Thread: The anti gun lobby

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!

Originally Posted by Maca49

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!

Your not wrong 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

Originally Posted by Dynastar27

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

Originally Posted by P38

Spot on Dynastar27

Agree, but the anti's argue its easier for 'people to kill people' with guns.......thats their whole point!

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.

Originally Posted by Scouser

Agree, but the anti's argue its easier for 'people to kill people' with guns.......thats their whole point!

In this country the statistics show it is a whole lot easier with a car Scouser.

Originally Posted by Southern Man

But fight we must to preserve even what we have or it shall be taken away - and that does not apply to just firearms.

Surely they aren't thinking about taking away my pineapple lumps.

Originally Posted by Maca49

But we are splintered into our little groups, how do you combine? Not easy, need one encompassing all

It is known as COLFO, they lobby ministers etc. on our behalf.

regards

Originally Posted by steven

It is known as COLFO, they lobby ministers etc. on our behalf.

regards

Nope - colfo represent less than 2% of firearms licence holders and only have very few individual members.
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.

Originally Posted by Rushy

Surely they aren't thinking about taking away my pineapple lumps.

Hmmm - the 'fat' police and the sugar deniers would certainly like to try!

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