Thread: The anti gun lobby

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.

Originally Posted by scaggly

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.

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.

Originally Posted by scaggly

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.

Im with this feller 100%

Originally Posted by steven

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Maca49

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.

It has actually occurred to me Maca that we have all been violently agreeing with one another on the critical issue in this debate.

Originally Posted by Rushy

It has actually occurred to me Maca that we have all been violently agreeing with one another on the critical issue in this debate.

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?

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.