Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1

    Default THE GUN OWNERSHIP DEBATE

    THE GUN OWNERSHIP DEBATE

    Most members of organised hunting, sport shooting or collecting organisations (and often many other non-dedicated gun owners too) usually have a serious affection for firearms. While most like shooting their firearms, others enjoy the various intrinsic values and technical qualities thereof just as much. Unfortunately our current gun laws have had a detrimental effect on most and have caused many dealers, manufacturers and gunsmiths to cease their businesses and forcing law-abiding citizens to participate in sport shooting, collecting and hunting. These laws have also impacted harshly on the economy as can be seen in the shooting industry in general. Gun shop owners will readily agree that sales and imports have never been as low as since the inception of the new Act. One needs to understand these gun laws from a global political agenda as well as a local politicised agenda to realise that the impact thereof is merely but the ear of the
    hippopotamus. One often wonders why the American constitutional model is not more readily acceptable to other western governments, but a moment's thinking convinces you that the world is just too immature for that and that sanity still needs to prevail with many. The first reality that we have to come to grips with is that the entire world is moving in one way or the other to a Global One World Entity or Government of sorts. This is not an Orville Wright 1984 reincarnation, but a pretty clear fact of the changing face of life as we know it. Once the Internet became a user-friendly environment the entire world became what is commonly known as the Global Village.

    A prerequisite for the new world order, legally correctly referred to as the so-called Global Village, is effective control of people. They first must become sheep before they can be controlled. Predators and rebels will not be tolerated. So where did all of this start? Despite corruption being rife (how much does it differ from present-day South Africa?), the Roman Empire is perhaps a good time to start looking at the modern world. Although the self-defence principle was already enshrined in law, a caveat was that unless you followed the lead of the Roman Senate the Emperor and the Roman Legions, which very efficiently controlled their people, you had no leg to stand on. Effectively these citizens of Rome became a paramilitary force that was subject to military code.

    The English (and most of Europe) realised early the importance of ruling the masses when they perfected monarchies. They have a king (or queen) to rule the country (kingdom) and aristocracy to rule counties. One of the main duties of the aristocracy was to protect those who served them, the commoners. However, this led to legitimate slavery as every common human being was the subject of a master. Since commoners were not entitled to be armed or to hunt, it led to poaching, illegal arms trade and rebellion. Despite an unfair system and unequal treatment, consolation was sought in a very sound English legal system, the common low - at least in theory - because in reality the word (evidence) of a commoner was hardly worth that of an aristocrat. Times changed, though, and soon juries (peers of the defendant) started ruling in favour of the common man. Officers usually came from the aristocratic class while commoners had to fight imperial wars, whether justified or not. Although not solely attributed to discrimination, common soldiers were often not armed or properly armed. Often, though, commoners fought so valiantly that their military skills could hardly be overlooked, which caused the rulers some great headaches - they had to find ways and means of promoting these people to officers.
    Sanity prevailed and it was not long before the commoners received their lawful and right place in the British political system (compare the House of Lords with the House of Commons).

    People control can sometimes also be very ineffectual. Recently a loaded heavy machine gun was discovered in the house of a citizen who happened to be a member of the British Home Guard. The War Office unfortunately forgot to collect it after the war. Accordingly, the much-hailed British system of government and democracy is a clear example of wolves ruling sheep. The fact that the Americans (George Washington) did not take kindly to the British rule is clearly illustrated by the veracity of the American Revolutionary War. After Saratoga in 1771 and Yorktown in 1781 the British were truly defeated.
    In many councils that followed it was clearly recognised that a well-armed militia that can shoot is worth more than professional armies that can't shoot. The American Frontiersman and their muskets were the stuff of legend in the 1700's. Contrary to the Americans, who realised the importance of an armed citizenry, the British persisted and excelled in disarmament. (Remind me of the story of not even a donkey that would bump his head twice ...) In many other wars of the empire that followed the empire realised that some form of gun control is needed in order for it to subjugate people and more debates followed and many more careers ended in ruin after a handful of Boers with their Mausers (and other assorted) took on the might of the British Army.

    The losses of Black Week alone in the Anglo-Boer War were so severe that it was very quickly realised that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, and a correlating right of the people to keep and bear arms, must be infringed to ensure supremacy. Both the Treaties of Vereniging and Versailles deal with disarmament as conditions for cessation of hostilities, however, only on the side of the "losers". In the case of the Boers, the disarmament had little effect since they required their rifles for daily farming/hunting activities. [It must be borne in mind that the firearm licensing or registration system has been well established in South Africa since the 17th century.] Thus the chord has been struck in modern times to disarm what the state perceives as people that could become an enemy of the state. And the poor sods that get this stick shoved at them are normally poorer people (commoners) who have reason to be discontent and rise up against their rulers.


    After World War II even the venerable 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution came under fire and many "crazy" gun laws were enacted; all under the guise of safety and security. The Dunblane Massacre in the UK and various university shootings in the US played no small part in this regard. These disarmament campaigns struck Canada, Australia and now South Africa.

    So our gun laws are nothing new, they are the very essence of what Britain (not to mention the various communist doctrines) has been working on for many centuries. The main reason why it has not been successful in the US is the Americans understanding of constitutional freedoms and the strength of the NRA. Our own former "oppressive regime", under the leadership of a much English-influenced General Smuts, continued to impose restrictive gun laws, I wonder how many South Africans still own fire arms with the so called "Smuts Serial Numbers? The previous white government was paranoid about blacks being armed. Because firearms' possession was regarded a whites-only privilege, government was sure to change it. Gun-F
    ree SA also had a fairly easy task lobbying for stricter legislation because of the large number of stolen and lost firearms. The fact that the largest numbers come from the police (8286 firearms lost in 3 years) and military was easy to ignore. This led to the notorious Firearms Control Act. Having said this, it is not so much the Act as the application thereof that is the subject of criticism.

    Pro-firearms bodies (collectors, sport and hunting associations and other) have done a tremendous job to normalise matters pertaining to the private possession and enjoyment of firearms, but they need to ever be alert to any new onslaught, which will easily be triggered by school shootings or militant talking of right- or left-wing groups. Unity amongst these bodies will go a long way to-wards fighting the negative onslaught. Continued positive and constructive efforts by organisations will go a long way to wards striking a balance between protecting the right to keep, bear and use arms and safety and security. Enjoy your right to safe and legal shooting.

    - MJ Uys


    PAAA Newsletter 2012 04
    "Guns are just tools, the way they're used reflects the society they're apart of, if you don't like guns, blame it on society" ~Chris Kyle

  2. #2
    Moderator KK20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    my heart at the sea and my soul in the mountains
    Posts
    14,326

    Default Re: THE GUN OWNERSHIP DEBATE

    excellent read
    live out your imagination , not your history.

  3. #3
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    JHB
    Posts
    3,749

    Default Re: THE GUN OWNERSHIP DEBATE

    Good read, thanks Frank

  4. #4
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Boland
    Posts
    7,985

    Default Re: THE GUN OWNERSHIP DEBATE

    H.G. Wells wrote 1984... Orville Wright was the first guy to fly a powered aircraft.

    The author gives an interesting summary of where firearms legislation comes from (we all know it's the Brits' fault, of course!) but I don't get this bit:
    One often wonders why the American constitutional model is not more readily acceptable to other western governments, but a moment's thinking convinces you that the world is just too immature for that and that sanity still needs to prevail with many.
    Who's immature (governments or firearms owners / entusiasts) and with whom must sanity still prevail?


    :- P

  5. #5
    User Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    on the edge of the gene pool, playing with an open container of HTH
    Posts
    15,621

    Default Re: THE GUN OWNERSHIP DEBATE

    Bit of an over-simplification with lots of contentious 'facts'.
    "Always remember to pillage before you burn"
    Unknown Barbarian

  6. #6
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pretoria
    Age
    49
    Posts
    921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pirate View Post
    H.G. Wells wrote 1984... Orville Wright was the first guy to fly a powered aircraft.

    The author gives an interesting summary of where firearms legislation comes from (we all know it's the Brits' fault, of course!) but I don't get this bit:


    Who's immature (governments or firearms owners / entusiasts) and with whom must sanity still prevail?


    :- P
    Eer..no. Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell wrote 1984. I wish facts an figures would be backed up with a reference to some kind of source.

  7. #7
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Boland
    Posts
    7,985

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Musgrave View Post
    Eer..no. Eric Arthur Blair, aka George Orwell wrote 1984. I wish facts an figures would be backed up with a reference to some kind of source.
    LOL insert-voel-soos-'n-poepol-emoticon here....

    Kinda explains how he got to Orville Wright...

    (retreats to corner...)

    :- P

  8. #8

    Default Re: THE GUN OWNERSHIP DEBATE

    With no disrespect meant, it's pretty much all bunkum, especially the "historical" bits. Just to start with, how do you sum up all 1500 years odd of Roman history and political development in two or three sentences?

  9. #9
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Port Elizabeth
    Age
    56
    Posts
    6,736

    Default Re: THE GUN OWNERSHIP DEBATE

    Quote Originally Posted by Wanderin' Zero View Post
    ....how do you sum up all 1500 years odd of Roman history and political development in two or three sentences?
    "We came,we saw,and we kicked his(their) arse...."-from some movie,if ever there was a short version.


  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curious george View Post
    "We came,we saw,and we kicked his(their) arse...."-from some movie,if ever there was a short version.

    But even that would be wrong. Because there's a reason why Constantinople/Byzantium later became the capital of the Roman world - because the Romans had had *their* backsides kicked! And how!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 13-06-2014, 18:32
  2. A Debate worth following..
    By baugust in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13-01-2014, 18:42
  3. A debate?
    By Crimefree in forum Speakers Corner
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 26-04-2012, 21:04
  4. UK debate
    By curious george in forum Gun Free South Africa - The Truth
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19-01-2012, 20:18

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •