail to understand how these restrictions will curb or solve the rise of illegal firearms in the hands of criminals.

Hunting rifles are seldom, if ever, used by criminals and the majority of sport shooters has rifles with single shot actions and very long barrels, that are impractical to use for any other purpose than sport shooting. The restriction on the amount of ammunition, was also not thought through, as most sport shooters use more than 100 rounds during the course of a competition.

That brings us to the proposed ban on reloading and buying and selling reloading equipment. Most dedicated hunters and sport shooters reload their own equipment. This has nothing to do with the price of “over the counter” ammunition, but with the accuracy obtained by reloading your own ammunition for your specific needs and to be optimal for use in your specific rifle. What will a ban on reloading and buying and selling reloading equipment achieve, other than a massive financial impact on the firearms industry and the further loss of important jobs in this industry?

The reasoning for the current Firearms Control Act, are supposedly to lessen the amount of unnecessary firearms, yet it is easier and faster to apply for a new firearm, than to apply for a barrel change on an existing firearm. That begs the question if the “powers that be” and those that were appointed to advise them, have any knowledge about firearms at all. A barrel on a firearm, is no different than tires on a car. It has a certain lifetime and then needs to be replaced. Each year, 1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world and every day, almost 3,700 people are killed globally in crashes involving cars, buses, motorcycles, bicycles, trucks, or pedestrians. According to Statistics SA, in 2006, 5664 people lost their lifes due to motor vehicle accidents. In 2019, that figure has increased to 12,503, courtesy of AA (https://aa.co.za). According to https://www.saferspaces.org.za the 2015/16 National Murder Study released at the time of the annual crime statistics shows that just under 6,000 people a year are killed with a firearm, with the majority of those death due to illegal firearms in the hands of criminals. Less than half of the deaths due to motor vehicle accidents.

Yet there is no limitation on replacing the tires on one’s vehicle at all, but dedicated and legal firearm owners, are unable to change the barrels of their legal firearms and rather forced to buy another firearm?

The DFO’s and specifically the CFR, are already struggling with a massive backlog due to the administrative demand created by the current Firearms Control Act and are not able to successfully handle and comply with their administrative obligations in terms of the act. The proof of this, can be found in several recent court cases and the admissions made to the relevant portfolio committees and in parlement. If any amendments are needed, it should rather streamline the process and not place further administrative demands on a system that already cannot function properly.

We therefor oppose the amendments and rather propose the following changes:
• Streamline the application processes associated with legal gun ownership for the all the purposes listed in the Act (Sections 13 to 17), with the help of Firearm dealers Organizations, Firearm Owners- and Hunting Organizations. This would streamline the whole application process, with the help, input and active involvement of all relevant stakeholders;
• License the individual by way of the competency certificate, using strict and responsible criteria and then only require that those individuals register their weapons. This would lessen the enormous administrative burden on the already struggling DFO’s and CFR;
• Enforce safety training and promote responsible gun ownership through education and public awareness initiatives.

To restore the Rule of Law in South Africa we must reform our Criminal Justice System, capacitate law-enforcement agencies, and ensure harsher penalties for criminals. It is must criminals that live in fear of the consequences of their actions, and not the law-abiding citizens of South Africa.

[Wouter Roets]

Eugene

Baie goeie en mooi deurdenkte verweer wat jy gedoen het. Ek wil dalk net iets byvoeg en dit is dat ons nie genoeg klem plaas op die adisionele druk wat die DFO's en CFR gaan he om nou elke 5 jaar lesensies te moet hernu, permitte moet uitreik vir elke keer as vuurwapen vervoer moet word, permitte vir adisionele amminusie ens. nie. Hierdie is n praktiese konsidirasie wat eenvoudig nie deur die SAPS hanteer sal kan word nie. Die voorstel van net 6 wapens in totaal moet ook ten sterkste teen gestaan word met geen beperking op die aantal wapens as doelwit. Ek is bang dat mense hier gaan toegewings maak op syfer van bv 18 wapens want vir die normale man op straat klink dit na oor as genoeg, maar in realistiese terme vir iemand wat jag in verskillende opstandighede en gereeld sport skiet is dit n groot probleem.

Groetnis
Wouter

[Frederik]

Ek het nog nie iets aangestuur nie besig om stukkies bymekaar te sit van almal sover en ook my eie denke.

Maar ek dink die keer moet ons baklei om alles te swaai ons het genoeg bewys dat ons nie die skuldiges is nie ons is wettige wapen eienaars wat heeltyd toegegee het die keer moet ons staan vir ons wat belangrik is en wat naby aan ons harte le.

Skrap die hele sisteem begin van voor met die informasie, wat hulle wel tot hulle besit het.
Lisensieer die persoon en registreer die wapens met die persoon.
Die keer moet ons aanvallend wees!

[Gideon S]

Eugene, dit is 'n baie goed bewoorde raakvat brief. Mooi gesê...

[Alwin]

Ek wil glad nie die momentum uit die besware haal nie, maar Martin Hood het gister 'n brief geskryf aan die SAPD waarin hy bevestig het dat die e-pos adres waar besware gestuur kan word nou vol is en enige vêrdere besware verwerp. Hierdie skep 'n nuwe probleem vir die deurvoer van die wysigingswet. Lyk of hulle klaar handoek ingooi...

My wederhelf het gisteraand haar kommentaar ge-epos en dadelik die (geoutomatiseerde) ontvangserkenning ontvang.

Ons dien sooveel kommentare in dat hulle sukkel om die inbus te hanteer, dus raak hy soms vol. Mooi so! Gooi nog!

[OosKaapJagter]

My kommentaar is in met spesifieke klem daarop dat spesifiek die verbod op wapens vir selfverdediging tot 'n drastiese toename in geweldsmisdaad sal lei. Sportwapens en jagwapens word ook nie vir misdaad of tydens misdaad gebruik nie.

Ek is net so keelvol oor die hele kwessie.

Dit is maklik om te sê ons moet baklei teen hierdie wysigings, maar ek is bevrees dat ons posisie swakker is as wat algemeen in ons kringe aanvaar word. Ons praat mekaar basies moed in en heelwat militante praatjies volg. Probeer om dalk eerder met sinvolle redenasies as dreigemente iets reg te kry. Anders as wat die geval is met die wysiging van die grondwet, benodig die parlementslede nie 'n tweederde meerderheid om die hierdie wetswysiging goed te keur nie.

Gaan lees net gou hierdie saak: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2018/14.pdf

Dit is maar 33 paragrawe, maar sommer in die eerste paragraaf stippel die Grondwetlike Hof, as synde die hoogste hof in die land, duidelik uit wat hulle siening is oor vuurwapens.

[Eugene]

Ooskaapjagter, ek stem met jou saam. Mens lees orals op sosiale media dat mense verklaar dat dit "ons grondwetlike reg" is om wapens te besit, maar dit is verseker nie die geval nie en daar is geen sodanige reg ingeskryf in die Grondwet nie. Daar is egter ander regte wat wel in die Grondwet voorkom en met behoorlike oordenking en bietjie inisiatief, kan mens daarmee werk om die belangrikheid van vuurwapen besit te beweer en te bewys. Martin Hood en verskeie ander rolspelers het alreeds genoem dat nou nie die tyd is om met emosies te redeneer nie, maar dat ons besware nugter en gebaseer moet wees op feite. Emosionele en rasse argumente, gaan nou meer kwaad as goed doen.

My persoonlike opinie, is dat beide SA Jagters en GOSA se onderskeie onsuksesvolle hofsake, die SAPD en die verskeie "anti-gun" organisasies baie moed gegee het en hulle stertvere is in die lug na hulle hof "oorwinnings". Dit gaan nie help om nou vir 'n 3de keer weer dieselfde roete te volg nie en die vuurwapen gemeenskap moet nou hande vat en as 'n verenigde front, leer uit die vorige uitsprake en 'n roete vind rondom die howe se benadering tot vuurwapenbesit en 'n harde hou slaan vir vuurwapen eienaars. Ek is van mening dat daar genoeg "skietgoed" is om dit suksesvol te doen, sonder om weereens toe te gee en terug te staan.

Soos Dimitri baie baie voorheen genoem het oor die "draad sitters" rakende jag, moet daar nou ernstig aandag gegee word aan die draadsitters rakende vuurwapenbesit en moeite gedoen word om hulle na "ons" kant te swaai en emosionele en rasse argumente, gaan presies die teendeel doen....

[PWV]

Onderstaande prentjie illustreer die belaglikheid van die nuwe voorgestelde wapenwet!!!

IMG-20210602-WA0011.jpg

[jaracal]

Eugene, baie mooi uiteengesit.
Ek dink ook ons moet, soos jy sê, die kommentare by ons verskillende organisasies inlewer.
Heinrich

[Louisdewet]

Dankie manne!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Viking]

As vuurwapen entoesias en forum lid is ek teleurgesteld in my mede wapen eienaars se terugvoer of gebrek aan deelname op die draad.

Is ons al so vuisvoos geredeneer of maak dit nie meer vir ons saak wat die regering in ons kele wil af forseer nie!

Is hier n tendens te bespeur van hande in die lug gooi en wysigings net maar aanvaar, want die ANC politici is in die meerderheid wanneer daar gestem gaan word oor die kwessie.

Reeds in 2000 is daar berig dat die ongelisensieerde wapens in SA sowat 8 milj beloop teennoor die sowat 4 milj wettige gelisensieerde wapens.

Ons was toe al reeds ver oorskadu deur kriminele se vermoë om wapens te hê.

Die meerderheid van die wapens was afkomstig uit buurlande se vryheidsvegters wat die SA mark daarmee oorstroom het. SA was nog altyd n deurgangs roete vir dwelmsindikate en smokkellaars van ons natuur en marinebronne.

Het ons as wapeneienaars dit al ooit nodig geag om ons stem te laat hoor oor fermer optrede om ons grense beter te beveilig en so die wapensmokkel te bekamp?

Of plaas ons druk op ons onderskeie parlementêre verteenwoordigers om die minister van polisie aanspreeklik te hou vir die wetteloosheid en menige ongelisensierde vuurwapens waarmee onskuldiges gedood word!

Volgens die wysigings sal jy net n wapen mag gebruik vir die bepalings waarvoor dit uitgereik is....dus sal jy geen wapen kan aanwend vir selfverdediging nie - PUNT!

Ons moet begin wakker raak en ons misnoë duidelik maak en nie oorlaat vir ander om dit alleen te veg nie!!

[alecjohnson]

As vuurwapen entoesias en forum lid is ek teleurgesteld in my mede wapen eienaars se terugvoer of gebrek aan deelname op die draad.
Ons moet begin wakker raak en ons misnoë duidelik maak en nie oorlaat vir ander om dit alleen te veg nie!!

Ek het nie 'n toevoeging tot die draad wat van belang is nie, en ek dink dis waar die meeste lede sit, ons het nie teen voorstelle nie, ek dink die wet moet net so gelos word en die wysigings of nuwe idees moet geskrap word in sy totaliteit, ek wil nie 'n voorstel maak nie want dit vervorm hulle weer. los dit soos dit is. Ek het my briewe gestuur so het baie van die lede hier, Ek dink almal is rooi onder die kraag met die storie, Ek is bang ek praat op 'n publieke platform my gedagtes oor ons onbevoegde regering uit wat my in warm water laat beland veral met die nuwe sosiale media belyd...

Ek dink ons beste verweer is om te druk dat die aanpassings geskrap word. as 'n voorstel gegee moet word:

Die oomblik wat 'n persoon 'n bankrekening in SA open moet hulle bewys lewer van tenminste 1 vuurwapen(handwapen of haelgeweer) op die persoon se naam indien die persoon ouer as 18 is.

Ek lees die nou weer deur en dit kan neerkom of ek dalk direk aanval, dit is nie 'n aanval nie, ek het ook meer reaksie verwag, maar verstaan persoonlik waarom die manne sku is ons weet nie wat om te se nie; buiten die mooi gesegde van koning Leonidas.