A Single Organisation?

[Jack]

Note, Colin Greenwood was a senior police officer in the UK

"There is much talk of a single, strong organization. That will not come
about by voluntary action in the associations, but we shall come close
if shooters will stop supporting those who deserve no support and turn
their membership and their money to the organizations which will serve
them. A strong NPA and a strong BASC bode well for the future, though we
must ensure that neither become complacent and must not hesitate to
attack them from the inside, if that is necessary."
Guns Review, Editorial December 1990
Colin Greenwood
http://www.gunownerssa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2238


A single strong organisation is exactly what is being proposed in South
Africa at present. This single strong organisation failed to
materialise in England as it will fail to materialise in South Africa.
The reasons for this failure to materialise will be exactly the same.

Not one of the proposers of this single strong organisation know what a
single strong organisation is, what it should stand for, what it should
do and what is needed for support. Not one can answer a single one of
those questions with the correct answer based on what will have the best
chance of success.

A single strong organisation is not numbers only. Government took
380,000 signed petitions and threw them in the trash. What were the
consequences of trashing those petitions? This lesson has not been
learnt. If what the numbers want cannot be translated into anything
government has no choice but to pay attention to it can and will be
trashed.

Firearm organisations have yet to gain any real support where members
will go the distance. Where members and supporters value what they want
and are willing to do what is needed to get attention and their demands
taken seriously.

Will anyone go the distance for a firearm licence? Will anyone go the
distance for a faster more efficient system of licensing?

Lets compare what firearm organisations believe is all they need do with
the ANC and apartheid laws. This comparison is reasonable as both are
discriminatory and oppressive laws.

How much support would the ANC have gained with "We have no problem with
apartheid laws, only the implementation is flawed." And that is a
paraphrased utterance of SAGA, SAhunters and Collectors. It is accepted
by all members of the "committee" and lesser organisations.

"We are striving to get the administrative process of obtaining a
passbook made more efficient and faster". "You must apply and obey, it
is the law of the land." If we can get government to recognise this
cannot be implemented efficiently government will capitulate. Please
help us and complain about service delivery. We will make it much easier
to get a passbook.

How much support would that approach have obtained for the ANC? Firearm
organisations have yet to see the folly and stupidity of this approach.

The same approach failed in England as it has in every application in
the history of firearm ownership. It will always fail. It has absolutely
no hope of success. Why is this approach universally chosen by firearm
organisation when its only known and demonstrated outcome is failure?

Which firearm organisation can show how and why what they are doing has
any hope of success?

Greenwood: "but we shall come close if shooters will stop supporting
those who deserve no support and turn their membership and their money
to the organizations which will serve them."

There is no organisation that will serve firearm owners at present
because none are willing to serve members needs, rights and what they
deserve.

The onus is on firearm owners to wrench these organisations out of this
path to failure or start an organisation they will support if they
really want and desire to continue to be law abiding firearm owners.

[JS4]

*yawn*

All this cutting and pasting is really getting me down... :o(

[CharlesT.]

Cut & paste or not, the content is valid, JS4 - and you're avoiding the question posed by the O.P.

Fact is, you yourself probably couldn't come up with a single combination of words in a sentence that has NEVER been used at some time in history, by somebody else, somewhere in the world. So everything we write is probably, in some or other way, a cut & paste. That doesn't make it invalid or irrelevant to the matter under discussion at this time.


As far as the CONTENT of Jack's posting goes, though, can you come up with any serious logical objections to what he has posted, or even (perhaps) some support for it?

it looks like the moment questions are raised/reiterated which are uncomfortable for those who are making tons of money out of the FCA through training, etc. then the "Oh this is boring", "This is just C&P", "This is the same old same old" comments get posted. But WHAT ABOUT THE CONTENT?

What do you think WOULD have happened for the ANC if the ANC had approached the problem of pass laws with the same self-serving "Oh, we'll work with it for now - it's better than anything else we have" approach that the gun organisations (in general) have embraced?
Would we now have an ANC government?
Or would the Nationalist government still be in power? And at what cost?

[JS4]

CharlesT

The OP has been posted and discussed before. Many times. Just about every time I (and others) have tried to discuss the issue we were flamed, answered with a barrage of cutting and pasting and a stubborn refusal to debate the matter.

So no, I am not avoiding the question, I am just tired of the way in which this 'debate' is being conducted.

Fact is, you yourself probably couldn't come up with a single combination of words in a sentence that has NEVER been used at some time in history, by somebody else, somewhere in the world. So everything we write is probably, in some or other way, a cut & paste. That doesn't make it invalid or irrelevant to the matter under discussion at this time.

I strongly disagree with you there and find it rather insulting really. It is called originality and it is not really that hard when you consider facts and arguments logically in order to form and express your own opinion in a structured way. If you find it impossible to be original yourself then you have my sympathies, even though I can't understand it, but please don't accuse others of not being able to.

Resorting to cutting and pasting is IMO a sure way to sidestep proper debate and borders on plagiarism I feel. If one does cut and paste another person's words one should supply references, besides the Gunsite requirement to provide a link for such content.

As far as the CONTENT of Jack's posting goes, though, can you come up with any serious logical objections to what he has posted, or even (perhaps) some support for it?

Yes I can.

IMO the analogy is flawed as the background and situations of the organisations, or then at least the interest groups, and the problems and goals are vastly different.

The ANC were battling apartheid - a system which was conceived by a minority and forced on a majority, a system which was declared a crime against humanity by the UN and the world. The ANC had the backing of just about every country outside of SA and many other organisations and they were fighting from a position of strength in terms of numbers, support, international sympathy and holding the moral high ground.

Except for the last (and that is very subjective for I can just about guarantee that the anti-gun lobby believe they hold the moral high ground in this debate, whatever we may feel) we do not have any of those advantages in our battle.

We do not have international outrage and a declaration by the UN of disarmament being a crime against humanity (quite the opposite from their side it seems), we do not have sympathies and support from many countries and organisations and we do not have the strength of numbers required to represent a majority.

The OP states the following as fact:

Lets compare what firearm organisations believe is all they need do with the ANC and apartheid laws. This comparison is reasonable as both are discriminatory and oppressive laws.

I do not think that is a fact, nor that it is a reasonable comparison - that is an opinion. The majority of users on this site may agree with the opinion that the FCA is a discriminatory and oppressive law but I for one find it hard to believe that the majority of citizens in this country would. IMO the majority of citizens in this country can't be bothered with an opinion on that as their attentions are focused on the daily struggle to survive and they do not have time to worry about a bunch of 'haves' who complain about this when they, the 'have-nots', can't even dream of owning even a fraction of what those who do claim as their right.

Basically the OP agitates for all firearm owners to reject firearm licensing in the way that the ANC rejected the requirement for obtaining and registering a pass.

IMO the ANC were in a position to do that because of the majority they held, and still hold, and the international backing they received. They knew that the sheer weight of numbers and international pressure behind them would have made it impossible for the government to enforce the pass laws.

As outlined above, I do not think we have the same advantages. IMO even if every single firearm owner rejects the requirement to obtain licences we would just hand the government the perfect excuse for banning all firearms and coming down on us with full force, and the international community would probably support them.

I do not believe we represent sufficient numbers to make it impossible for the government to enforce a ban - on the contrary I think they would be more than happy to oblige and would gladly see a bunch of 'haves' rounded up, humiliated and stuck in already overcrowded prisons.

What a victory that would be for them - it must be Malema's own, personal, recurring wet dream.

[nkosi]

Have to agree with you JS4.

Even though the ANC held the high ground in almost all ways, they still had to negotiate with the government of the day in order to reach a solution - they did not simply wake up one day & take over parliament & overthrow all existing laws, even those that were based only on rascism. To a large degree they abided by the laws of the day, whilst they negotiated.

As JS4 has stated though, our position as gun owners is not analogous with that of the ANC's when they were striving for political freedom for the majority of South African's at all.

[farmer-el]

Unfortunatley most South Africans have joined an organisation because they have been forced to by the legislation. These are mostly by definition sporting organisations. The only option is negotiation. At the moment SAGA represents the one organisation for mr that all firearm owners should belong to besides there sporting organisation. For a measly R70- a year there should be no debates about "one organisation". These "mass action" type sentiments are getting annoying. If you fell so strongly about, don't renew comp, don't relicence. There is no doubt the law will come down on you, and from me you'll have respect. As a father of a young child and another on the way, I for oe won't be doing anything that possibly takes me away from them and which will play right into the hands of the anti gun bunch!

[bodie]

@js4

I do not believe

That, my friend, is EXACTLY the problem we, the gun owning public (man in the street) face.


YOU, JS4, and many others like you that attempt to sway public opinion, DO NOT BELIEVE.

In other words you have already accepted defeat, and you attempt to justify this acceptance of defeat with words like

I am just tired of the way in which this 'debate' is being conducted.

The moment anybody threatens your little zone of comfort you react with

*yawn*

which is so damn disrespectful it beggars belief, actually.

You believe, and portray this quite openly, that the opinion of anybody that does not agree with your defeatist mindset and posts with what you call

a barrage of cutting and pasting

is not worthy of validity and that every single word is boring and of no importance.

Whether you mean it or not, your response as seen by most others is NEGATIVE AND DISMISSIVE of any other idea that threatens the financial supporters of the FCA.

You also strongly disagree with anybody that has decided not to accept defeat.

We could go *yawn* but we will listen and attempt to show you why we think you are wrong and back it up with facts.

Can you show, with factual references, why you believe that those that will not accept your defeatist mindset, are wrong and that the reasons you support going along with the FCA are valid?

Please, convince me and others that to collaborate is the way to go.


To continue:

The ANC were battling apartheid

Which was unjust legislation.

Was it changed? YES / NO.

How was it changed?
By a group of people saying “we will accept defeat as that is how it is, not fair but get over it”?

The cANCer NEVER had the moral high ground, this is the mindset and the brainwashing technique practiced by the communists.
Tell you something is so, repeat that lie so often that you eventually believe it is the truth.

The difference between YOU and the anti gun lobby (as YOU call them) is that THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN WIN, you have already accepted defeat, all that is left for you to do is respectfully request for a few favors from the victors.
Begging for scraps at the table comes to mind.

To be honest, that kind of mindset makes me physically ill.

You may be a nice guy and all that but in this instance, your attitude reeks of defeat and compliance.
It positively stinks of acceptance of defeat.

If I were to not know better, I would have repeated my *ching-ching* thirty pieces of silver analogy.

Why, JS4, please, do you fail to understand where the rest of us are coming from?

Why do you fight so hard against our doctrine and show so much support, (for your posts prove this) for acceptance of what is morally indefensible?


The

bunch of haves

statement of yours could be construed as rather racist as anybody would be excused for understanding that you mean *whites* in that comment.

This is the kind of statement JuliArse MalEnema makes. One designed to garner support for what he says by appealing to an overtly racist statement that *seems* to be based on fact, but which is, instead, a complete lie.

You are (or seem to be) so scared of what the government *can* do, you make yourself a prime target for what the Hunters meant when they said “gogga maak vir baba bang.”


Please, I ask you, read what is being posted, remove your blinkers, remove the ear muffs and actually read what is written, not what you think was meant.

If you are not sure, ASK.

Nobody will think any less of you for asking about what you do not understand.

The aim of the FCA is to REMOVE OUR GUNS, plain and simple.

Why would you willingly support anything that guarantees that we lose?

Please explain this to me.

[JS4]

Hi Bodie

I was in the middle of typing a long response...

... and then I realised we (both you and I) are just falling into the same trap again.

These long-winded posts do not achieve much of anything IMHO. Most don't read them and most of those who do are rather frustrated (and bored witless) by the end of it... besides which we never seem to get to any sort of a conclusion however much we type.

So how's about we ignore and abstain from the personal attacks and selective quotes and take one issue at a time, eh? What do you say?

I'll even let you start...

... give me one statement/question at a time and then we hammer that one out. I promise to stick to the same.

[JS4]

...still no?

...Bodie? You had so many points/questions/accusations/requests for clarification..? Please pick one so that we can hammer it out...

...CharlesT? No reply? I would love to know what you are thinking now... please?

I will assume that neither of you were on the interweb for the last day or so...

...so this is just to inform you that I am off to some exotic cum/slash effed-up places for the next, oh say a week or so, so I may not have interweb access for a while.

Then again, I may very well have - I'll just have to see when I get there but promise to read any of your responses and/or inputs and reply.

If anyone is wondering where I am off to... well, just read my signature.

[Crimefree]

> JS4 > > IMO the analogy is flawed as the background and situations of the > organisations, or then at least the interest groups, and the problems > and goals are vastly different. Explain how they are different and do not apply. > The ANC were battling apartheid - a system which was conceived by a > minority and forced on a majority, a system which was declared a crime > against humanity by the UN and the world. The ANC had the backing of > just about every country outside of SA and many other organisations > and they were fighting from a position of strength in terms of > numbers, support, international sympathy and holding the moral high > ground. What do you think gun control is? Justified? Valid? Non-oppressive? Non-discriminatory? "The people in the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other arms. The possession of these unnecessary weapons makes difficult the collection of taxes and tends to foment uprisings . . . Therefore the heads of provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government." Every human rights agreement affirms the right to self defence. It is a natural right nobody con remove unless with our permission. And that is all it takes, our permission, our acceptance. See Blackstone, Tucker, Plato, Aristotle, US constitution, British Bill of rights and a few million comments on this subject you have not read. William Blackstone: Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) George Tucker: Blackstone's Commentaries with Notes The Federalist papers.... Is the oppression of a minority OK in your book because the majority demand it? That justifies it, the majority want.... Even our own constitution is a mystery, a myth when the majority want.... How do you excuse it by trying to claim this comparison is not valid without any *logical* information? A position of strength is not numbers. 6 billion cowards is not a position of strength. The original post clearly showed what a position of strength is, why did your not read it? The moral high ground is what we make it. It is the public perception, the accepted right. If we are to bone idle and stupid to promote our position then those who can use moral and emotional inducements will hold the moral high ground. It is our fault we do not hold the moral high ground because we abdicated this duty. It is not excusable nor can blame be shifted. This point was been debated on SAFF in 2000 and there are more than 500 members who could have promoted it. Many of those are also Gunsite members ask them for an explanation of why not. See if you can get an honest answer. > Except for the last (and that is very subjective for I can just about > guarantee that the anti-gun lobby believe they hold the moral high > ground in this debate, whatever we may feel) we do not have any of > those advantages in our battle. Why? No good complaining we don't have it. Why do we not have it? Nor can it be used as an excuse to avoid what should have been done or must be done. > We do not have international outrage and a declaration by the UN of > disarmament being a crime against humanity (quite the opposite from > their side it seems), we do not have sympathies and support from many > countries and organisations and we do not have the strength of numbers > required to represent a majority. What have we done to deserve any of these? Do you think we just get sympathy or recognition from anyone? Have we got off our bums and enlightened anyone, brought it to their notice and put our position to them? Give an honest answer and explain why not if that is the answer. > The OP states the following as fact: > Lets compare what firearm organisations believe is all they need do > with the ANC and apartheid laws. This comparison is reasonable as both > are discriminatory and oppressive laws. > I do not think that is a fact, What is not a fact? Gun control is legitimate and justified? Prove it show why you think it is not. What is your LOGICAL reasoning. > nor that it is a reasonable comparison - that is an opinion. And incorrect without some proof. Why do you want to make this opinion known? Where you hoping for confirmation of others who just believe or want to believe you are correct? Show gun control is justified is the only way any sensible person should approach this. > The majority of users on this site may agree with the opinion that the > FCA is a discriminatory and oppressive law but I for one find it hard > to believe that the majority of citizens in this country would. Why, on what basis? Is the majority correct? I am reminded of the flat earth for which saying it was not was punishable by death. If the majority of citizens think the earth is flat who promoted it because it is an easily provable fact the shape of the earth, the tilt, precession and spherical geometry was known along with the all the planets and named not just the visible planets around 2000...3000BC. It is easy to convince people who do not counter propaganda and beliefs and do not examine facts. For 600 years the Catholics convinced the majority that peace loving mainly vegetarian scholars of learning and enlightenment were Satan’s spawn. The Hutu convinced the majority the Tusi were cockroaches. The Nazi convinced Germans Jews were.... how many more examples do you want of how easy it is to convince people to BELIEVE despite any knowledge and facts that could be use to disprove. Do you think for one minute firearm organisations are not using the same techniques of repetitive statements and inducements to convince firearm owners to accept they can do nothing and must rely on them because they don't want to oppose? Now ask yourself why do they not what to oppose the injustice, the loss of 50% of firearm owners? Who is next? You, me? And somebody is next, the UK is a very good example of firearm organisations behaviour. Teach and force firearm owners to ACCEPT. > IMO the majority of citizens in this country can't be bothered with > an opinion on that as their attentions are focused on the daily > struggle to survive and they do not have time to worry about a bunch > of 'haves' who complain about this when they, the 'have-nots', can't > even dream of owning even a fraction of what those who do claim as > their right. Why? If you allow the first then the second.... we get to this stage. Who's fault is that? Your reply is an excuse not a remedy. It is not an excuse to say I dug this hole and have fallen into it there is no way out. There is a way, climb out. > Basically the OP agitates for all firearm owners to reject firearm > licensing in the way that the ANC rejected the requirement for > obtaining and registering a pass. For what LOGICAL reason is a licence required since you justify it. > IMO the ANC were in a position to do that because of the majority they > held, and still hold, and the international backing they received. > They knew that the sheer weight of numbers and international pressure > behind them would have made it impossible for the government to > enforce the pass laws. Simplistic exaggeration, non-factual unevidenced claims. An attempt to convince with half-truths and incorrect observations. The ANC did not get to that position automatically did they. Where did they start? There was no majority support for the ANC in the beginning. FACT. Undeniable FACT. Please stick to facts and lets not have this very dubious thinking to prove what is not related. Quite obviously the ANC grew to be a powerful organisation but that cannot under any circumstances be used to claim they had massive support at all stages can it. > As outlined above, I do not think we have the same advantages. IMO > even if every single firearm owner rejects the requirement to obtain > licences we would just hand the government the perfect excuse for > banning all firearms and coming down on us with full force, and the > international community would probably support them. We are not going to be given anything on a plate. We are not going to be given support, credibility, validity, justification, sympathy..... we have to work for it, earn it and promote our situation and what we deserve. We are not going to do that by accepting we are defeated and have no reason to make any claims. FACT. Acceptance of injustice is defeat or do you not see that? > I do not believe we represent sufficient numbers to make it impossible > for the government to enforce a ban - on the contrary I think they > would be more than happy to oblige and would gladly see a bunch of > 'haves' rounded up, humiliated and stuck in already overcrowded > prisons. Oh you just want 1 million supporters to come out the woodwork or from under the rock where they are currently hiding. Unless they are offered what they need and deserve they are not coming out. They are more afraid of government and the SAPS than they are of being disarmed, injured or killed. What security is there in supporting any firearm organisations attempts at appeasement, collaboration and sacrifice of all others? Wil these firearm organisations watch with interest as they are disarmed, licences refused, firearms confiscated.... Give me one instance where they have made the slightest effort that would show any confidenc3e in their willingness and ability. Correct we don't represent opposition or objection. We represent acceptance. JIQ proved that conclusively when she asked organisations who were unhappy to walk out. Not one of them did. Did not even think about it. A test of total control and any opposition failed by firearm organisations. The same with the 5 day notice on amendments to the FCA. Not one complaint, no objection only ACCEPTANCE. The only reason government would not enforce anything is objection from the PUBLIC. The only any reason government is held in check is objection from the public. Do try to read the statements made by the drafters of the US constitution and understand the duty of citizens. > What a victory that would be for them - it must be Malema's own, > personal, recurring wet dream. It is a dream Malema intends to make come true. He is going about it the right way because even a failed woodworker can see what we can't. > These long-winded posts do not achieve much of anything IMHO. Most > don't read them and most of those who do are rather frustrated (and > bored witless) by the end of it... besides which we never seem to get > to any sort of a conclusion however much we type. I found your reply as boring, tiresome and repetitive of what has been refuted many thousands of times throughout history. If I could take the time and trouble to read and reply to your points you can do the same. I'll also point out that none of this would be necessary if we had not allowed the situation to become what it has. There was a time not so long ago when gun control would have been laughed at and the advocates run out of town. However we failed to note that we need to oppose and not assume everyone knows the truth or facts and can be easily convinced by those who study and practice the methods and techniques. Or as any good communist will say - one by one we will convert them and they do.