From: andrew, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well IG, it looks like your key board took a hammering over the weekend.
<I presume that you are one of the inteligentsia who think that anyone,
under any circumstances, should be allowed to possess a firearm for any
reason whatsoever. In other words, you appear to be in favour of total
freedom from controls. Fine.
I ,unfortunately, along with many other millions of people, do not share
your views! >
Why do I need to be a member of any particular group if I have the view
that people should be able to get on with their law abiding lives free
from harassment from pointless legislation and the ignorant opinions of
jobsworths? I have difficulty reconciling the fact that whereas I put up
with all the BS connected with owning firearms legally the local drug
dealers get no hassle at all over their firearms or how they use them!
Not only didn't they lose their pistols in 1998, the law specially only
prohibited legally owned small firearms, but the only time they do not
carry their pistols is when they have a court appearance! The above also
applies to members of northern Ireland terrorist organizations. Can you
imagine the response to a request from an RUC firearms licensing officer
to inspect the security of the various terrorist arms dumps.
I did not call you a nazi did I! My point was that you are making
personal judgements on people based on your own beliefs and experience
at the time. Not so long ago and in a place not so far away your
judgement as to what constitutes a good character would be very
different to that that you have now. It is because of the unreliability
of the judgements of individuals, no matter how well meaning, that we
have a judicial process involving magistrates, judges and juries and the
prosecution process is kept separate from the enforcement process. It is
also why criminals have rights! If you were dealing with a criminal and
you expressed your personal views about that persons character then the
any prosecution could be seen as being seriously flawed.
I also have trouble with the concept of "I trust you with this but not
that" as steve experienced with variations for collecting. In my case I
had a sec.1 shotgun that I was prohibited from using for clay pigeon
shooting! I fully understood the law and the home office guidance but
not only was I disturbed by the insane logic expressed by various
officials but I was also deeply disturbed by the fact that they did not
see anything wrong or bizarre about the situation. I also cannot see how
you can apply this selective trust to just legally held firearms; do you
remove the driving licences and cars from any of the victims of your
personal crusade? How about if they have children; do you have them put
into care?
On the wall of my living room is a print of a classic western painting
called "End of the Trail", the subject is a dying indian warrior on a
dying pony. A visiting firearms enquiry officer was very disturbed that
I had this picture as he didn't agree with the end-of-the-trail shooting
disciplines that were appearing and he told me that he would seek to
have the certificate of anybody taking part in these competitions
revoked! Of course this was just his personal prejudice, sorry opinion.
You ask if we know of any way to judge character, are you asking members
of this list to get into denouncing shooters in the same way as the
police in other authoritarian regimes use public denunciations of
individuals and groups oppress those they don't agree with? I wouldn't
dare to pass judgement on another persons character. If I did, give me a
reason why I shouldn't start with you? Or do you only see yourself as
the stone thrower?
And I would be interested to if my views and the fact that I take the
trouble to express them make me a fit person in your eyes.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
