Thread: Call to Arms

Originally Posted by oraki

Burn me at the stake if ya like, but some comments I've seen only confirm to Joe Public what Mr Cahill wants them to see.
Sure get passionate about it, but keep your emotions and comments civil. This is a public forum, and to an outsider we appear to be a pack of Neanderthal beasts beating our chests, waving threats etc around. Calling him names and saying how you're not going to abide by the proposals that are out on the table, makes us look like vigilantes.
Voice your concerns, with facts, but keep emotion and name calling out of it.
I'm concerned what is being proposed, and all the untruths, and incorrect facts being spouted to the public, but we're a minority in the grand scheme of things. There's 240,000 odd licence holders and only a proportion of them know anything about this. Theres probably 2.5-3 million others that don't give a toss. They're easily swayed by the police word, because they're the law. Little Ol granny's etc don't want swearing,cussing, name calling beasts in charge of 'extremely high powered weapons of destruction'
This is what we're fighting against.
Yes I have semi autos in my safe, and dammed if I want to give them up, but in the end majority normally rule. Next will be divide and conquer.
I think all we can do is keep proving we are worthy off possession, and pointing out, in a civil manner how some facts and figures aren't quite as accurate as the leaders are portraying.

Bang on. As frustrating as it is watching/listening to blatant lies.It drives us wild but the moment you start making silly threats, name calling and and swearing you do nothing for your/our credibility.


Sent from my SM-A510Y using Tapatalk

Can he be sued for misleading the public?

Yes, we do need to keep it civil and focus on the facts and message, not the messenger.
I'm no lawyer, but Cahill is not directly slandering as to cause a direct financial loss by drop in income earnings or directly harm a persons or groups reputation, so no legal action would work.
Nor is he a public servant anymore, he is employed by the union, so not subject to any State sector legislation.

Another thing.... Sensation sells stories. We've seen it over and over. Write a true and factual blurb, or film the whole story, it then goes to the editing room, and the published story bears no resemblance to the original.


They try and hit you with a sledge hammer, create an uproar, then offer something not quite as bad as originally proposed. Compromise they'll call it,we'll let you keep this, but give us this

Let's continue discussing the subject at hand in an objective and non-emotional manner.

Personally, I am pleased to see that this has finally brought to light just how devious these people (the Police Association and the upper echelons of the NZP) are in their approach to address "firearm crime". If it was actual crime they were talking about, they would not be making secret submissions.

They would be very public about how they were going to do things - you know - to "send a message" to criminals. Like they do at press conferences when a uniformed panel sits in front of a Police banner in front of multiple cameras after a drug bust (like on Police 10/7).

Drugs for example, are a far more serious problem than firearms in this country. The evidence is in the media coverage afforded to the number of:

* Lab / grow operations bust
* People arrested for drug related offences
* Properties that have meth contamination

Reduce drug offending and the criminal entity that controls their supply and maybe the number of illegal firearms in circulation will diminish? Too difficult? Easier to target and arrest the users arrested and increase their likelihood for dependence on the state (i.e. prison, rehabilitation programs, being a general social benefit sponge).

The allusion that Customs purportedly have a lid on imports coming into the country is a joke - if that was the case - why does there continue to be such a significant influx of drugs and / or precursors into this country? Does it not stand to reason that firearms and / or their components can similarly be imported? Yet these "recommendations" by the select committee do nothing except pay lip service to addressing the (perceived) problem and only seek to further restrict the law abiding, quite non-criminal, vetted licensed firearm owners.

The absolute irony of the situation is that people will continue to use / misuse drugs, as they have done for millennia regardless of penalty.

The part that gets me from what Mr. Cahill has said was this: “He claims firearms which resemble military weapons and other semi-automatics pose a danger to the public." Little does he know that pretty much ALL firearms resemble military weapons one way or another. Where do you think your favorite hunting rifle originates from?

This comment annoys me because there seems to be a sector divided between firearm owners (fudds) about anything that resembles a black rifle. Not naming names but there are a few on this forum who certainly don't live in apathy about it and make it very clear they don't appreciate a certain type of semi-auto. You can't tell me you're that naive that your favorite Sako 85 in the whole wide world doesn't resemble a military weapon.

I could use the same analogy on cars: fast cars, slow cars, electric cars, red cars, blue cars, ones with spoilers & wheels - you get the idea?

I care about your rights & right to own your firearm of choice just as you should do for mine.

Originally Posted by dogmatix

Yes, we do need to keep it civil and focus on the facts and message, not the messenger.
I'm no lawyer, but Cahill is not directly slandering as to cause a direct financial loss by drop in income earnings or directly harm a persons or groups reputation, so no legal action would work.
Nor is he a public servant anymore, he is employed by the union, so not subject to any State sector legislation.

That is a maybe , it all depends on who negotiates his pay if it is the PSA then he falls under the Public service .

Maybe we need to educate the public on what center fire ammo costs. Even a cheapy 7.62 x 39 would make a serious dent in the wallet on full auto.

I hope so Tankd. However the State Sector Act 1988 does not list Police as being a public service.

State Sector Act 1988 No 20 (as at 17 December 2016), Public Act Schedule*1 Departments of the Public Service – New Zealand Legislation

PSA certainly covers Defence Force, MOJ and Corrections, not sure if it covers members of the Police who choose to be PSA rather than in the PA?

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

The part that gets me from what Mr. Cahill has said was this: “He claims firearms which resemble military weapons and other semi-automatics pose a danger to the public." Little does he know that pretty much ALL firearms resemble military weapons one way or another. Where do you think your favorite hunting rifle originates from?

This comment annoys me because there seems to be a sector divided between firearm owners (fudds) about anything that resembles a black rifle. Not naming names but there are a few on this forum who certainly don't live in apathy about it and make it very clear they don't appreciate a certain type of semi-auto. You can't tell me you're that naive that your favorite Sako 85 in the whole wide world doesn't resemble a military weapon.

I could use the same analogy on cars: fast cars, slow cars, electric cars, red cars, blue cars, ones with spoilers & wheels - you get the idea?

I care about your rights & right to own your firearm of choice just as you should do for mine.

I cant say I have noticed any anti black gun sentiment on this forum? plenty of reference to it but I dont recall seeing any?
Im not saying that there are no anti black gun firearm owners there are plenty it is just that most if not all that participate on here even if they dont personally like or own one support your right to have one and use it.I for one am the second.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

I cant say I have noticed any anti black gun sentiment on this forum? plenty of reference to it but I dont recall seeing any?
Im not saying that there are no anti black gun firearm owners there are plenty it is just that most if not all that participate on here even if they dont personally like or own one support your right to have one and use it.I for one am the second.

Oh it exists on this forum and I can certainly reference it if required, however doing so would be selfish and counterproductive as it only serves to achieve the PA's goal which appears to be "divide and conquer" (referring to Cahill's supposed campfire chat with hunters claiming that they don't semi-autos).

We must not fall into that trap - we need to remember that this is about all licensed firearm owners.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

I cant say I have noticed any anti black gun sentiment on this forum? plenty of reference to it but I dont recall seeing any?
Im not saying that there are no anti black gun firearm owners there are plenty it is just that most if not all that participate on here even if they dont personally like or own one support your right to have one and use it.I for one am the second.

I have witnessed it from time to time, but I can't site any specific examples off the top of my head, mainly because I don't get hung up on other peoples ignorance or troll attempts. By far and large this is an inclusive board that paralells attitudes displayed on social media. Cahills comments provoked outrage among hunters and shooters on facebook yesterday. To be fair the select committee report has shaken the fence pretty hard. Regular Joe A cat hunters and shooters can see that the recommendations would have a direct effect on them, and they are not happy. This isn't just a pissing contest between MSSA owners and police HQ, like we have experianced being on the thin end of the wedge. Everybody is on board and it is great to see.

Originally Posted by Beavis

I have witnessed it from time to time, but I can't site any specific examples off the top of my head, mainly because I don't get hung up on other peoples ignorance or troll attempts. By far and large this is an inclusive board that paralells attitudes displayed on social media. Cahills comments provoked outrage among hunters and shooters on facebook yesterday. To be fair the select committee report has shaken the fence pretty hard. Regular Joe A cat hunters and shooters can see that the recommendations would have a direct effect on them, and they are not happy. This isn't just a pissing contest between MSSA owners and police HQ, like we have experianced being on the thin end of the wedge. Everybody is on board and it is great to see.

Our current crop of leaders have a history of this sort of thing however - produce a report or series of recommendations that are over the top hard on a particular group, and then look like the good guys when they revise the proposals back: you still lose privileges but you feel better because it could have been worse.... Think recreational Snapper catch reduction not too long ago (with no commercial catch reduction...)
Incremental change doesn't hurt as much as radical change but long term it achieves the same result.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

It is just that most if not all that participate on here even if they dont personally like or own one support your right to have one and use it. I for one am the second.

And it's guys like you who we really appreciate. A lot

If the shoe was on the other foot and they were legislating bolt actions for "resembling" military sniper rifles because they can take out targets from a long way, we would be defending such preposterous claims. However, the police almost seem to be hinting at this for restrictions on importing .338 .50 cal, chassis systems etc.... (Watch this space)

And, I'd even jump in to the political fight in the future when laser beam guns like from star wars are under scrutiny. Even though I wouldn't personally procure them... Well, maybe!

The part that gets me from what Mr. Cahill has said was this: “He claims firearms which resemble military weapons and other semi-automatics pose a danger to the public."
I hate to be the bearer of bad news.........but all firearms can pose a danger to the public? Actually I might be wrong......the firearm doesn't pose any danger to the public......I would be more concerned about the fuck knuckle holding the gun. It might be easier to restrict the amount of fuck knuckles?