From: "Alex Hamilton", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Alex, you seem to want to misconstrue nearly everything I write. I'll
have
>one more go then give up...
If that's a firm promise, Kenneth, I will try to explain, but without
inserting yet again everything that was written before.
My reference to > ~Ferocious looking characters, unshaven, unwashed,
wearing camouflage
> uniforms, pot bellied with knives sticking out of their boots .......
was to a specific TV programme in the aftermath of Dunblane. I don't
know whether they were real or hired actors, but I have seen them
myself.
The last NPA Anno Domini meeting was visited by a load of flower-power
types, with "Last of the Mohicans" hair cuts, painted faces, wearing
camouflage gear and accompanied by their women and many small, unwashed
children! They arrived in an ex.military vehicle - one of those very
high, six wheeled, lightly armoured troop transports, except that they
cut out the roof and made a kind of double decker out of it, from which
they
waved to onlookers with "peace brother" and all that rubbish. I
noticed that they were well photographed, as were several Brenguns on
open display (deactivated of course, buy who could be sure) and stands
that sold body armour, T bar truncheons and similar merchandise "so
essential for target shooting".
I also noticed several characters walking around bare to the waist with
long beards and pony-tails, wearing holstered 1911s and positively
festooned with loaded magazines. Not many, only 5 or 6, but they
lowered us all into the pits!!!
I actually wrote to NRA and suggested that ex.military vehicles should
not be allowed into the camp at similar gatherings and that the
"participants" should be asked not wear holstered pistols but to leave
them in the boots of their cars and soon afterwards the rules had been
tightened in line with what I suggested. That was in 1994 and the 1995
Anno Domini meeting appeared less "objectionable", but I think that it
was already too late.
I don't want to start yet another boring debate about tolerance, but I
would like to say that I genuinely support all sports, but people who
need body armour, T truncheons and like to drive around looking like
Colombian bandits have no place in any sport that depends as much as we
do on good public image as ours does.
>>if anybody asks
>> what 50 cal shooting is, that is terrible! Why?~
>Pardon? As Harold Macmillan said of one of Khruschev's outbursts in
the UN -
>could I have a translation of that please.
In my original post, I asked what 50cal shooting was all about, because
I have never seen a 50cal rifle, never heard of it being used for any
sporting purpose. Military used it for long range sniping (definitely
not a sport), large calibre rifles were used as anti-tank weapons (not
effectively) and Browning Machine Gun is not a target rifle. I have
been at several HBSA meeting at with the 50cal had been referred to as
"anti-material" rifle.
So, my genuine question led to immediate assumption that I approved of a
ban, that I was prepared to sacrifice somebody else's sport in order to
save mine, which was all product of an active imagination as I neither
said nor implied any of those things. I was referred to as a Luddite,
TR
was not to be missed and even the NRA was dragged into this sterile
argument.
>Oh! You mean democracy. Well, that finished in this country a few
years back
>when elective dictatorship took over. Maybe you haven't noticed yet.
Democracy always appears as a dictatorship to any minority, but let us
not go over that again!
>
> ~In terms of publicly perceived danger 50 calibre is somewhat above
any
> other discipline that I can think of.~
>
> I responded: You must be joking here, 90% of the population have never
> heard of it.
>
> You responded ~But the government has heard of it.~
>Sorry Alex but you quite clearly wrote ~ publicly perceived ~ you've
just
>moved the goal posts.
No, I have not, but I tried to tell you that the government and its
agents, if it so chooses, will present 50cal rifles as especially
dangerous and then the public will be told to provoke demands for the
ban.
>> ~But had I called him a Luddite, told him that he did not
>> know what he was taking about (even though he didn't) bashed myself
>>in
>> the chest and demanded my rights, I am sure he would have walked away
> >convinced that the pistol ban was the best thing since sliced bread!~
You said that you have had enough of "sensible answers" and that the
time has come to be bloody minded - or was it someone else that wrote
that!? I have tried to illustrate our dependence on good public
relations and especially the very urgent need to get the public opinion
on our side.
I really do believe that a "bloody minded small minority" is less likely
to get anywhere in our flawed democracy.
>As Steve says you have stereotyped me as an unthinking boor. Your
remarks
>are not well taken.
I did not see that, but if that is what he thinks that is up to him. I
do not agree with your strategy, that's all.
I am also getting quite tired of references TR as something that no one
would miss if it disappeared and the link with the NRA. The NRA runs
the Imperial Meeting where much of the rifle shooting is TR and some of
NRA's staff run voluntarily one or two other meetings including a fair
offering of Gallery Rifle, Classic Rifle etc.
But most of the year NRA is Bisley ranges management agency, there only
to maintain and hire ranges without getting involved in actual shooting.
I am prepared to bet that great many TR shooters are not even NRA
members and many are its keenest critics.
It is completely irrelevant how TR shooting started and in which
Century. I have nothing whatsoever against the military (my father was
a regular army officer) and I regret that close links with the military
no longer exist, but equally everything that military do and use cannot
be automatically taken as a new sport.
>Plainly you have not read what I wrote: referring to TR I said:
>I wouldn't miss the Bisley type of full bore rifle shooting if it
ceased to
>exist tomorrow.
>However, I am prepared to do everything in my power to make sure it
doesn't
>because any type of shooting sport is worth preserving.
The second sentence if O.K., but the first ruins the effect, so why say
it?
>I visit Bisley 2 or 3 times a year
>and love going there, however I don't consider Bisley worth saving if
it
>means I have to play the turncoat and sacrifice other shooters.
You use emotive words that do not add anything to the argument. I also
believe that every sport, shooting or not, deserves to be protected and
saved. But, in the interests of Unity and Harmony, I expect all
shooting sportsmen to behave in such way as not to cause public
disapproval and endanger their sport and mine.
So, when a particular group "misbehaves" and appears to be deliberately
provoking the government, whilst claiming and demanding that we all go
down together, then I will distance myself and let them sink alone!!!
You cannot save fools, and the sport to which they belong has to
exercise a measure of self-regulation and throw such individuals out.
>Perhaps one of the 50 cal owners might like to comment on that but I
think
>the civilian 50 cal shooters predated the military.
I think you are (deliberately) introducing "fog" into the argument and
attempting to seek justification for 50calBMG and its close cousins by
linking it to Baker rifle, 50cal Springfield (pre 1873). As another
member of this list already posted details of 50 cal competitions and
aims, it clearly is a sport and as such need no justification. I rather
doubt, however, that the shooters of 19th Century 50 cal rifles will
give up their sport if they could distance themselves and stay shooting.
I think you are saying that if one ship is danger it must be saved or
the whole navy should be sacrificed.
I do not subscribe to that and, if I may say so, it is not in human
nature to act like that. It is more acceptable to retreat to another
prepared position and continue to fight with what is left.
>Alex, all I am saying is that I support all shooting sports and I now
>publicly undertake not to try to sacrifice another person's shooting to
save
>mine. All I ask is that you do the same.
I have already said that I support all disciplines of the shooting sport
and my resolve to continue to do so will be strengthened if the
practitioners of the disciplines that I am not familiar with respond
positively to my occasional questions, rather than keep emphasising that
they like my support but would not miss me if I disappeared.
Now, do you think we could give this a rest?
Alex
--
Not after the comment about Pistol AD. I was at the last one and
so was Lord Cullen and neither of us saw anything that you mention.
You say later on Pistol 94, so possibly you are getting confused
as to the dates, but Pistol 96 did not have anything going on that
was remotely unsavoury, at least from what I saw and I was there
for two days, and Cullen was there on one of the days I wasn't.
Lord Cullen even commented on how well-regulated the sport appeared.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
