Adler Shotgun to be banned by PM Tony Abbott

[Pennsylvania Yank]

Now, now Title II.....They don't have a 2nd Amendment, a national firmly entrenched gun culture, or any powerful gun rights groups to help them overcome the idiots who think only with their emotions, and who have a distinct agenda to gain more and more control over the lawful populace.

What is firmly entrenched in Australia are the gun control politicians, gun control lobbies, and their useful idiots among the urban populace, in the media and academia, in law enforcement, and in the legal/judicial arena.

Easier said than done throughout most of the world, but the only real way to preserve your gun rights is to never allow them to be taken away in the first place. I think it was a small miracle that the US Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was enacted with a sunset clause and was eventually allowed to just go away. That type of thing normally doesn't happen. Normally they would take such a law and build on it and add amendments banning more and more types of guns via legislation or even thru regulatory edict... We should thank our lucky stars and learn from that, which I think we did in a large respect, since the next time the left tried to ban them, they got seriously stuffed and/or paid a heavy price at the polls.

Gun rights need to be fought for every minute of every day. We fall asleep at the wheel just once and they will pounce.

In the meantime, enjoy this snippet showing a brand new technology called the Lever Action Shotgun. Brand new meaning developed in 1887 by John Browning. I love how he manages to squeeze one more round on top of the follower to get a total of 7 rounds! God Bless America!


1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWX9_lWUPI

[Title_II]

Now, now Title II.....They don't have a 2nd Amendment, a national firmly entrenched gun culture, or any powerful gun rights lobbies to help them overcome the idiots who think only with their emotions, and who have a distinct agenda to gain more and more control over the lawful populace.

Gun lobbies do nothing in our country except tell on the politicians. Politicians like to complain about them as if they are "big money" organizations but they spend almost no money in the grand scheme of politics. It's a lot easier for a politician to say, "It's the big powerful gun lobby!" than it is for them to say, "My constituents, the people that vote for me, are stupid and need to be put in their place. But I can't do it because the NRA will tell on me and they won't vote for me! It's not fair that the average moron on the street should have a say in how I rule over my country!" It is the individual gun owner that has made all of this happen the last 30 years.

And I support the NRA and GOA and SAF, because they reach the people that I cannot reach. But I will tell you this. In Early 2013, when there was a push for gun control, I went with these organizations to meet with reps as I did before and since. And they take it seriously. But I never saw them scared until I went with my friend Jeff. The US Senate Chief of Staff asked, "So who are you with?" I responded, "I'm with Jeff, he's right next to me," like a smart ass. He repeated, "I'm sorry, I meant what organization are you with?" I said, "None, it's just us." THAT's when I saw fear. When people start showing up and holding their feet to the fire, making them follow up with you every week, they get scared. They are used to lobbyists, they are not accustomed to Citizens getting PO'd enough to show up and make them start working on a daily basis. Others told me they got scared when they started receiving mail. Nobody ever tripped over a bag of NRA generated emails in the morning.

If the NRA sent twice the people, and spent twice the money, but none of their members ever did anything and no gun owners never did anything we would have had all losses the last 30 years, not wins.

And you are right, you must always fight. And that is why our brothers and sisters in Australia must start now. Rome was not built in a day and they have a lot of ground to cover.

[Pennsylvania Yank]

The NRA is not just a gun lobby. They promote shooting sports and hunting, gun safety and are heavily involved with law enforcement training and communicating important gun rights issues to their membership and the population at large. They are most importantly a fast and easy measure of political power. There is a reason their membership has swelled to record levels since 2008. They are using those record number of members like a billy club... The NRA is not without their faults, and they have several glaring ones. But if you ask me if I'd rather have an NRA or have them completely disappear, I would say give me the NRA for sure. Likewise the GOA and SAF etc.

These gun rights organizations are like tools in a toolbox, and the 2nd Amendment is the barn they are kept in, and our uniquely American gun culture are the strong walls and posts that make up the barn that constantly need reinforced and maintained.......We fortunate to have a majority of Americans who value our historic gun culture and our right to bear arms for self defense, We are lucky to have several of these gun rights organizations fighting for us and each lends a measure of support that they are uniquely qualified for and often excel at. Of course as you say, it's immensely helpful to have citizens who value their rights and are willing to go the distance to preserve them but as I said above, it's infinitely easier to speak with and meet your representative to help preserve your Rights, rather than petitioning him to help re-instate or grant you a set of mere privileges you do not currently have.

The Aussies have no strong tools and no barn.

[Title_II]

The NRA is not just a gun lobby. They promote shooting sports and hunting, gun safety and are heavily involved with law enforcement training and communicating important gun rights issues to their membership and the population at large.

You left out many of the most important things, they do, but I do not take that to mean you are unaware of them and need me to explain it to you

Of course as you say, it's immensely helpful to have citizens who value their rights and are willing to go the distance to preserve them but as I said above, it's infinitely easier to speak with and meet your representative to help preserve your Rights, rather than petitioning him to help re-instate or grant you a set of mere privileges you do not currently have.

You still have it backwards. Like I stated previously, if the NRA sent twice the number of people, and spent twice the amount of money, but no ordinary people showed up, we would have lost all firearms rights battles over the last 30 years instead of winning almost all of them.

Citizens who value their rights are not immensely valuable, they are the only thing that matters. The NRA is the one that is immensely valuable, only because they help Citizens who value their rights get the job done.

The NRA could be 10x the size they are in money and members, but without me and people like me doing our job they would make zero difference. They help us get the job done, we don't help them get the job done.

Without me, the NRA is nothing. Even if I send them $35 a year for the rest of my life and get 10 of my friends to do the same. Even legislatively, the NRA hasn't fought and won hardly a single cause in the last 10 years. All of the legislative wins have been grass roots efforts with the NRA showing up at the last minute when they see something is actually going to win and they swoop in and try to take credit. Often helping, and I appreciate the support, but sometimes hurting by throwing unnecessary compromises on the table after the deal is done. Like Castle Doctrine in your Great Commonwealth of PA, which I helped pass, with no help from the NRA, and the NRA weakened after the fact. That is not a shot at the NRA, like I said, I value them. Just give me some pro-gun legislative efforts they have spearheaded on the state or federal level over the past 10 years. Your count would be a single digit percentage of our successes, and we have had a lot of successes. My point is they are not the ones doing it.

What percentage of NRA lobbying, advertising, and campaign money went to winning candidates in 2012? The answer is 1%. They have a worse track record than Carl Rove.

How many substantial court cases has the NRA won in the past 10 years, state or federal? Again, it would be a single digit percentage of the progress we have made. And, again, they often swoop in at the last minute with some support when they see we are going to win. Which IS appreciated, but it is also another example of your giving them too much credit. Most of our wins have been through local law offices, even at the federal level, or Alan Gura. The reason you can open carry a handgun in your Great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania without fear of a police officer detaining you or compelling ID is that a lawyer local to me that I know sued the police in 2008 and as part of the settlement got this clarified in annual police officer training (MPOETC) for our entire state. Alan Gura did DC. NRA had nothing to do with Cali.

OK, so the NRA doesn't spend money on winning political candidates, they don't spearhead pro-gun legislation and rarely make any difference in getting it passed, and they don't spearhead lawsuits, appeals courts, or Supreme Court cases.

Who is getting all this stuff done?

Me and you. That's who. With the very much appreciated support and widespread public reach of the NRA.

Without the NRA, I will still prevail. And if I lived in Australia, I would be fighting right now. And I would make a difference.

Here is an article you might want to take a look at. Keep in mind, this is not a pro-gun article. Also, this very brilliant and observant lady falls for the "wag the dog" fallacy that you seem to, assuming all good comes from from the NRA and trickles down. Although she has missed the greater point, she does at least discern that it is ordinary citizens, and she puts an undue emphasis on volunteers IMO but a similar point is made, that make the difference. Gun owners make things happen. Organizations gonna organize.

...

[Title_II]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyshowalte ... -politics/

Washington 5/16/2013 @ 8:00AM 76,426 views
Five Reasons The NRA Won The Recent Gun Control Debate That Have Nothing To Do With Politics
No matter one’s position on gun control, there are lessons we can learn from the recent battle on background checks. According to Gallup, Over 90% of the public supports background checks for all gun purchases, yet the measure failed to pass the U.S. Senate.

According to most published sources, the reason is simple: the NRA has tons of money and threatened to “primary” those who voted against their will in the next election. If only it were that simple. As my colleague Dr. Kelton Rhoads, reminds us: “People are generally unable to distinguish a successful tactic in a failed campaign, or a failed tactic in a winning campaign. People over generalize, and assume any tactic used in a failed campaign is a bad one. Whereas a successful campaign blesses every tactic used.”

I’m going to share with you 5 reasons why the NRA won, and they have nothing to do with the often reported reasons like their PAC funds, their ability to turn out pro-gun voters in every legislative district, and the abundance of their skilled in-house and external lobbyists, although those are all true.

They simply execute the basics extremely well. As NRA volunteer Robert in Arizona told his fellow members about the basics, “Thanks for emailing your U.S. Senator, but you have to also write a letter or send a hand written postcard. No one ever tripped on a bag of email.” The good news is the tactics the NRA employed that no one is talking about are things that you can implement in your next persuasion battle. In addition, there were some mistakes made by gun control advocates that unwittingly aided the NRA.

1. Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership

As an NRA leader who’s worked there for over two decades told me, “I think our volunteers’ passion and intensity cannot be matched. You can’t pull a switch; your grassroots has to have sustainability and you have to train people. We might be happy with a recent legislative victory, but we examine why we won, we evaluate what we need to do better, and get our volunteers geared up for the next battle.” But how do they foster that culture, that fervor?

When we look at the grassroots effectiveness of the NRA, a big part of it has do with their volunteer leadership. According to one of my annual grassroots conference faculty members, Dr. Brad Sagarin of Northern Illinois University, there are two kinds of leadership styles: transactional and transformational. “Transactional leadership rewards people for accomplishing goals, and interventions typically occur when problems arise. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, motivates followers through appeals to ideals and values, and instills volunteers with their leader’s vision and direction.” From what I have seen over two decades of researching grassroots best practices, the NRA (and many unions) practice transformational leadership.

One of their long-time volunteer organizers told me, “At NRA, we believe in true grassroots. We don’t think that volunteers are ‘customers.’ These people are our friends. I’ve been in their homes, I’ve met their children, I’ve sat at their kitchen table, I’ve met their grandchildren. In addition, we on staff do all the things that we ask volunteers to do. We walk neighborhoods and pass out literature, we get on the phones, we raise money, we volunteer for campaigns. We consider ourselves peers with our volunteers.” Remember, this is an “inside the beltway” professional speaking–trust me, it’s very atypical.

At an annual conference I sponsor for political involvement professionals, I was reading some of the materials that attendees brought to share with their colleagues. One was a regional NRA newsletter. There was the typical legislative update and election news, but there also was a full page dedicated to volunteers in this particular region. In fact, the staff member took the time to mention each volunteer by name, mentioned the activities and events they attended together during his recent trip to the region (many of which had nothing to do with the NRA), described much fun he had with these people, what good friends they were, etc. I had never before or since seen that kind of personal recognition of volunteers. There is a core of collegiality that is unmatched in many grassroots organizations.

The Bottom Line: What is your ratio of transactional vs. transformational leadership behaviors? Share your vision and give your volunteers meaningful responsibilities.

2. Superior Grassroots Volunteer Quality

Several years ago, National Journal conducted one of their “insider” informal polls, where they asked D.C. insiders and congressional staff to name the most effective lobbying groups. The NRA of course made the list (along with the Heritage Foundation, The Credit Union National Association, AARP, The Teamsters, The American Israel Political Action Committee, and others). What was revealing were the reasons why these groups were effective. The answers included: “foot power and financial power,” “their allies respect them, their opponents fear them,” and what I think is the most telling: “Their constituents back home are head and shoulders above other interest groups.” Having taught citizens at all income and education levels how to get powerful legislators on their side, I have seen the good and the mediocre among sincere citizen advocates. I’ve never worked for the NRA, but from what I know of their volunteers and volunteer leadership, they would be in the “head and shoulders above” category.

I know from the interviews I conducted with these volunteers as well as the volunteer leadership practices of the NRA, they take great care to train, equip, and motivate their volunteers. And their volunteers are willing to show up and do the work.

I interviewed three NRA volunteers for The Underdog Edge. These were rank and file NRA members who changed the mind of a (or several) legislators. However, I could not use their stories in the book. Why? They were so much more advanced and adept at persuasion compared to the other “underdogs” I interviewed. Because I was looking for a pattern of influence behaviors practiced a majority of the ordinary people I interviewed, I could not include them in my book —- they were that unique. What did they do?

3. Volunteers Who are Intrepid in “Showing They Know”

As I reviewed their interview notes for this blog post, I came across something startling. In each and every one of the interviews, with Shaun, Mike, and David —– they exhibited the same behaviors when influencing up that none of my other interview subjects did. It’s as if they had their own “code,” their own methodology for advocating with lawmakers. They knew more about current gun laws, and the constitutionality of them, than the legislators and in one case the law enforcement officials they were trying to persuade (and they did persuade them, by the way).

One of them took on a committee of state senators, a majority of them who were against a proposal. He received a call from his state lobbyist about a half-hour before a major piece of legislation was to be debated in Austin. He immediately headed to the State House to testify. As he told me, “I was able to refute, point by point, 9 aspects of a proposed state law which showed it was unconstitutional and only aimed at law abiding gun owners. I could tell I was successful when I saw how angry my own representative was with me. The key is, Amy, we know the law better than the legislators.” Whether you like it or not, the NRA volunteers know their stuff. They are well trained and intrepid when it comes to explaining their point of view.

As former Congressman Jim Ross Lightfoot told me when I interviewed him for The Underdog Edge, “Amy, we talk and listen to people all day. We get pretty good at telling who is truly committed and sincere and who is not.”

In the recent debate on background checks, one of the NRA’s top volunteers, Sean from Ohio, took the initiative to approach like-minded organizations and volunteered to speak at their upcoming meetings about the pending legislation. For two months he was giving at least three speeches per week to local groups. Two things stand out about this: 1) he is willing to give three speeches a week; 2) he knows his stuff enough to do this. I wonder how many organizations have volunteers capable and willing to do the same for their cause.

The Bottom Line: Do you equip your team to not just regurgitate talking points, but to practice intrepid advocacy for your cause? How would they do when they are challenged by someone up the food chain? Do you even trust them to carry important messages?

4. Investment in the Power of FTF

“FTF” in my world is “Face To Face,” as in FTF influence. I was excoriated by some for an opinion piece I wrote for Roll Call several years ago where I stated that many interest groups are relying too much on email advocacy. Amazingly, grassroots leaders were aghast that I dare state that while a vital part of the persuasion toolbox, online advocacy is but one of many tactics, and that you have to integrate all tactics to win. Some grassroots leaders called me and said their regional staff saw the article and ranted to them about my view and how they were concerned that I indeed was correct, because all of their resources were invested in online advocacy.

Two people called me after the article was published: an AFL-CIO staffer and an NRA staffer. The AFL-CIO person told me, “Amy you are right, so many people in this town push a button and think it is real grassroots. It takes real people.” This from a leader whose membership occupies less and less of the private sector workforce, yet still wields great influence. The other call was from the NRA. “Amy, I liked your article, but hey, if these groups keep doing online advocacy, that’s fine with me. Let them keep doing that, because we’ll keep doing what we do, and we will win.”

Remember what Congressman Jim Lightfoot said—legislators are pretty good at judging the credibility and sincerity of each and every constituent lobbying for a cause. Being face to face communicates that you are willing to make an effort; it increases your sincerity quotient.

I’ve seen this exemplified as well with one of my pharmaceutical clients. They have a very active structure of patient networks that advocate for legislation at the state level. These groups regularly convene offline for social and education events; there is a true offline community. They expressed concern to me that other pharmaceutical companies are now trying to copy their model. However, these copycat companies are creating online-only networks. I predict that the groups that have strong online and offline interaction will prosper while those that are only online will have persuasion challenges. There’s just no substitution for face-to-face interaction and the scientific literature hasn’t changed to date about its power. The NRA understands this and invests in it.

The Bottom Line: Online advocacy certainly is here to stay and plays a role in moving your message. However, online advocacy is the lowest form of commitment. What are you doing to equip your team to show up offline?

5. Narrative Goes Both Ways

Many have asked why the compelling stories of families affected by gun violence, particularly the Newtown victims, didn’t have more of an impact on this debate. Their stories of course had an impact; the Congress would not have considered gun legislation without them. But, as Brad Fitch of the Congressional Management Foundation wrote recently in his Roll Call article entitled “Power of the Personal Story Is Not New to Congress,” “In a survey of House chiefs of staff conducted last fall, when asked how frequently personal stories are used in meetings with their member of Congress, 88 percent said somewhat or very frequently.”

Stories are not new. It’s the combination of the story, the context of the debate, and the political accountability of the group telling the story that can move a lawmaker. I would never counsel someone to refrain from using narrative to make a point; we are hard-wired to respond to story. But the other side has stories, too.

While it seems like the NRA is portrayed as caring only about their guns, their rights, etc., there is a great deal of concern for the rights of others — for the underdog. As I reviewed my interview notes, each one, again, had a story of an underdog, an ordinary person, who would have benefited from their position —– people they often do not know or have relationships with, so they also effectively argue for the interests of others.

Mike told me the story of a local proposal to limit the number of guns one could buy per month. A woman who purchased a gun to protect herself from her estranged husband (against whom she obtained a restraining order) was attacked by him; her gun malfunctioned, but she survived the attack. However, due to the proposed law, she would not have been able to purchase another gun because it fell within the restricted time frame.

Another member reminded a local legislator who was fighting the location of a gun range near his church that a 90 year old church member who was gunned down at a local restaurant was killed by those who illegally obtained guns, and that that issue was more important to address than the location of a practice range.

The Bottom Line: How can you advocate for others you do not represent? Remember, legislators expect you to talk about how you benefit; when you look out for others, you increase your persuasion quotient.

So, agree or disagree with the NRA, there are factors besides the “money and power” theme to to their effectiveness, but they are not as predictable or malignant as the “money and power” theme, is it?

And, like any other group, they benefited from the mistakes of their opponents. Here’s a few of them for your consideration.

Rahm Emmanuel’s Recruiting of Pro Gun Democrats

Something Democrats who favored the background check legislation have failed to remember (and few in the media are reporting) is that many of their colleagues were recruited to run for office precisely because they were “pro gun democrats.”

That’s right, back in 2006, an element of Rahm Emmanel’s strategy to win back the House in 2006 was to recruit candidates who supported gun rights. There was a reason Rahm Emanuel recruited them all those years ago–he felt that they would be less threatened at the polls because of the NRA’s ability to impact elections.

The Bottom Line: The philosophy and campaign platform of an elected official of any level still matters. Legislators who ran in pro-gun districts and included their support for gun rights are going to generally maintain that commitment and philosophy.

Leveraging Your Opponent’s Mistakes

Michael Bloomberg has tons of money and holds himself in high regard. He has created the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Group which will impact this debate. He has already spent $12 million of his own money for advertisements against the NRA’s position in key states. However, I believe it backfired in this recent debate.

His group ran ads over the last congressional recess in places like Arkansas and Arizona. Instead of winning over Arkansas and Arizona voters, it gave Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) the ability to say that “New York City didn’t tell them how to vote.”

Many gun safety advocates will press on and continue to run ads, which is a standard tactic and is perfectly acceptable. However, we know how just running TV ads worked for Karl Rove’s Super PAC efforts to elect Mitt Romney. You’ve got to have several tactics at the ready and not throw money at a couple obvious tactics.

The Bottom Line: Sometimes your opponent makes a miscalculation which benefits you. Be ready and unafraid to leverage it to your advantage.

[Pennsylvania Yank]

Thanks for the article Title II. I think we share a lot of common ground, putting aside the fact that I think you are misreading my context somewhat... But to stay on subject, how exactly would this type of powerful grassroots and "power of the individual" dynamic translate to the struggle of many Australian gun owners, who are essentially clinging to hopes and dreams rather than tangible rights at this point, and where the most vocal proponents of gun rights in Australia are quickly isolated and labeled as dangerous lunatics, often by a large percentage of moderate gun owners within their own ranks? How could your individual involvement model lead to a successful importation of an 8 shot lever action shotgun for instance, if that was the first battle per se of the new war?

[Title_II]

It is 100% on point. You say they have no powerful lobbying groups for gun rights in Australia, and that is one of their problems. Then you seem to suggest that individual activism such as I suggest in Australia is actually of minor consequence in the US, with gun lobbies being the primary reason we have retained firearm ownership.

Now, whether or not that's what you meant is not important, that is the impression I got and I'm sure many others had. So, I wanted to clarify that is not true, the reverse is true, so as to inspire our Australian friends rather than cut them from the knees and make them feel hopeless.

Do you think that them doing nothing is MORE effective than doing something?

But to stay on subject, how exactly would this type of powerful grassroots and "power of the individual" dynamic translate to the struggle of many Australian gun owners, who are essentially clinging to hopes and dreams rather than tangible rights at this point...

Just to be clear, we have NO tangible rights in the US, at least at the federal level. And I am not talking about RKBA, I'm talking about ANY rights, but let's stick to RKBA for the moment.

All courts have continuously agreed that the People in the US have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the people that the government approves of, the arms the government approves of, the places and times the government approves of, provided we get approval from the government in advance, and provided it's OK with them. Unless they change their minds, of course.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution has ZERO force of law. NONE. The only thing it does for Americans is pretty much guarantee a whole lot of us are going to get really P'd Off any time the government comes after us, because by their perspective, we have some fanciful illusion that we are entitled to guns and that is a social issue with which they must deal.

...and where the most vocal proponents of gun rights in Australia are quickly isolated and labeled as dangerous lunatics, often by a large percentage of moderate gun owners within their own ranks?

You just described the US!

Every single media outlet demonizes gun ownership and gun owners. 80% of gun owners demonize the 20% of gun activists, and 75% of the 20% of gun activists (15% of gun owners) demonize the last 5% as extremist and dangerous!

The federal government of the US has consistently listed gun owners and activist groups as one of the top national security threats to our Country!

Your Governor told the DHS that our 2010 annual Second Amendment rally and lobbying event (that had been going on for 5 years at that point) at the Harrisburg capitol was a terror threat and extremist militias would be attending. Not only did he bring in DHS, he hired Israeli security companies to collect information on and investigate everyone that planned to attend the event and continue monitoring their activities after the event concluded.

Including Me:

http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ne ... 00516.html

The situation of US gun owners is sounding more like the situation of Australian gun owners all the time, isn't it?

I'm not sure how old you are, but these are the good times. Persecution of gun owners from the outside and within the gun community was a lot worse 20 or 30 years ago!

How could your individual involvement model lead to a successful importation of an 8 shot lever action shotgun for instance, if that was the first battle per se of the new war?

It can't. We LOSE. That's how. Australian gun owners fight and lose.

How many times have we fought and lost before we started winning? Hundreds. Thousands. But now we have them on their heals! We just keep winning!

That's like asking how can a guy that has no computer or management skills and never held a job for more than two months become the CEO of Microsoft? By being told "No" a whole lot for a long time

Or, more colloquially, "How do you make it to Carnegie Hall?"

"Practice, Practice, Practice"

Let's review:

1. Gun "lobbies" (misnomer) don't do the work in the US. People do. But they are a force multiplier, we have that advantage. It is becoming less important to us, not more important.

2. We don't have any RKBA in the US. It's just a rallying cry, like a book of God. (BTW I am a Christian, this is just a philosophical metaphor)

3. Gun owners are as demonized in the US as they are anywhere, including Australia, possibly more. And including by our own. The difference is we decided in recent decades that we will not be shut down or shut up and we will fight for human dignity regardless of the risks or ostracism. And the people that came before me, and fought harder than me, brought us to where we are now and make my fight more effective.

But I have also started with zero, in a community similar to what I assume might be Australian conditions, and I have made a difference in such situations as well.

There is no doubt Australians can stand up now and make a difference at some point. There is also no doubt all will be lost if they don't stand up.

You are right, PA Yank, we agree on 99%, and that's rare. And I would stand beside you any day. I have made a difference. In our Nation, in our Commonwealth, and I have made a difference in a place far more worse off. Australians can make a difference if they stand up, fight, and never quit. It does not have to be an all-consuming process. A few people putting in 5 minutes a week and an hour a month can make a world of difference. Just remember the golden rule that you have to bring other people in once you start, and then inspire them to do the same.

[brett1868]

The Aussies have no strong tools and no barn.

Unfortunately we have many big tools, most of them in politics

[bluerob]

so when do we sue?

I'm hoping that all of the associations that represent shooters are able to "get it together" and start pushing harder back against anti gun lobbies. In view of what Mr Abbott is attempting, is that really happening?

Hope in one hand and poop in the other, see which fills up first.

You have it pretty well summed up.

Our only real chance is to bring the neutral majority on side purely on the principle of abating the undermining of our freedoms as a society as a whole.

Is anybody here actually going to do anything?

You have no hope and no chance as long as you treat this like a football game on TV and just watch and speculate.

Are you afraid it won't do any good to call or meet with your reps (usually their staff)? OF COURSE IT WON'T. It didn't do us any good, either. Nobody takes the first call or meeting seriously. You are going to have to fall on your face a lot and accomplish very little for a time before you are taken seriously. So you better get started right now!

I'm sure some of you went through more humiliation and rejection to bang the hot girl in school.

All that "we" can do is write letters incessantly and demand that the various groups that represent us "get together" and start a campaign of constant positive reinforcement of the benefits of being involved in the various firearm sports.

I can assure you that I ain't watching TV on this and as for the hottest girl in school - not a story for this forum......

[David Brown]

so when do we sue?

I think you'll find that you can't actually "just sue" the state and federal governments as such (in relation to our circumstances, but, I'll have to get my law books out), but, could perhaps mount a High Court (or Federal or both) challenge to the validity, intention and practical application in the community of this decision. Sadly, that'll cost more than 7,000 shotguns.

Because the word "terrorist" has been used, this could also make life difficult.

I'm hoping that all of the associations that represent shooters are able to "get it together" and start pushing harder back against anti gun lobbies. In view of what Mr Abbott is attempting, is that really happening?

Having Mr Borsak making derogatory comments about Mr Abbott on a regular basis, instead of making sensible and measured comments in front of his wall trophies aren't doing us any favours either. A bit of common sense is needed. If having a trophy wall is your thing, keep it private. This is for obvious reasons.

As David Brown has mentioned (together with a few others), it's important that each and everyone of us writes a letter as indicated.

If only we could get 250,000 people organized.

Thank you.

I also say that we need to show our best foot forward, we need to be respectful, tasteful, polite and consistent with the facts. If Rob Borsack is mouthing off like a redneck yahoo, then he is doing us all a disservice. That just proves to the uninformed, that we are all gun swinging rednecks with bad practices. This kind of thing has to stop.

I will even go as far to say, if you like long straggly grey hair, old flan no shirts, need some money spent on dental work, and have a winnie red smouldering away out of the corner of your mouth, we will not not hold this against you. But if you are going to be a public figure, get on the radio or TV, please pretend you are going to a wedding or something similar. We are dealing in the mass media and the people who read it, and the folk in the city who are making judgements and opinions that will effect public policy, will form a negative view.

Public image is everything, and we must improve it. Look at motorsports. Craig Lowndes and Jamie Whincup are very marketable faces of the sport. The drag racing flanno wearing folk, not so much. (As I sit here in my trakkie daks and T shirt :-0 )

We all need to get active but be VERY careful what we say and how we say it.

For our US friends…..have you listened to Gun Talk this week. The SAF folk have a new fight over the NICS check files having more folk added just because their kids help manage their finances, so on the prohibited list! Seems we are swapping our bad ideas on gun laws between Obamma and Abbott.

[Title_II]

For our US friends…..have you listened to Gun Talk this week. The SAF folk have a new fight over the NICS check files having more folk added just because their kids help manage their finances, so on the prohibited list! Seems we are swapping our bad ideas on gun laws between Obamma and Abbott.

Do you have any suggestions about what we should do about it?

(not having a go, seriously, let's hear the call!)

[David Brown]

Australians can make a difference if they stand up, fight, and never quit. It does not have to be an all-consuming process. A few people putting in 5 minutes a week and an hour a month can make a world of difference. Just remember the golden rule that you have to bring other people in once you start, and then inspire them to do the same.

I think you need a 6 month holiday. How about down under?

[Gwion]

The Aussies have no strong tools and no barn.

Unfortunately we have many big tools, most of them in politics

Baaaahahahaha...


Too true!

[Xerox]

One to the anti-gun whingers on this one it looks like

[Gwion]

Interesting to see that debate about Australian issues is being carried on by Americans.

Here are a few things for you to consider:

- There are no such thing as "gun rights" in Australia. Having a firearm has always been a freedom, not a right. Coming to grips with this reality is the fundamental difference dictating an Australian approach to the issue and not an American one.

- Australia is, on the whole, quite accepting of gun ownership in a historical context. Accepting of firearms as useful tools in agriculture and for humane hunting and legitimate sporting uses.

- We, as a whole in Australia, see no need for guns for self defense and interperate those pushing this agenda as wanting to establish and "American type" gun culture; something that the average Australian does not want to see.

The challenge in Australia is to get the average Aussie on side and to get them to vote against the constant erosion of freedoms. And that is a HUGE challenge, because the average Australian is quite politically apathetic and will basically vote for who ever their family or peer group spouts as the way to vote with out actually understanding the issues at hand. They will never vote to "protect our gun rights", but they may vote to protect their own freedoms.

The other issue is that we have the Holden v Ford debate. That is, the larger majority see the two major parties as the only real choice and to vote any other way is unAustralian. Even those who think beyond their own tribe's camp, "the swinging vote", consider the minor parties to be too focused on special interests, or to be associated with radical 'fringe' (not pointing any fingers but Pauline Hanson comes to mind immediately), and will vote either Labour or Liberal/National, depending on policy they see as relating to their own "bigger" issues, such as tax systems, education and health care funding, support for business and improvements to infrastructure.

In short, Australia is Australia and it is not the US.

Yes, we need to come up with ways to re-educate the Australia populace that the MAJORITY of licenced firearms owners are RESPONSIBLE, RATIONAL, PRODUCTIVE members of our society who go to great pains to abide by the laws of the land and that eroding their (LAFO) freedom to pursue legitimate recreational and sporting activities, is in fact eroding the freedoms of every Australian person.

This will not be achieved through lobbying politicians, as the pollies know too well that firearms are a non-issue for most people and that it is far too easy to marginalise and vilify the loudest voices because they are often easily tripped up or shown to be one dimensional.

From my perspective, there is too much "us and them", creating a divide between firearms users (LAFO) and the wider community.

The focus should be on the fact that "we" are "them" and "they" are "us".

It should be about the city based pistol/shotgun/rifle shooter who aims for the Commonwealth Games & Olympics.

It should be about the concerned environmentalist who wants to more effectively control destructive feral animals.

It should be about the farmer who has been working from dawn til dusk and has better things to do than run around at night shooting foxes and how responsible recreational shooters can be in a better position to assist the situation.

It should be about getting these stories to the "PEOPLE" and letting them know how these RESPONSIBLE, ORDINARY Australians are having their freedoms eroded for no good reason.

It should be about how firearms violence is a CRIMINAL issue that is in the greatest part separate from licenced firearms owners.

It should be about denouncing "redneck" (sorry if that offends) IRRESPONSIBLE behaviour associated with firearms.

It should be about being seen to be setting standards from within the "community" of LAFO and not painting over the minority who ARE irresponsible.

SO, what have i done?
Encourage any responsible person i know who mentions wanting to get a firearms licence.
Talk freely about my target shooting as a physical and mental challenge like any sport.
Talk freely about my concerns of having to sell one of my rifles at a great loss because there are moves to recategorise it to a licence type i am not compliant with.
Talk freely among LAFO about the real challenges we face, like disassociating our selves with the "radical fringe" and irresponsible types.
I see these things as working at a "grass root" level to garner support for the every day Australian who also happens to be a licenced shooter.

I'm open to any suggestions as to how to get these messages out to the greater public. However, i feel it is counter productive to use terms like "gun rights" and to push agendas like concealed carry or transplanting American law and culture into Australia.

[Title_II]

Interesting to see that debate about Australian issues is being carried on by Americans.

Here are a few things for you to consider:

- There are no such thing as "gun rights" in Australia. Having a firearm has always been a freedom, not a right. Coming to grips with this reality is the fundamental difference dictating an Australian approach to the issue and not an American one.

I have never once said "gun rights," I have only said that American's have no "gun rights" when it was brought up to me.

- Australia is, on the whole, quite accepting of gun ownership in a historical context. Accepting of firearms as useful tools in agriculture and for humane hunting and legitimate sporting uses.

- We, as a whole in Australia, see no need for guns for self defense and interperate those pushing this agenda as wanting to establish and "American type" gun culture; something that the average Australian does not want to see.

I have never once suggested that Australians should take up American gun culture.

The only thing I said was you should start going directly to your representatives and your government and start fighting. Just to be clear, by "fighting" I do not mean "ugly American," or being rude. I mean a mindset of commitment.

The challenge in Australia is to get the average Aussie on side and to get them to vote against the constant erosion of freedoms. And that is a HUGE challenge, because the average Australian is quite politically apathetic and will basically vote for who ever their family or peer group spouts as the way to vote with out actually understanding the issues at hand. They will never vote to "protect our gun rights", but they may vote to protect their own freedoms.

Voting will get you nowhere, especially if the culture is as you say it is. You will just continue to lose, and that appears to be in conflict of your stated goal of preventing further erosion of gun ownership. Encouraging new shooters is incredibly helpful, and I applaud you! Thank you! As is public outreach.

Of course your reps won't listen to you about such issues, of course they know nobody cares about such issues, you've never gone and talked to them about such issues. Why on Earth would they care or think anyone else would care if you never have?

I pointed this out earlier. I said that the fear of not being taken seriously is a self-fulfilling prophecy! Of course you won't be taken seriously! You will have to act seriously for some time before you are taken seriously. That is the way we did it in the US. We were in the same boat! And that is the way anti-gunners finally started taking your guns in Australia. They didn't win Day 1. They pounded, and pounded, and pounded, until the government finally realized they had to at least listen to them, whether they liked them or not. And then they were tenderized for the right moment.

None of my discussion in this thread has anything to do with American gun culture. I just said start doing something and start building a rapport with your government because if you think they won't take you seriously now, wait until the next massive gun ban comes and you've done nothing while the antis have continued to work them over.

I hope I have clarified my intent and summarized my point. There has been a lot of Yank talk here today (not THE Yank, all us Yanks ) and I feel some think I am sticking my nose in their business. I don't think I have, I haven't advocated my culture, but I do want to back off a little bit and give it a rest. I hope you take it in the spirit it was intended. I have met many really good people on this forum that are more like-minded and easy-going than I would have expected.

[valkyrie]

Maybe we should form a small group of people to be the face of our campain to educate the public. Have them all come from different backgrounds and all be passionate about the sport so that we can show people that we are all just like them only with guns. Just an idea

[brett1868]

@ Gwion - Elegantly put, I am of a very similar view and like you I try to encourage new shooters, I discuss my hobby / sport with work colleagues which has resulted in 3 license applications so far this year. I liked the Ads on TV for the army reserve showing ordinary Australians in civilian clothing then in uniform with the message that ordinary Australians can achieve. A similar campaign highlighting the diversity of people and professions sharing a common sport / activity would go some way to improving public perception possibly.
Firearm ownership in the current minds of the sheeple is politically incorrect and we all know how important it is to be politically correct no matter what your personal beliefs may be, sad but true. I know board members of large corporations, lawyers, doctors and even a high ranking police officer who love to shoot but keep it to themselves like a dirty little secret for fear of being ostracised by the PC brigade. Remember the furore surrounding the 2 swimmers from the last Olympics for daring to post a photo of themselves holding guns? Threatened with action and a lot of negative press, I believe they issued an apology about it being a foolish act....this is the type of B.S we have to deal with...

[Gwion]

No worries Title. I can see how my post may be taken as 'aimed' toward the Yanks.

My intention was to point out a few cultural issues that the Yanks may not be aware of here in Australia.

I agree that we need a proactive approach. The first hurdle is to be seen by the wider public as 'normal people', as the irresponsible few have made it easy for us all to be tarred with the same brush in public perception. This is something everyone can work towards in some small way.
We need the average Aussie to be wicker to think, "Aunty Pat needs a fair go, she's put a lot into her sport and gets a lot out of it". This will lend more weight to any organised efforts at a government level.

[coloradoboy]

you guys need the NRA pronto.

and resurrect charlton heston

"...from my cold dead hands"

[brett1868]

you guys need the NRA pronto.

and resurrect charlton heston

"...from my cold dead hands"

And while in resurrection mode...let's bring back "The Duke"

[Pennsylvania Yank]

No worries Title. I can see how my post may be taken as 'aimed' toward the Yanks.

My intention was to point out a few cultural issues that the Yanks may not be aware of here in Australia.

I agree that we need a proactive approach. The first hurdle is to be seen by the wider public as 'normal people', as the irresponsible few have made it easy for us all to be tarred with the same brush in public perception. This is something everyone can work towards in some small way.
We need the average Aussie to be wicker to think, "Aunty Pat needs a fair go, she's put a lot into her sport and gets a lot out of it". This will lend more weight to any organised efforts at a government level.

Curious about this "radical fringe" that you think moderate gun owners should try to disassociate themselves from. Would the radical fringe include those who want to bring back lawful semi-automatics?, or are they simply people who are vociferously and/or obnoxiously confronting politicians and/or testing the limits of the current restrictions? or are they both?

What is your opinion on attempting to roll back and repeal certain laws, as opposed to simply trying to draw a line against further restrictions?

[pajamatime]

No worries Title. I can see how my post may be taken as 'aimed' toward the Yanks.

My intention was to point out a few cultural issues that the Yanks may not be aware of here in Australia.

I agree that we need a proactive approach. The first hurdle is to be seen by the wider public as 'normal people', as the irresponsible few have made it easy for us all to be tarred with the same brush in public perception. This is something everyone can work towards in some small way.
We need the average Aussie to be wicker to think, "Aunty Pat needs a fair go, she's put a lot into her sport and gets a lot out of it". This will lend more weight to any organised efforts at a government level.

Curious about this "radical fringe" that you think moderate gun owners should try to disassociate themselves from. Would the radical fringe include those who want to bring back lawful semi-automatics?, or are they simply people who are vociferously and/or obnoxiously confronting politicians and/or testing the limits of the current restrictions? or are they both?

What is your opinion on attempting to roll back and repeal certain laws, as opposed to simply trying to draw a line against further restrictions?

what I say next is not having a go at you penn its more playing the pathetic notion that the power of suggestion should win over truth based Obvious lol
whos America? I dono what a yank is...wtf is a American culture. I only know Australian culture. lol. I see plenty of dramatic people saying dramatic things that make no sense what so ever but there is no connection what so ever to American gun culture! we are Australians and what Australian wouldn't want access to the proper means to self defense. its a no brainer...think of all the victims out there already fuming over the lack of legal access to non-lethal and lethal self defense items. bloody heaps of them i bet. once they realize the serious state of self defense to begin with allot of people will be rational and reasonable about the whole idea in general. Brazil has very strict gun laws and it has worse crime rate then the US of A. there is no consistent variable in play for the anti gun variety and eventually they will loose their campaign against us.

@ everyone else: it is common sense though in my personal opinion that we leave the firearm focused self defense part of everything till much later on when we have given the enemy a fair beating. for now WE should START PUTTING REALLY FUNKY STICKERS ON OUR CARS and ADVERTISE and INTRODUCE as many people as possible (big letters stand out) lol

edit: oh and also search and destroy in relation to media attacks. We need to keep up the media and social media fronts at all times so that their propaganda is not left unchecked and also when ever you get a chance harass the politicians and never go away. in relation to voting though it appears to be a very controversial situation on how to vote to begin with...some people want us to vote above the line and some want us to vote below the line? anyone want to add their 2 cents please do.

[Gwion]

@ Brett.
Cheers, mate. Being a responsible shooter is nothing to be ashamed of and being a shooter and also being PC are not mutually exclusive. Keep sharing your sport with those around you as though it were nothing out of the ordinary.

[Gwion]

@ PenYank.

To understand what i mean re: 'radical fringe', you need to be familiar with our political history over the last 20 odd years. That's not something i am about to try to fill you in on.

I am all for looking at the legislation and making it easier for licensed shooters to access firearms suited to particular activities. It is bandied about a lot, but the New Zealand model seems to work very well.

To achieve any roll back, we would have to concede to more stringent licencing arrangements/qualification. EG: as they do in NZ, with interviews and individual vetting of licence applicants.

I guess the 'radical fringe' i'm referring to are those saying that no licencing or regulation is necessary and everyone should be able to get what ever they want for what ever purpose they want. Those days are long gone in Australia and the general population doesn't want to see them return; including many licensed shooters.

Many, if not the majority, are happy enough to comply with some regulations in the interest of public safety. Safe storage requirements are seen to keep children safe and prevent accidents. The vetting process for licenses is seen to keep access to fire arms out of "unstable" hands.

Pushing to have all firearms laws repealed does us no favours if we want to be seen as reasonable and responsible members of the community. Putting forward reasonable and considered alternatives is for more useful. If you aren't prepared to give, you can't expect to take.

And again, the Us & Them attitude just puts otherwise supportive people off side.

Just my take. Some will agree, some will disagree.

[Gwion]

in relation to voting though it appears to be a very controversial situation on how to vote to begin with...some people want us to vote above the line and some want us to vote below the line? anyone want to add their 2 cents please do.

Mate. Vote however YOU see fit. It is YOUR vote and no-one else's.

The more we are seen as ordinary Australians who are responsible and conscientious, the more moderate Pollies will see that there is a vote to be had in showing real support for responsible shooters.

Again, just my take on it.

[pajamatime]

@ Brett.
Cheers, mate. Being a responsible shooter is nothing to be ashamed of and being a shooter and also being PC are not mutually exclusive. Keep sharing your sport with those around you as though it were nothing out of the ordinary.

people are way to shy these days and to be honest I have been one of those secretive types. They are banking on this behavior me thinks and their campaign has only been this strong for this long because we just struggle to really be loud and proud (politely) and get the word out. They have us so scared that we can't even talk about it....maybe its time we stopped being their bitch?

[XP22]

@ PenYank.

To understand what i mean re: 'radical fringe', you need to be familiar with our political history over the last 20 odd years. That's not something i am about to try to fill you in on.

I am all for looking at the legislation and making it easier for licensed shooters to access firearms suited to particular activities. It is bandied about a lot, but the New Zealand model seems to work very well.

To achieve any roll back, we would have to concede to more stringent licencing arrangements/qualification. EG: as they do in NZ, with interviews and individual vetting of licence applicants.

I guess the 'radical fringe' i'm referring to are those saying that no licencing or regulation is necessary and everyone should be able to get what ever they want for what ever purpose they want. Those days are long gone in Australia and the general population doesn't want to see them return; including many licensed shooters.

Many, if not the majority, are happy enough to comply with some regulations in the interest of public safety. Safe storage requirements are seen to keep children safe and prevent accidents. The vetting process for licenses is seen to keep access to fire arms out of "unstable" hands.

Pushing to have all firearms laws repealed does us no favours if we want to be seen as reasonable and responsible members of the community. Putting forward reasonable and considered alternatives is for more useful. If you aren't prepared to give, you can't expect to take.

And again, the Us & Them attitude just puts otherwise supportive people off side.

Just my take. Some will agree, some will disagree.

And disagree strongly I do,

I am one of the radical fringe then, I had no issue when you could walk in buy whatever you wanted and didn't need a licence or even cared what others thought. Gun crime wasn't huge and most people who did commit a crime were able to be prosecuted under existing law. It wasn't until restrictions were put in place that we started to see issues.

Billions have been spent regulating a useless database (when no crime has been solved by reference to the firearms database since inception- therefore it is useless) and on unneccesary checks and restrictions on law abiding firearms owners(people who mostly would do whatever the Government tells them anyway).

Licencing and registration have done nothing to reduce crime in this country nor restricted the access criminals have to firearms(as proven by the new firearms criminals now posess that never entered the country legally as as reported to the recent commission).

So in light of the fact that nothing has been achieved by the level of regulation we currently have why keep it?

If laws restricting semi auto ownership, the use of silencers and registration allow you to sleep better at night then keep a tight hold of that illusion but you only need to look over the Tasman to see that the sky hasn't fallen in on NZ.without draconian laws.

[Oldbloke]

Who has sent an email to the PM or local member? Lots of talk here, but is there any action?

[XP22]

Who has sent an email to the PM or local member? Lots of talk here, but is there any action?

Stuff the emails, drop in when you are walking past the office and ask for an appointment, write proper letters, annoy the piss out of them, harass the local newspaper, tTrain family and club members to do the same thing. The secretaries for my local State and Federal members for the House of reps and senate know me by name(both now shoot too).

Support any party willing to take your case to parliament, even if they are bound to lose a solid number of primary votes shows up on statistics and pollies love stats.