Now I'm underwater!
Printable View
Now I'm underwater!
But we are splintered into our little groups, how do you combine? Not easy, need one encompassing all
I didn't read it for a couple of days then skimmed to hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
the point is "what are people trying to achieve when saying 'it's a privilege not a right'?" It's a meaningless pedant red herring soundbite
It has actually occurred to me Maca that we have all been violently agreeing with one another on the critical issue in this debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maca49
Yep... but we have to develop our skills before we can expect to be listened to..... we probably also have to learn to support and not withdraw it on every variation to our own beliefs.... the police love division... they must be sweating with the Black Power and Mongrel Mob starting to talk?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
I thought that most of the ways, I think it is two tiered and running in parallel. Applied the KISS principal and it may run more coherently?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
This thread has convinced me to change the way i communicate about firearms in public, i agree the nuances are easily confused regarding the general public.....'privledge' v 'right'.......as has been said, we have a majority of people who would like ALL firearms gone from the general public, the police and politicians rubbing their hands in glee.....as regards the hunting & shooting fraternity, we need to be 'together as one', as a concerted movement to keep our 'historical rights'.......as once there gone, we will never get them back.....i can see Beavis's side of the discussion, whatever we do the 'man' will slowly but surely chip away at our rights......but then i see Sidney's passionate retoric to fight with the mighty 'pen' from the legal standpoint......bacause right now in 2014, we FAL owners have the upper hand.........great thread, opened my eyes to this issue.......
The thing is that ant-gun people as a rule are not going to vote that as a primary issue. It's hard to motivate anti-gun voters because it doesn't directly effect them. A lot of people (wrongly) vaguely think "yeah gun control is a good idea" but it's not a must-do issue for them.
Whereas for gun owners, legislation that affects our possessions, interests, hobbies, etc. DOES directly effect us. In theory we should be much easier to motivate on the issue.
Except the vast majority firearm users are oblivious to any changes until well after it becomes law.
Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2
Well how do we reach + motivate them?
Motivation is the problem as so many simply cannot and will not believe that their ownership and use of firearms is under threat from many directions. Most simply cannot concieve that anti-gun semtiment is even real plus widespread.
Perhaps many simply fear being singled out if they stand up for their rights?
I really don't know... our interests attract independent people. I don't think we are by nature inclined to work in groups well.....
Culturally the stoic self contained kiwi who doesn't need your help thanks very much, has probably been concentrated down into our sort of area...
Not helpful really... but all firearms groups that I have been associated with seem very fragmented in their thinking... each of them distrusts other groups
Forms of community must exist for organisation to have any chance at all... historically deerstalkers was part of that, but these days there seems to be a reluctance to engage at a political level amongst that membership.
None of us want to appear to have the excesses of the americans... but the problems that we face are actually very similar....
I personally don't think that we can expect any of the existing organisations to step up to the plate.... NSA lacks widespread support, and deerstalkers aren't interested in going down that road... COLFO approach is pretty much focused on Wellington..
How about indépendant small group in each area of think tank/lobbyists who would liase and communicate with other user groups, and would actively participate in discussion with electorate MPs and local authorities/Police ... Not answerable directly to others but charged with building relationships with other user groups and with the authorities. Putting faces to the issues, rational input into the challenges faced and placing accountability on the people that are potentially making decisions that affect us.
Not a media role, but a co-ordinated local response with communication between areas. The need for media attention could be achieved by co-ordinating public release of information through Deerstalkers NSA etc etc... with well organised PR information... Highly selective information release, needing to manage public perceptions...
I don't see these groups as elected political entities... or even representative in formation. Becoming representative should grow from information, confidence and relationships. Contribution would have to be voluntary, selection by merit and
communication potential. We have enough political entities and the dilution of effect through mass opinion...
Some ideas and it sounds a lot of work. Large scale business has this approach. There is a real focus of getting in front of the people that matter, and controlling information through the media for the benefit of the sector concerned. If it sounds manipulative and somewhat smoky.... it probably is..... but we are late starters to this party, the antis have been playing like this for ages...
We need to move from protestation after the fact, to potentially influencing proactively...
For some thought?
Nine pages of distractive and divisive passion and opposition and now we get to a point where we are aligned with sane and rational focus. All power to your right arm Sidney.
Oh crap ! For once I actually agree with an entire post Sidney typed in ! I'm rushing outside to check for snow or tornadoes :D
For me personally, I approach firearms ownership from a very individualistic point of view. And to be honest I am more likely to be anti any group seen to favour of the "from my cold dead hands" way of thinking. Whatever the solution is, it needs to attract the moderate middle ground for it to stand any chance of making inroads into the general public's perceptions. It also means it has to avoid at all costs being seen to cater for the lunatic pro fringe that unfortunately are always near this debate.
I just think it is common sense to focus efforts on the large majority of the public who are not in the middle ground. Having one group of rabidly anti arguing with another group of rabidly pro serves absolutely no purpose...
That should be who ARE in the middle ground, time run out for editing original post...Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
Gotta say I've met some strange guys with FALs, or it could be I'm the strange one? There's a few I prefer not to shoot with. They are in the minority I hope!:O_O:
Your not wrong Maca49.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maca49
I've met a few like that too.
When they turn up at the range I leave.
Cheers
Pete
Are there any websites people have made for banning firearms?
I know SAFE has a page about why they should ban duck shooting
Is that cause it's mean to kill food?
You should have a read Maca. Bullshit on the internet is always good for a laugh
seriously I think half the anti gun people are halfwits
they say its cruel to kill animals for food where the hell do they think the meat they buy in the supermarkets comes from
cause it sure as hell doesn't come off a tree
and guns don't kill people people kill people
ok rant ova
Spot on Dynastar27 :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynastar27
Agree, but the anti's argue its easier for 'people to kill people' with guns.......thats their whole point!Quote:
Originally Posted by P38
they also state their supermarket food is killed quickly & humanely.......had plenty of heated discussion about that one!
Its like religion & politics, as soon as a person reaches a certain age there views are 'set'......hard to move them onto 'your side'......so compromise HAS to be reached......
Unfortunately firearms owners have not been hurt enough in this country ... yet ... to realise the ultimate truth of the saying" "Extremisim in the defence of liberty is no vice!"
Compromise with those who would enslave you or remove your freedom is simply seen, by them, as a weakness to be exploited.
They have complete contempt for others liberty and will stop at nothing to achive their ends - make no mistake about this!
Credible and effective (and implacable!) opposition is the only winning strategy - being 'nice' is for the losing side in this battle.
I guess it is because the bulk of firearms owners ARE 'fit & proper' and from the 'nicer' sections of society.
But fight we must to preserve even what we have or it shall be taken away - and that does not apply to just firearms.
In this country the statistics show it is a whole lot easier with a car Scouser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scouser
Surely they aren't thinking about taking away my pineapple lumps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
It is known as COLFO, they lobby ministers etc. on our behalf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maca49
regards
Nope - colfo represent less than 2% of firearms licence holders and only have very few individual members.Quote:
Originally Posted by steven
Voting membership is entirely restricted to member organisations and entities - a maximum of less than twenty.
There is simply no broad-based democratic representation of licence holders.
I know - to get a 'policy' document at all it had to go through a local branch to a national branch to colfo ... and back down the chain of obstrustion at every level.
Other efforts such as NSA are simply not supported or obstructed by vested interests - or ignored at out peril.
Time is running out and much more restrictive laws likely in the not to distant future for even in the US this is apparent.
Hmmm - the 'fat' police and the sugar deniers would certainly like to try! :TT TT:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
The problem is that trying to get broad based democratic representation is probably not achievable. All of our efforts in the past have been along this line. Trying to keep everybody happy is self destructive.
The model I proposed isn't very democratic, nor is it representative to start with. If a good job gets done it will become representative. Initial communication with police MPs etc would be by a small group of affected persons wishing to meet. This group reports back to all user groups.
While not necessarily selected from each user group outside parties will have no choice but to consider that group representative, if the information flow is organised and professional.
The key factors are the professionalism of the members of the group. To be seen as disaffected emotional minorities, losing their ability to play with their dangerous toys is not productive. We have no appeal to the police/govt or the public if that is our response.
It is not about being nice, its about building relationships and requiring accountability. Its a lot harder to screw people you know and respect, who have a good public image....
Personally I think its too tall an expectation.... we would need around 4-6 suitable people in each electorate who could contribute a lot of their time for beneficiaries that would probably not appreciate the effort and time required....
We don't want another beauracratic national heirachical structure, we want local level autonomy but with co-ordinated approaches to issues... and good organised information flows...
COLFO potentially could reorganise in that way maybe... huge asks... money time and people
Perhaps we could link up with other special interest groups, organise flash mob submitions for each other
The most powerful gun lobby in the World - the US National Rifle Association - has 5 million members in a country with about 100 million firearms users.
Nowhere do firearms owners have majority representation.
However it is determined minorities who generally shape the course of legislation. A few 'advisors' or strongly opinionated people who largely by hapenstance are in the right place at the right time.
Soe of us will be in Wellington chewing ears next week ...
Who are the people we are supposedly fighting? I've never seen any evidence of a group that wants to disarm people and are actively pursuing it. I haven't seen any people brandishing signs and approaching parliament.
Sure the Police and the pistol grip saga but at the end of the day they just want people to go through a bit more vetting and have better security to own a MSSA, which I understand. They aren't trying to disarm the population.
Just because there is the odd article written in a negative way doesn't mean anything.
Sure I know the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist, but I don't think that's the case here.
So the devil does exist?
You really believe that? I have heard it straight from the mouth of a very senior police man, and also parroted by local police - they have a real problem with basically all semi automatics, and at the end of the day, them and their bosses really don't want modern semi automatic firearms in the country. Guess that makes them an opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Yes I really do believe it, I have a lot more exposure to Police and their policies than you do and I've never once seen any thing that you could even remotely interpret as being a step to disarming people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Rule number one guys. Let's not get into this debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
No offence dude, but exactly 'who' is this to bolster your argument ? Surely they can't be that big a secret, if they're talking to the public making statements like this ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Plus local Police are just that - local. Your experiences differ from those in other parts of the country, if we use the logic that local Police don't want semi's around, then my local Police and personal Police I know say 100% the complete opposite.
Ergo, all of this become meaningless comments without verifiable facts, which have the danger of treated as fact - by those who wish for more firearms restrictions, and by those who want less.
The manager of licensing and vetting,.
Police website 3 September, 2010
Superintendent John Rivers, of the Operations Support Group, said Police were already acting on all the recommendations made by the Coroner.
"Police will shortly be recommending policy changes to the Minister concerning the Arms Act."
"Police has given careful consideration to the recommendations of the Thorpe Report. Many of them form part of current police practice, although not necessarily expressed in legislation."
"The Thorpe Report recommended the banning of all MSSAs, including those in sporting configuration which are currently classed as Category A firearms."
The case rests ...