At the risk of labouring a point I didn’t post with the intent of changing anybody’s mind on the issue. People’s opinions are formed over many years and are a result of their experiences, and to think that I could change anybodies opinion just by posting on a bulletin board would be ridiculous.
The point of my post was to show that the only way to slow the government in its headlong rush to remove our freedoms is to present them with a united front on these things.
Just have a look at the pistol shooters who were dead silent on the whole buyback think in ’96 because they didn’t see it as affecting them and liked to think they were slipping under the governments radar. But once the precedent was set (medicare levies to pay for the confiscation of previously legal firearms) there was no going back and all it took was one incident blown out of all proportion in the media and they were the next target.
How long before some idiot misuses his bow and the government introduces restrictions on their use?
Archers are already headed down the same track with the recent reviews on crossbow ownership. Those archers that had nothing to do with crossbows ignored the whole thing until there was mention of “compound hunting bows†and then there was panic all around.
When the news came through that the compounds were off the table how many of you were just happy to go back to ignoring the crossbow shooters again?
People like Gun Control Australia have said in the past that their best chance of success is to slowly remove our freedom to own firearms piece by piece. It is too late to get active when the next freedom they are trying remove is your right to shoot a bow.
I can only make the point that we need cars far more than automatics, and this is the kind of analogy that just doesn’t wash with the non-hunting public.
Agreed, but in making this point you have fallen into using the argument that is most likely to see you lose your right to shoot a bow, the argument of “needâ€Â.
Someone’s “need†is a personal thing. Making laws based on the publics’ perceptions of a segment of the communities “need†to own a particular item is just a form of bigotry, and to sit quietly and allow the government to legislate away your rights to do certain things because others don’t see why you “need†to do these things is wrong. Unless what you personally are doing has a detrimental effect on others what business is it of anybody else’s?
The issue of comparative need is just the sort of thing people exploit when trying to force their views upon the public. An example is the issue of bull bars on cars. People who would want to rob you of your freedom of choice are crying out that no one needs a bulbar in the city and councils and state governments are listening. These people roll out statistics supporting their claims that they are a danger and have no quantifiable benefits for city dwellers and in the future you may find you are no longer allowed to drive your 4WD into the city for fear of paying a big fine.
We are becoming a society where the laws only specify the things you can do rather than a society where the laws only specify the things you cant do.
Sorry to go on so, and none of this is intended to poke **** at you Erron, they are just observations.
