by 1290 » 23 Apr 2015, 10:56 am
Anyone that understands anything about ballistics, basics your mind should be capable of assemling with logic (small bullets-small things, lots of small bullets flying things, big bullets-big things, biger bullets bigger things, fast, slow) and firearms (rifles / shotguns) generally will have no issue grasping the concept of why an individual interested in a diverse array of shooting activities, will by necessity require different firearms, sometimes multiples in the same configuation and/or chambering....Want to shoot fast moving flying or running things, whether animals or not, you probably need at least one shotgun. Want to shoot further out or less mobile targets, you'll start with a 22 rimfire then further than a reasonable distance or size, a centrefire is necessary. Want to hunt medium stuff, bigger stuff... there's a reason why there exist a multitude of different firearm types and chamberings commonly within the range of 0.17 up to 0.51calibre. also smaller/bigger.....
Most reasonably intelligent people, whether or not golfers, would understand the golfing analogy maybe they've seen the news reports of the drive, with a longer heavier club... seen the chip from the bunker with the wedgey shaped thing... the putting, the stuff in the middle with the other clubs and of course the guy or girl lugging the bag with a dozen or so different club.....yet golfer arent asked why?........ so those people cant use a reasonable amount of intelligence to figure out the parallel / association, and why maybe more than 1 gun is required?
So what I'm saying is that anyone who asks "why you need" or states that "you don't need more than one" or even 2 firearms, is displaying a great level of ignorance in the basics of shooting and firearms....and golf...that doesnt deserve a response other than a suggestion to possibly learn a few thing about shooting then come back and ask if you have any further questions (by that stage they may even wish to have a go!!).
Any suggestion by the Greens that individuals should be limited to 3 or 2 or 1 firearm, is simply a step in their Fabian (google it, go on) conquest of the firearm question, that means slowly but surely they seek to achieve their objective of total disarmament. The INTERMEDIATE step is gun-control, controlling the number, ultimately, disarming. Hence the United Nation has an office of disarmament, not an office of gun-control
http://www.un.org/disarmament/
The Office promotes:
........Disarmament efforts in the area of conventional weapons, especially landmines and small arms......
Make no mistake what the objectives are, 3 months ago the global arms trade treaty was finally ratified after years of global negotiation. The treaty requires national legislation to be implemented!!, and now we hear rumours of committees calling for national changes..oh but its only global transfers, right....I say buckle up.
I think that once shooters feel the need to justify multiple firearm (except where necessitated by law, on a PTA) it demonstrate a certain level surrender to the gungrabbers...dont give in by floundering for an answer.
We all need to pay attention to these treaties entered into, what they are using as a trojan horse to bring in tougher firearm law - terrorism-. We need to keep on top of what our respective state police ministers are discussing at their love fest, previously known as the APMC (Australasian police ministers council) infamously known for the 1996 National Firearms Agreement, now the 'Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management'.... I beleive the MCPEM has recommended changes at the recent COAG (premiers and Prime Minister love-in) hence the SFP 'disclosure'......