The extremism arguments are interesting in themselves - it would seem to be a collective label for a wide variety of idealism that doesn't agree with the 'mainstream' or 'regime' thinking of the day. It seems to be a collection point for everything from anti big pharma, anti globalisation, anti climate change hysteria, anti financial control through to top end racism and societal cleansing nut jobs right the way through to those that have been disenfranchised by bureaucratic incompetence and over reach. From what I can see of the arguments from people like Yasbeck, rolling all of those various groups into one ball and applying a 'label' like extremism is just a handy tool to marginalize multiple different groups in one go. Lazy university workers in effect.
The small group that have felt the effects of incompetent bureaucracy and that have been lumped in the extremist bunch by the likes of Yasbeck include those that do not trust things like firearms registries for various reasons, and most if not all are fair and valid reasons. One issue with our registry is the people in charge of the beast haven't from what I can see made any effort to actually justify it and take those that are required to comply with it along with them by explaining and acknowledging any faults with a plan to fix them. What it seems at the moment is a lot of propaganda about how good it's running and how well they are doing their job, with a side order of how wonderful the registry will be at some future undefined point. It's ok for those that have had a triggering event or have done the registration thing for whatever reason, it as far as I can see is also OK for those that haven't had a triggering event and don't want to play until they have to. Where it gets a bit sketchy for everyone is those that should have but haven't complied with the requirements, which from a few cases in the media includes a few people that should know better. This group are the ones that don't help any of us as firearms licence holders...
Bookmarks