The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Probably because it's TRUE Dave

Interesting, because notwithstanding very different gun laws here (in Canada), we continually have this 'divide' between groups of gun-owners. The discussions usually center on the latest 'classification' of a particular gun or type of gun. Witness the whole recent debacle over the CZ858. Or the complete prohibition of the AK-47 (even in a semi-auto version) and the FN-FAL. The issue, in both countries, comes down to 'we hang together or we hang separately'.... mostly, the (generally older) more 'traditional' shooters (usually hunters) being quite willing to throw their fellow shooters who happen to favor 'black guns', under the bus. We all need to understand that we (whoever we are) will be next in line if we silently acquiesce in some 'ban' or other. Personally, I am all of the things I mentioned above - mockingly referred to by some here as 'Fudds' (after the cartoon character Elmer Fudd) - what I think you sometimes call 'tweedies'(?). BUT, and it's a giant 'but' - I think anyone should be able to shoot whatever it is they want to shoot, notwithstanding that I don't do that myself. And that is what MUST happen wherever and whenever our rights as gun owners are threatened. As a friend of mine puts it - "We are all kin, coz we like to shoot"........

Niemoller's thoughts are very pertinent still.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

It depends in what contexts, Very few need firearms. But if you are clay pigeon shooting then you do need a firearm. But no one actually needs to go clay pigeon shooting so they don't need a firearm. The right to have a firearm would be better than need to have one.

[quote]I think anyone should be able to shoot whatever it is they want to shoot, notwithstanding that I don't do that myself. And that is what MUST happen wherever and whenever our rights as gun owners are threatened. As a friend of mine puts it - "We are all kin, coz we like to shoot"........[/quote]
clapclap clapclap

All this "need" is a nonsense, "want" is only right in a free country. e.g. I want to shoot clays, vermin, paper targets etc etc - if you pass the tests what's the issue? If you're fit to own ONE gun you're fit to hold many - you can only really fire one at a time (yeah we know you have two hands).

When everything comes down to "Need" that's a bad place to be. Just look at what the Government says you "need" to live on - no one in government ever lives on that.

ordnance wrote:It depends in what contexts, Very few need firearms. But if you are clay pigeon shooting then you do need a firearm. But no one actually needs to go clay pigeon shooting so they don't need a firearm. The right to have a firearm would be better than need to have one.

You can say no one 'needs' to play golf/go fishing/horse riding etc etc, but in a free society we are able to 'want' to do these things because we can......that should be enough.

Probably the most sensible words said on the matter ever.

Blimey. It's been up for a day, and already someone's come in and said some of the calibres people are applying for are for ego trips, there's no need for military style guns and we should all just have conventional style guns. Looks like one of Yardley's fellow zealots.

I despair re this subject, even on this forum there are the "only some types should be allowed and it should be a need" types.

What is wrong with you? If certain types are banned, that effectively means banning you!

there's no need for military style guns and we should all just have conventional style guns.

Would people who think that way please leave the sport and take up something else.