Thread: The anti gun lobby

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Southern Man

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.

You are wrong here.

a ) COFLO represents ppl who are in gun clubs and the gun industry. So clubs, and blanket organisations for instance send them a cheque and get to vote. As a rep of one such I had/have a vote at the AGM on issues so there is some democracy going on. Unlike say some organisations such as NSA which can use the funds you give them for anything "related" they think is reasonable. I also wonder on the legal comeback on you if you donate to NSA and it goes pear shaped so I wouldnt donate to them myself, apart from I think they are nutters.

b) COLFO also approaches such organisations as say small bore (which tell them to "p*ss off") to get them on board but apathy rules.

c) COLFO seems to have some success lobbying but they are one "for" v quite a few "against".

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?

Now I'm underwater!

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...