Who you callin old Willis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maca49
Printable View
Who you callin old Willis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maca49
I am becoming concerned that a deity often referred to by the dyslexic as dog is being mentioned so frequently in this thread.
Some folks like fairy tailsQuote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
Or they are just superstitious
Rights are only rights as long as you stand up for them-the only person who gives you them is you and your actions
Exactly. Purposely referring to your rights as privileges shows that you aren't prepared to stand up for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by res
Banana there are a number of forum members here who have family that have given the ultimate sacrifice so that you can live in this country and enjoy the freedom to say what you want on this forum and a number of them who have themselves survived serving in theatres of war to further preserve that position for you. On behalf of them all I take considerable exception to what you have said above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana
Now that I re-read it, it did come off a bit cunty. I didn't intend it to. What I'm trying to say is, privilege gives the impression that you acknowledge you aren't legally, socially or ethically entitled to something, and would be prepared to relinquish it without issue.
Privilege could just as well give the impression that you are thankful for those freedoms, and appreciate the sacrifices of those that fought to ensure them.
Remember as well that different people attach different levels of importance to these "rights". If I had to choose between the privilege/right to a decent education, functioning justice system, ability to vote in democratic election versus owning firearms that I use for recreational purposes, it would not take me all that long to choose...
Don't worry guys another good war will sort our rights without privileges, your rights to own a firearm as as good as you collecting a pension, be nervous
Cap fit? :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
Snugly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maca49
[QUOTE=Maca49;good as you collecting a pension, be nervous[/QUOTE]
I for one never expect to get one, even if I live to a ripe old age. Even tho I'm paying for others to get theres.
True, but this entire time we have been debating rights vs privileges purely in the sense of legal entitlement. It should have been abundantly clear that I didn't mean it in sense of thankfulness in that comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
I collect in AUGUST oh shitQuote:
Originally Posted by res
Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Banana
I hope you make the most of it,you are obviously one of the generation who has both paid for the previous generation and who will be paid for by the following ,eg your getting back what you put in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maca49
I don't think those of us under 40 who look out for our selfs are going to get so fairly treated as it's a clearly unaffordable system.
This thread is a circle jerk. Who cares about the wording, it's not an English class. How much do you value firearm ownership? Pretty high up there for me. I'll fight for it.
You just keep working you arse off so I can enjoy, I'll appreciate all you do, yep I really will. But I'll be working into my 70s health permitting so the mongrels will get most of it back. It's called incentives
Agree Beavis and a good reason for this forum to exist and grow!:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Enjoying this. I don't believe that owning a fire arm in NZ is a privilege, if you meet the correct criteria then it's your right to own a fire arm. How ever if you abuse this right then you lose your right to own a fire arm. People may feel that it's a privilege to own a fire arm but in fact in law, providing the box's are ticked then guess what !! It's your right. The police can and will judge and access you as they are tasked, but at the end of the day box's ticked they and the juridical system have to grant the license. Be a sad place to be if we were a police or nanny state. Give nothing to the anti's, stay firm, it's your right. Right
Holy Hell! Gapped Axe, you've taken us full circle with this thread and you win the box of piss! Well done mate!
You need to throw in a couple of lefts GA or you will be marching in very tight circles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gapped axe
Threw a couple of lefts last night, right down a female clients throat to dislodge a fish bone that had become wedge there. Pretty scary getting called into that as the woman had breathing difficulty and was panicking. Managed to calm her down enough to be able to get a finger down there and dislodge the bone with out her chomping my finger off. Had a medicinal whisky with the husband afterwards and then came home to rant on here about rights and privileges associated to fire arm ownership. Hope I wasn't to onerous, but Sidney may be on to it.
Good work GA, Taraweras a dangerous place! Re right or privilege ,I think we are discussing two perspectives here and both have merit:cool:
We fought a war with the crown over this very subject. With a win a privilege became a right. Now our government is trying to pass laws, that violate the highest law, to turn the right back into a privilege. Res is right. The only rights you keep are the ones you are willing to fight for.
Yip, the battle of Lexington and Concord was sparked by the British army's attempt to confiscate the colonists gun powder and canons (most of which were privately owned).
In some ways we are splittng hairs here. My take is, it is a privledge granted to a fit and proper person. As long as you are and remain a fit and proper person the police cannot reasonably refuse to grant you a licence. If you cease to be a fit and proper person the police can take away your licence. You cannot simply own or be in possession of a gun because you want to, ergo I cant see it as a right. If you odnt agree then sure you can go to court to get their determination justified. Not sure what the case law is on that but Ive read the odd Judge's comments, for instance you could cease to be a fit and proper person, but that doesnt make you so for the rest of your life. Bear in mind the Police often need case law to tell them how to proceed or work on a legal opinion given to them that might be overturned. On top of that the Police are there to protect innocent 3rd parties from those acting irresponsibly be it with a gun, driving a car over the speed posted speed limit, or drink driving, whatever. So I consider I have a right to be safe from dangers imposed by ppl not fit to utilise any good or do an action in a safe manner that might impact me. Oh and finally thinking of it as a privaledge that can be removed should help those who are overly casual realise their stupidity will cost them and others in their "fraternity dear.
Privilege as far as I can recall, dates back a very long way and originally meant a 'private law', where particular groups had the rules/laws set up so they had special dispensation to do particular things. Normal people of course, couldn't do those things. Rights belong to everyone (although that seems to be chipped at every year), privilege is for a few (e.g. parliamentary privilege where the laws of slander or libel do not apply).
The way our gun laws work, everyone is given a license unless they are disqualified (we limit other rights based on similar lines too, you can't vote if you're in prison for example, and freedom of expression or association also have limits put on them). We don't have to prove we're fit and proper, the police have to prove we aren't to prevent us getting a license. That is an example of a right.
If it was a privilege, rather than a right, we would have a system where the onus was on each of us to individually prove our fitness to own firearms, rather than the state proving otherwise, and only a rich/powerful elite, or chosen few would be able to own guns (like a whole bunch of countries we can name all to readily).
Thankfully we're not that stuffed yet, but that is what the anti's want when they try to label firearms ownership as a 'privilege' and we play into their hands when we buy into the mealy-mouthed, mean-spirited view of things, and by playing into their hands we increase the chances that our kids will never know the things we all take for granted.
I really hope we don't give in to the anti's, gun ownership is a right under our legal system, and we should all stand up for it, as we would for any other right (suffrage, free speech, freedom of association, private property etc.). Frankly, when we as shooters buy into the whole idea that shooting is a privilege, we've pretty much lost. It isn't something that should be restricted to the few, shooting & hunting are a key part of our national identity, our heritage, and something that must be preserved for our kids.
Well said scraggly
I don't care how you fight to keep your rights,just as long as you take some action(fight) be it write a letter to someone in power,give $ to any of the orgs that work to protect them.
This applies to other rights/freedoms as well,not just firearms-so if you hold something dear/important stand up for it.
Scaggly your post is rational and level headed and irrespective of our differing points of view regarding the right vs privilege debate, on this much I totally agree with you. Unlike many that fear the loss of liberty around firearms ownership it his country, I do not. It will simply never happen as long as there are those among us that are passionate about its preservation regardless of whether it is a right or privilege.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaggly
Well said Rushy, I can see a time when it will be very controlled. I think most politicians and the police would love a situ where only the police and military have firearms, like Fiji. Times have changed dramatically in my short life span, freedoms are under pressure on all fronts. When the circle turns a little bit more and the toleration of criminal acts decreases and the good doers wake up a little and penalties are meaningful, maybe, just maybe these freedom pressures might lift I think it's driven from the wrong end at present :x_x:
We are splitting hairs, but words have differing meanings. To suggest that we shouldn't consider carefully the words we use seems dangerous to me. There is a story out there of a man being hanged as a result of an apostrophe being in the wrong place.Quote:
Originally Posted by steven
Rather than just saying what everybody thinks the word privilege means to them.... think about what it means to wider society as a group. If we keep telling them that we just hold a privilege, and they are in a position to take it away and wish to do so..... heck its just the loss of a privilege. You weren't entitled to it anyway. You had it at our discretion and we changed our minds... tough...
Now think about the same issue in the light of legal rights that recognise individual freedoms. It gets to be politically more difficult to change the rules. Even the antis understand the importance of individual freedoms. However they don't understand why loonies and nut cases are allowed guns as a special privilege.... (cause thats what we are in their eyes)....
Legally speaking to describe the rights we hold in law as a privilege is a nonsense. The americans have entrenched law in their constitution, and their law, in particular the 2nd amendment, has broader and more highly specified protections for firearms users and owners. However entrenched law has no greater effect than any other law that is currently in force. Its just easier to change if its not entrenched. Rights held are more vulnerable, but of no less importance. The same law has the same effect and conveys the same rights whether entrenched or not. You don't hear the american gun lobby talking about privileges, they talk about legal rights. Guess who talks about privileges in that society?
I understand some of the sentiment around the use of this word, but I cannot for the life of me see a real benefit... so no up side, all downside, why do we do this? Conveying gratitude that we do have legal freedoms, and that there is a huge responsibility, can be done in multitudes of other ways which are less detrimental.
I am pissed off about this, cause it does harm.... I am not suggesting that we adopt an american type response to the concept of "legal rights." That would be unhelpful and culturally inconsistent with our national psyche, it would simply confirm the aforementioned opinions. But if we stop using the term privilege, and we start using terms like "personal choice" and "individual freedoms" backed up by "legal and lawful rights".... in our general conversations, it would be less harmful.
I realise that is more of a mouthful, and very hard not to sound like a right plonker when casually insert that sort of combination into a sentence, but hopeful the point is taken...
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaggly
Im with this feller 100%
What will you fight for it with Beavis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Words work for me,the day they fail I will look at other options.
It's good to see beavis feels strongly on the issue all the same
I don't think it matters to "them" how you interpret the English language, they see us as a bug they could squash at their whim. The best we can do is stir up enough people to stall them. After the last select committee hearings affecting us, it is clear that such things are just seen as going through the motions for them. Their minds were made up before they heard the first submission. In future, we need thousands of submissions, not the measly 200 odd. What are we to do Sidney? Every time Richard wants to stir the cops up I donate money. I write letters. I make submissions. What do you do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
These threads I think are ridiculous. They are divisive more than anything. Kiwi's are stubborn pricks by nature, they won't come around to the POV of somebody else easily and it usually ends in toys thrown and name calling.
Beavis I'm unaware, as I'm sure others are, move forward as a combined force but sort out the communication. What we don't know we cannot support?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Yeah it would be nice if everyone was on the same page.... but hundreds of submissions that aren't coherent, from people that have poor technical understanding of the issues doesn't seem to be a solution either does it? But lets all go into that situation without discussing it so that we create a really unified impression...
It seems like words are the main issue... and here you are suggesting that they are not important. They will squash you with words if you don't compete with them at that level.
So what if a little blood is shed in the thrashing around of the issues.... more chance of understanding increasing, than by not discussing it.
Have you not noticed that our society is run on words. Maybe the reason that our fraternity doesn't contribute words to the public debate is because they lack confidence to do so...
Everybody is so dam sensitive about public debate on the net.... yeah there has to be some control but there is plenty of that available isn't there..?
The net allows the less confident to participate without too much personal investment, they can 't hit you over the head with a baseball bat through the computer screen if you get something wrong...
I don't expect the staunch opinionated kiwi hunter to ever admit that they were wrong, or that I might be right, and yet we have degrees of that all of the time. And people go away thinking about stuff, people might think about it the next time the the word privilege pops out....
Lets not discuss it?..... what are u going to fight with again?
You know the largest influence we have is in the individual contacts that we have through work, our social circles and our everyday life... I am an absolute minority in those areas, and yet people know that I am a hunter, people enjoy the food I prepare for them and when I talk to them (using words) and I say that it is important for them to protect our legal rights, because it also protects their own... they understand that! They see a rational person even if they don't understand why I hunt, and by inference they think more of the rest of you... I would appreciate that the favour was returned,,,
Don't hide in circles of the same type of people who are even scared to discuss concerns that they jointly share, learn to engage, try to appear rational, learn the skill of disarming people (work in progress for me) ... practice your words...
Back up the truck, trim out the shit and tell us in simple term wtf you need, I'm sure we are heading the same way.
Basically what I think he is saying is we need to find some common ground and all be singing off the same page, coherently. The cynical side of me thinks we will get fucked over at every turn, even when reasoning behind restrictions is totally ridiculous. Our biggest problem is that those who make the rules on our behalf, have no idea, and they see the police as the only credible source of information regarding firearms, they will eat what the police feed them. We need to change this somehow.
If there is 250-270k FA's licences in the country then we do indeed have the ability to have a strong voice. Thats 6-7% of the country, politcally speaking that is a pretty large percentage.
If need be, we certainly have the weight to offer up some politcal clout and positively influence firearms legislation in the future. Its just a matter of getting that voice heard.