Thread: New government will rewrite Arms Act

Originally Posted by Bush Basher

Where did you pluck the one in ten voters from? You would have no idea how many voted for ACT on the basis of gun laws.

It's suits his point of view.

I would hazard a guess at 5/10 or higher, if you remove the rural and business owner motivated National voters. In which case it would be a tick for the nats and one for act.

I am surprised by the number of expats who voted Act too, 6 out of 8 Voted Act and the other two voted Green.I think people are just looking for new ideas and new faces as well as a bit sick of the rhetoric we have been fed.

Originally Posted by Bush Basher

Where did you pluck the one in ten voters from? You would have no idea how many voted for ACT on the basis of gun laws.

73.98% of statistics quoted on the internet are made up by the poster.

Including this one.....

Originally Posted by Tahr

Interesting.
I think there are estimated 300,000 gun owners in NZ (is that correct?). Act won 246,409 party votes.
If one in ten gun owners voted Act on the basis of gun laws alone (generous I think) that's 30,000 votes.
Without those votes ACT would have still got in with about 8 seats. Plus Seymour's seat gets them in anyway.

Combining estimates with assumptions (why 1 in 10? why not 1 in 5 or 1 in 2)

Does not yield in any numbers that have any meaning. You are essentially making stuff up and make it look like "math"

We will have to wait and see what happens.

Originally Posted by STC

Combining estimates with assumptions (why 1 in 10? why not 1 in 5 or 1 in 2)

Does not yield in any numbers that have any meaning. You are essentially making stuff up and make it look like "math"

We will have to wait and see what happens.

Because I prefer to be realistic. And was responding to this "acts "rise to power" was largely due to their promises and campaigning with regards to firearms".
The fact that I think you are incorrect though should not diminish the enthusiasm for what the coalition might achieve for gun owners.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Interesting.
I think there are estimated 300,000 gun owners in NZ (is that correct?). Act won 246,409 party votes.
If one in ten gun owners voted Act on the basis of gun laws alone (generous I think) that's 30,000 votes.
Without those votes ACT would have still got in with about 8 seats. Plus Seymour's seat gets them in anyway.

@Tahr
Plus van Velden winning the Tamaki seat.

Keep it relevant guys as it’s close to getting shitcanned

Originally Posted by STC

acts "rise to power" was largely due to their promises and campaigning with regards to firearms. There are a shitton of firearms owners out there. If they do not deliver on this they might as well all retire because they will not be a thing come next election. Act voters are no labour voters with 2 braincells and an attention span of 3 seconds.

you could say the same about nzfirst.....winny made promises to the firearms community..then reneged....I sincerly hope Nicholle has found tape of him making those promises and has it on repeat playing anytime they meet...

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

you could say the same about nzfirst.....winny made promises to the firearms community..then reneged....I sincerly hope Nicholle has found tape of him making those promises and has it on repeat playing anytime they meet...

I remember NZ first having gun ownership in their campaigns as well. There was just no point for them to do that this time which is why they campaigned on other bad legislation, which I am just as happy to see gone.

Originally Posted by A330driver

Quote: I used to think the US was crazy for no being willing to give an inch with regards to 2A but seeing how things played out here, in the UK and in Australia I know completely understand.

Touche!!!!… and the reasons are obvious for most here.When these politicians say ,”I guarantee “…. I say ,there are no guarantees until signed into law as such.

Early days and big promises from the 3 Stooges,ACTs participants in this Firearms debate will be severely tested by the others,they won’t get it all “their” way!!

Fixed it for you

Originally Posted by No good names left

Fixed it for you

Aaaaaaaaahhhhh!……Not Really……the original Name I had was a little below the belt,so just tried to keep it ..Clean….but hey,appreciate the help!

Greetings,
Fudd is at least associated with the character Elmer Fudd in the Bugs Bunny cartoons. Elmer, a gentleman and gardener of advanced years and dodgy eyesight was at constant war with Bugs, the wascally wabbit and blasting away with his shotgun with little effect.
GPM.

What does being a Fudd mean?
Fudd (plural Fudds) (derogatory) A gun-owner who supports traditional hunting guns but favors gun control for other guns such as handguns or tactical rifles. quotations ▼ (derogatory) A bumbling and ill-educated person. quotations ▼

Originally Posted by A330driver

What does being a Fudd mean?
Fudd (plural Fudds) (derogatory) A gun-owner who supports traditional hunting guns but favors gun control for other guns such as handguns or tactical rifles. quotations ▼ (derogatory) A bumbling and ill-educated person. quotations ▼

Well there you are. I must admit some sympathy with the first description with tactical rifles meaning semi auto centrefire rifles. I have made my peace with synthetic stocks but none of my rifles have a stock that be called tactical, so far.
Regards Grandpamac.

In regards to the overall premise of this thread, it is worth observing that the party agreements do not guarantee or promise to enact the policies of the others. They have only agreed to PROGRESS the policies (The actual wording if you read the agreement). In politician speak, this leaves considerable wiggle room if any policy priorities begin the process of enactment but do not cross the finish line to completion.

I sincerely hope, like all of you, that ACTs policy priorities are enacted, but I am not dancing in the streets just yet. Steel your resolve my fellows, for the battle is not yet done.

You cant trust Winny.

He marches to the beat of his own drum.

As opposed to trusting other politicians....................