mgmorden
Member
Yes, I'd bother. I'll fight every attempt to make firearms ownership more complicated or a pain, but I'll always go through with whatever paperwork or hoops are necessary.
I wonder if anyone in the more restrictive western nations has made the argument that most gun control laws in those countries are inherently classist.
That's just dumb right there. Plenty of NRA A+ Democrats and plenty of NRA F republicans. Look at good old Mitt. Probably the most accomplished gun banner to have ever run for President...he was a Republican!
They are fanatical [...] Their main aim is to lobby for the protection of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. I once had to sit through a diatribe from their CEO and it made me physically ill.
His poor little head would have exploded had he heard Ted Nugent.I don't know about about Australia, but the UK has no unified body representing gun owners. The only organisation that has fought hard against recently proposed legislation and consultations is the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, but it is aimed at hunters and shotgunners. The NRA-UK is widely believed to have thrown the pistol shooters under the bus in 1997 to protect their rifles.
Heck, the previous NRA-UK chief executive, Derrick Mabbott, had this to say about the NRA-USA:
I don't know about about Australia, but the UK has no unified body representing gun owners. The only organisation that has fought hard against recently proposed legislation and consultations is the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, but it is aimed at hunters and shotgunners. The NRA-UK is widely believed to have thrown the pistol shooters under the bus in 1997 to protect their rifles.
Heck, the previous NRA-UK chief executive, Derrick Mabbott, had this to say about the NRA-USA:
I don't know about about Australia, but the UK has no unified body representing gun owners. The only organisation that has fought hard against recently proposed legislation and consultations is the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, but it is aimed at hunters and shotgunners. The NRA-UK is widely believed to have thrown the pistol shooters under the bus in 1997 to protect their rifles.
Heck, the previous NRA-UK chief executive, Derrick Mabbott, had this to say about the NRA-USA:
I read with interest the English Bill of Rights of 1689, specifically the portion in regard to defense:
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law; "
.
Oh right,well I commend your polititions for doing that & at least they had the spine,to stand up to the GCN-influenced,Labour Party,unlike our polititions who'd do anything to stay in power.Liberals I don't think are quite welcome in Northern Ireland..lol.Even Blair never believed in the pistol bans effectiveness over there & in the UK mainland.I was told the only reason we were allowed to keep our pistols was because the Unionist politicians refused to sign the Good Friday Agreement if Westminster tried to extend the pistol ban to NI and remove their personal protection weapons.
kiln said:You can't use it for defense against a person. There are lots of hoops to jump through. It just doesn't seem like there's a point to go through all of the trouble.
I was about to make some smug comment about subjects of the crown when it occurred to me that there was something familiar about this post from down under...WELCOME BACK JACK.Your internet walkabout has been too long in the taking.
Your input is very timely as our government attempts to put the building blocks in place to do the same to us while 94% of the gun owners in the USA stand by more silently than a humming bird feather hitting a shag carpet.
In fact some of your sound wisdom from another time and place may be the reason why I am suffering zero shortages...backatcha mate.