Thread: Useing the firearms register

Originally Posted by A330driver

https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/3...ces-concerning

Not really relevant to thread IMO?

Also who decides what or who fits the criteria of a SovCit? Do you believe anything that these people at Guncontrol say eg "could happen like in the States" as if we are the same country?

I think that this article is a big pile of nothing with an incredibly obvious agenda and in the words of Christopher Hitchens - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

I see a stack of evidence as high as three quarters of a gnat's cock so will move along and get on with my day
Shooting
At the range
Ah, joy

Well hopefully getting that off yr chest makes u feel better ay…. Onya

read it-a disjointed load of gobbledy gook the point of being????????????????????.since when has being a sov cit been classed as a mental illness.MSM hysteria methinks .

"Yasbek said this was concerning, as SovCits held “extremist” views and should not be getting firearms licences." - Personally I think Yasbek's views are extremist and she should not be talking, ever. She has an interesting history none the less, I can see how she may have arrived at her particular brand of hysteria. She just reclaimed her German citizenship so hopefully she may be going to Germany shortly, they are welcome to her.

Originally Posted by inglishill

"Yasbek said this was concerning, as SovCits held “extremist” views and should not be getting firearms licences." - Personally I think Yasbek's views are extremist and she should not be talking, ever. She has an interesting history none the less, I can see how she may have arrived at her particular brand of hysteria. She just reclaimed her German citizenship so hopefully she may be going to Germany shortly, they are welcome to her.

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...

Originally Posted by No.3

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...

You make very fair and measured comments.

A couple of things;

1. I think you are right in regard to the fact that there is no real definition for the word 'extremist' within this context other than its use to instil fear in those who remain ignorant of its manipulative effects. I don't blame these people, it must be quite nice and refreshing to have ones head in the sand and trust in all authority to have your best interests at heart. Never mind any historical evidence that they do not, they would never do any of that stuff again.

2. ' and most if not all are fair and valid reasons.' - By the standards of todays media that could quite possibly be interpreted as extremism

3. People who have not complied with the requirements are breaking the law. They may not like that law, they may see the registry as a frivolous waste of time, effort and money that has zero effect on gun crime in New Zealand. They may see the registry as either another form of Govt control or just an extension of a leftist anti gun agenda. None of these reasons are good enough to say 'I am just not going to follow the law on this one', in the eyes of the law.

4. It seems, unfortunately, a complicated business with licenced firearms owners and their supporters attempting to provide levity in an environment where personal freedoms are so very important until they are counter 'personal freedoms'. The overbearing "Enter proclamation for 'personal freedoms' movement here" is well and good for specific groups at specific times. If one was to dare mention that these same philosophies could, and most probably should, be applied to other groups, one is the incarnation of utter evil and must be censured post haste. The pendulum, it seems, has swung a great deal. It will swing back, by design or by natural laws.

5. Have a good Christmas

That was a fairly balanced article. In the first half the gun control lady is making up things to be concerned about that suits her personal agenda, and in the second half the police refute everything she said.

(As for the journalist she ( I assume shes a she) gets what she wants, by presenting the gun control lady's view first, which makes it sound like there is something dramatically bad going on, thereby getting the reader's attention. If there is anything unbalanced, it is certainly this - both the gun control lady and the journalist, want to present the reader with some Bad News About Guns. But as far as these things go, this article is about as good as it gets nowadays I am afraid.)

The whole thing about using the Register is that it has been set up in such a way as to absolve the FSA & it's employees (and by default the Police) of any responsibility for anything that can remotely go wrong, right down to a mistake in the Serial Number on any entry, even a misinterpreted phone entry is Your Fault. Remember on the old Register every Firearm had to be seen and entered by a Police Officer and look at the shambles that turned into which is why it was abandoned in the first place. The bottom line is the FSA only know what you tell them and that is the downfall of the whole system, they will never ever capture all of the Firearms, it is that simple and like the last Register, it will fail again. Only when it is too painful financially will they call time on it and given our dire economic position that might very well be sooner than we think. The other elephant in the room which the Authorities adopt the Ostrich, head in the sand approach is how many illegal guns come in with the illegal drugs & contraband of the 95% of containers that are Not searched/inspected at our borders, which the Police/Authorities just refuse to acknowledge is happening at all but that is another issue.