Thread: The anti gun lobby

Now I'm underwater!

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

Originally Posted by Beavis

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.

I didn't read it for a couple of days then skimmed to here

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

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 Beavis

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.

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?

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?

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

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...

Originally Posted by ebf

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...