How to Fight Gun Control

[Dick]

@Dick,

Again, sincerely thank you for this thread.

This might read EXTREMELY negative,

No, you are justifiably concerned as we all are. As for "ordinary" you can't be more ordinary and lacking special ability than me. We are all capable of contributing to a cause, and it is ordinary people doing what they can in sufficient numbers that get results. Participation is more important than polished performance, because the volume counts more than the quality. Getting started is the important thing - skill comes with practice. Don't worry about it.

[Dick]

I didn't mean specifically talking to a room full of people. I meant the kind of appeal that Brandon has to a new generation, his irreverent sense of humour, of making guns cool without pandering to the politically correct

OK, understood, I took it literally. And yeah, if we don't take younger people with us we've had it. That's why GFSA pushed hard for minimum licence age of 21, and no sooner had that been agreed to than they raised the bar to 25 which they fortunately didn't get.

[Dick]

I have often thought about this, with relation to gun control and i am by no means saying that you should not be legal.

Just say NO.

Look how well saying NO worked for e-tolls. Society just took a stand and said this is rubbish and we won't be complying.

OK Ady, I share the sentiment, but the practicality is another thing. To put it differently, what are you prepared to risk? Resisting E Tolls was easy - it was impossible to bring a couple of million commuters to book, impossible to keep track with all of them going under umpteen gantries every day. The only risk to the E Toll resisters was that if only a few had resisted the resistance would have failed. The campaign was therefore just lucky that enough people thought it worth resisting. Remember also that it would not have been a serious offence with jail time. Firearms are another matter entirely, and the only hope of success would be if enough of us participate AND back each other up when SAPS tries to make an example of a few. An encouraging sign might be that those who refused white licences and kept their green ones have gotten away with it, but I'm still not confident given the incredible apathy when it comes to the much easier task of defending our rights. But I'm very interested to see your further comments.

[Branden88]

@Dick,

Just a brief entry here.

Here’s a great example, of an article that was published, and has a comment section down below.

FYI: Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to have the ability to comment on articles.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...-self-defence/

But what I'm getting at is, we have to be proactive and be on the look out for such articles etc.

[ady]

OK Ady, I share the sentiment, but the practicality is another thing. To put it differently, what are you prepared to risk? Resisting E Tolls was easy - it was impossible to bring a couple of million commuters to book, impossible to keep track with all of them going under umpteen gantries every day. The only risk to the E Toll resisters was that if only a few had resisted the resistance would have failed. The campaign was therefore just lucky that enough people thought it worth resisting. Remember also that it would not have been a serious offence with jail time. Firearms are another matter entirely, and the only hope of success would be if enough of us participate AND back each other up when SAPS tries to make an example of a few. An encouraging sign might be that those who refused white licences and kept their green ones have gotten away with it, but I'm still not confident given the incredible apathy when it comes to the much easier task of defending our rights. But I'm very interested to see your further comments.

Thank you for your reply Dick. My theory is full of holes, because firearm owners will not stick together. History has shown this and specifically in SA. If all firearm owners banded together and told government that the new FCA amendments are unreasonable and we will not comply. I think they would be powerless to follow up and convict / arrest thousand of citizens. Just as they could not go around arresting all the firearm owners who did not have a white license card or who's white license card had expired. Instead they offered an amnesty. SAPS do not have the capability, instead they rely on our compliance.

It was just a thought of mine. I know an act of mass non compliance by firearm owners will not happen. We are law abiding.

Thank you for your thread and your sharing of knowledge on this subject.

[Dick]

@Dick,

Just a brief entry here.

Here’s a great example, of an article that was published, and has a comment section down below.

FYI: Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to have the ability to comment on articles.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...-self-defence/

But what I'm getting at is, we have to be proactive and be on the look out for such articles etc.

100% on point. Daily Maverick does some good reporting but I don't subscribe as an "insider" because of its bias. Perhaps I should subscribe just to provide comment, as that's exactly what I advocate as our best defence. But you are 100% right - this is exactly what's needed - we have to be on the lookout and send hundreds of e mails when something is spotted.

[Dick]

It was just a thought of mine. I know an act of mass non compliance by firearm owners will not happen. We are law abiding.

I don't write it off entirely. After all, all the guys who refused the white licences did so knowing that the consequences might be severe. So the attitude is there, to that extent. I'm just not confident that many will take it to the next level. It will depend on how far government takes its prohibition agenda. We might just get lucky. I'm focussing on other methods because they are readily available and do get results if enough guys participate. It's another way of saying no.

[Dick]

Hey guys, I'm finding it not easy to translate what's clear in my head into coherent text. I've almost finished my next post but right now I'd like to describe an outstanding example of what an ordinary guy can do. Pieter Van Wyk lives in Bellville and is an accountant with Transnet. He is also one of GOSA's nine founding signatories. Some of you will remember Kieno Kammies who anchored Cape Talk's 09h00 - 12h00 slot Monday - Friday until he went into his own business about three years ago. Before that he had the 21h00 - 24h00 slot on 702.

About fifteen years ago, somewhere before 2010 he hosted a firearm discussion scheduled for 21h00 - 22h00. GFSA's speaker was Rev Greg Andrews. Pieter Van Wyk spoke for GOSA. Despite it being his first attempt at live radio he delivered far and away the best performance I have ever heard. He was cool, collected, articulate and had all the facts in his head. He utterly demolished Andrews who ended up looking foolish, and at around 22h00 Kieno Kammies said exactly that, and told us that 702 had received virtually zero public support. He went as far as to say that Andrews had said nothing that made sense. The show was so hot, and I don't mean angry or anything of that sort, I mean informative for the listeners, that Kieno cancelled his 23h00-24h00 slot and continued the Van Wyk-Andrews debate for another hour. I wouldn't expect anyone else to equal Pieter's performance - like I said I've never seen anyone as good - he obviously has a talent that no-one knew, not even him, that emerged on that occasion. Most of us struggle in the beginning, but the lesson is that we can all do it, either by natural talent or by diligence. Pieter was phenomenal - I'll never forget it.

Finally, it confirmed the wisdom of having several speakers available contrary to SAGA's sole spokesperson policy. Pieter had never done live radio, and had to go in because no-one else was available. What better demonstration could we want? And what better demonstration of willingness to serve?

[Sean KZN]

@Dick,

Just a brief entry here.

Here’s a great example, of an article that was published, and has a comment section down below.

FYI: Unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to have the ability to comment on articles.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...-self-defence/

But what I'm getting at is, we have to be proactive and be on the look out for such articles etc.

That article, not by design of the publisher, rather the story the victim sprouted is a fabrication or her imagination, the sole intent of which is to further her specific goal. That goal is unfortunately, at least in this country, supported by the media.
The comments echo the emotional effect, drawing parallels with the American situation which has very different dynamics.

Anyway, what we can glean from that article is that people will lie to keep there paycheck. That a person who has armed reaction on demand, will argue for others rights to their own reaction be curtailed or withdrawn.
And, in some circumstances, a little knowledge goes along way, simply because most would not comprehend the intention, or it's consequences.

[Dick]

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/arti...-self-defence/

The trail is a bit cold but I sent this anyway. Not the best I've written and a lot longer than would usually be published, but it was aimed at the Daily Maverick' bias.

Dear Editor,

Your interview of Adele Kirsten 9^th June has just been sent to me. It is a bit past it’s sell by date but I can’t let it pass without protest. In particular, your reporter’s poor reporting, the absence of any attempt to make Kirsten offer evidence of what she puts out as fact. OK, there’s the comments after the article but that’s not available to non-subscribers.

As one of the nine founding signatories of Gun Owners of SA I have personal experience of Adele Kirsten. In particular her somewhat shaky acquaintance with truth. Of course, it isn’t always direct untruth – as a trained propagandist Kirsten is well versed in such techniques as untruth by omission, eg “23 deaths a day by shooting” while omitting to mention that those are all criminal shootings, and murder by licenced firearm owners whether by shooting or otherwise is vanishingly small. Predictably your reporter didn’t point that out to her.

But some of her assertions are directly and diametrically untrue eg “more guns = more crime.” That is untrue not because I say so, but because it is demonstrably so to the most cursory investigation. There is not and has never been a causal link between the ownership of firearms and crime. It is equally true that no gun law has ever reduced crime or the supply of guns to criminals. That’s because it can’t be done for reasons that should be obvious. Having been confronted by me and others with those demonstrable facts, Kirsten and GFSA invented what I call the stolen weapons syndrome, by which licenced owners are blamed for “feeding the criminal pool” via loss and theft. Tell that to Col Prinsloo who sold more than 2000 firearms out of the police store to criminals. That’s what could be proved but the real quantity is believed to have been more like 10 000. But 2000 is more than enough to keep the gangs of the Cape Flats armed for decades. That’s not the only example of SAPS arming criminals – Norwood comes to mind but there have been several others, and SAPS has lost 26000 guns to criminals since 2009 I think. Tens of thousands of rounds of ammo have also been “liberated” from SAPS, including a whopping ten million from Durban Docks last year. That is by no means to deny that civilians lose firearms or have them stolen. But it is not possible to prevent determined criminals from stealing, and the quantity is so small as to indicate nothing but responsible safe keeping by firearm owners. But GFSA focuses on licenced owners because it has no other plausible rationale for its disarmament agenda.

GFSA’s agenda is not limited to self defence – its objective is total civilian disarmament. GFSA operatives deny that depending on which audience they talk to. Somewhere in my records I have the statement made on several occasions “there is no agenda to deprive sportspersons.” But I personally extracted from GFSA’s then chairperson the late Sheena Duncan in live radio debate the admission that total prohibition is indeed the real agenda. So there’s the lying again whenever it suits the objective. Indeed, Duncan contradicted herself on that very point on SABC’s Tim Modise Show.

I don’t want to labour the point much further, but another story hammers it home. In the run-up to the enactment of the FCA in 2000, GFSA made a particular push for the minimum licence age to be raised from 16 to 21, because, they said, it was a “huge” problem. Can you explain why no journalist ever asked them to describe the problem? I asked Ric De Caris, then SAPS chief legal officer. He laughed and told me that we had 700 teenage licence holders, none for self defense, all for sporting guns complete with club membership and written approval, and written parental consent. There had never been, he said, a single example of misuse or abuse. That was the “huge” problem claimed by GFSA. It’s called propaganda and is NEVER questioned by the media.

Just one more thing before I leave GFSA. You describe Kirsten as an activist. As a fulltime paid operative she is nothing of the sort. Guys who fight for civil liberty without reward are the activists.

Now let’s look at you, or the media in general, shall we? You eulogise GFSA operatives without question, but I’m betting that Daily Maverick has not interviewed GFSA’s opponents. So much for objective journalism. I was active in this defence of civil liberty for twenty years and in all that time only a handful of journalists questioned any GFSA operative as to the accuracy or truthfulness of what he or she said. It really is extraordinary.

Dick Boothroyd

Somerset West

082 592 8485