TargetTalk

xnoncents wrote:

"a practical discussion of what can or should be done (and no, I don't mean to be provocative of insurrection) to preserve our sport, and the right for us to practice it. I'm coming from a postulate that we implicitly have this fundamental right, because until a week ago (in NY) we did. "




From a practical standpoint, join NRA, GOA, CMP, USAS, your state shooting association, local gun club, and get involved teaching hunter safety, basic marksmanship with all firearms to youths, and adults, run fun matches ans well as certified matches. Get more of your friends, family, and community involved with shooting.

Philosophically, you haven't lost the right, it has just been badly infringed, and you now must take the fight to the government on all levels, as well as the press, to make them understand that it IS a FUNDAMENTAL right, and the problem is the government.

There are no easy solutions now, because it has been allowed to go so far in some places. Time, energy, and money are needed as never before, with personal involvement being paramount.

sbrmike wrote:Scot Pilkington, i don't care if you lock this post and even lifetime ban me. I am sick and tired of reading these windbag posts from the Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders. They don't have a dog in the fight.

There was a post of the nuts and bolts affect of the NY law directly impacting International Target Shooting. It was just swept under the rug.

Myself and Pat McCoy made good points in the initial post which was conveniently lost forever. The replacement post is pure garbage.

I live very close to the NY line and have shot with NY staters as well as shooting at NY matches. That law has far reaching consequences whether intended or not. I know PA shooters most likely won't venture across the border to shoot. I feel for the NY guys. Their shooting life just got very inconvenient and expensive.

Scott didn't lock the post, I did and I also sent you a PM explaining it. In which I explained why it was locked, if Scott wants it back open, that's great.

The post is still there if you want to add to it or answer to it, or discuss it, do it here in this thread. There's no need for a bunch of threads about essentially the same thing. If you like I'd even be more than happy to move it here. If that's what the OP would like, he can feel free to PM me.

Also if you're tired of international input then I suggest you don't discuss it on a forum on international shooting. I know tempers can get heated over these issues but lets try to keep it civil.

On a note about the NRA, they offering lifetime memberships for $300. Usually you need a referral from a lifetime member but right now they seem to be doing it without the referral. You just need to call. Don't know how long hey are offering this, got mine last week.

Richard H wrote:Scott didn't lock the post, I did and I also sent you a PM explaining it. In which I explained why it was locked, if Scott wants it back open, that's great.

Richard, I think it was inappropriate for you to lock the threads that you and you alone deemed to be redundant. This series of threads started about a tragedy of a mass shooting.

You are locking threads that are related to the infringement of our 2nd Amendment rights here in the USA.

While somewhat related ... they are not redundant.

The two locked threads are not opinion. They are about a very restrictive law that was written, approved, signed, and enacted immediately.

NY requires three days of comment.....waived.

NY law typically becomes effective 60 days after signature.....waived

They went back and amended the magazine implmentation date to March or Apr simply because all of the police depts in NYS were in violation.

Tonight on the TV news, my news comes out of NYS because I am very rural and near the line, they put up a website and phone number for information, Q&A's of the NYSAFE law. This would have been nice to put in a useful post of real world actions not the bloviating on this post.

Ok there they are open, lets see how it goes.

Here's a word of warning about the agenda. We managed to reverse the registry but I fear it's just a temporary reprieve.

http://youtu.be/nmrqT9SIkQw

Isabel1130 wrote: I feel badly for the New Yorkers too. They generally have one of the largest groups at Camp Perry, and New York has told them, in essence to take a hike. One law at a time, New York, is bent on driving out their most productive, and law abiding citizens.

This is one of the things that the foreign posters understand the least. This is not a national issue, as much as it is a state by state battle to make sure we never have a 60 vote majority in the Senate, which can pass something without being filibustered. The organization of the U.S. allows you to vote with your feet, and many have already done so.

I really like your posts Isabel, you're very knowledgable on many subjects, but to suggest that New York's "most productive and law abiding citizens" are being driven out is rather presumptive on your part. Gun owners in NY are a very small minority as they're from the rural areas. The bulk of the population of New York (as I'm sure you know) is in NYC and those are the most productive citizens. By far.

They're also not old white men which is what the NRA and the gun culture are mostly comprised of. You of course are an exception! There are gays, blacks, hispanics, women and young people. You know, the sort of people that make up about... hmm, none of the NRA as far as I've seen. I belong to two gun clubs and aside from a handful of older (white) women I've not seen anyone but old white guys. Hell, I'm 47 and I'm usually one of the youngsters on the line.

The NRA and the gun culture are out of touch with the shifting demographic of the country. They will continue to be marginalized and they will continue to lose rights because of the minority they have become.

Gregor

sakurama wrote:

Isabel1130 wrote: I feel badly for the New Yorkers too. They generally have one of the largest groups at Camp Perry, and New York has told them, in essence to take a hike. One law at a time, New York, is bent on driving out their most productive, and law abiding citizens.

This is one of the things that the foreign posters understand the least. This is not a national issue, as much as it is a state by state battle to make sure we never have a 60 vote majority in the Senate, which can pass something without being filibustered. The organization of the U.S. allows you to vote with your feet, and many have already done so.

I really like your posts Isabel, you're very knowledgable on many subjects, but to suggest that New York's "most productive and law abiding citizens" are being driven out is rather presumptive on your part. Gun owners in NY are a very small minority as they're from the rural areas. The bulk of the population of New York (as I'm sure you know) is in NYC and those are the most productive citizens. By far.

They're also not old white men which is what the NRA and the gun culture are mostly comprised of. You of course are an exception! There are gays, blacks, hispanics, women and young people. You know, the sort of people that make up about... hmm, none of the NRA as far as I've seen. I belong to two gun clubs and aside from a handful of older (white) women I've not seen anyone but old white guys. Hell, I'm 47 and I'm usually one of the youngsters on the line.

The NRA and the gun culture are out of touch with the shifting demographic of the country. They will continue to be marginalized and they will continue to lose rights because of the minority they have become.

Gregor

Although, I think you are wrong on the demographics, it is not the gun laws per se that are driving people out of New York. It is the taxes and an unsustainable government pension system. Small businesses in general have a very tough time in New York, Illinois, California, and other states which have unsustainable government spending. The New York retirees have been moving to Florida for years.

http://www.empirecenter.org/pb/2012/08/ ... 081612.cfm

I think the media has been trying hard to generate the meme that the majority of Americans are against guns. Not only do I not believe that is true, I also belleve that you will find out soon that "gun control" is not the hill that the democratic senators want to die on. :-)

sakurama,

Sometimes the demographics are determined by the club.

Does your club run junior programs? Programs for women only? Ask members to bring non-shooting friends to certain"introduction" shoots?

I've been a member of clubs that did these, and the demographics change considerably from the clubs run by (and for) the "good old boys". Have tried to change the "good old boy system", failed, and moved on to a more progressive club. We'll pick up their equipment for a song, in a couple years when they fold up because of no new members.

(oops, posted in the wrong thread)

Gerard, the US is not a direct democracy. It is a Republic where the states have representation in Congress, not individuals. Since all elections except for the Presidency take place at the state level, it is difficult to get a clear picture of what voters actually want. Most are not single issue voters, and a lot of them are low information voters. Sometimes until they perceive a threat, they pay very little attention to what goes on in Washington.
I believe that the fact that the U.S has spent a trillion dollars a year that they don't have, is very shortly going to overwhelm any other single issue.

The NRA is not the only gun rights group in the U.S, just the most widely known.

sbrmike wrote:Scot Pilkington, i don't care if you lock this post and even lifetime ban me. I am sick and tired of reading these windbag posts from the Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders. They don't have a dog in the fight.



Also if you're tired of international input then I suggest you don't discuss it on a forum on international shooting. I know tempers can get heated over these issues but lets try to keep it civil.

+1

sbrmike, you do realise what www means?

May I suggest that a chill pill is taken and that you might even take some good from windbags, mind you given your nations history that's not likely to happen in a hurry lol. The "I'm right and everyone else is wrong!" attitude with a strong streak of aggression just opens you up to ridicule. An open mind unlike an open mouth gathers no foot.

Kattom. That post was not calling people from those countries windbags.

The post referred to the large rambling multi-paragraph ramblings that were posted in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook elem school. Read the thread, see where the authors of those novels and short stories hailed from.

A Canadian moderator locked a NYS member's post about the very real rushed to pass law because he thought it was the same issue. The only thing related in the post is that the very restrictive law was a knee jerk, feel good law, also in response to the tragedy.

My post served it's purpose to unlock an unrelated thread. It is too bad because the original locked post and my locked post were the same thing and there is duplication there.

sbrmike wrote:Kattom. That post was not calling people from those countries windbags.

The post referred to the large rambling multi-paragraph ramblings that were posted in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook elem school. Read the thread, see where the authors of those novels and short stories hailed from.

A Canadian moderator locked a NYS member's post about the very real rushed to pass law because he thought it was the same issue. The only thing related in the post is that the very restrictive law was a knee jerk, feel good law, also in response to the tragedy.

My post served it's purpose to unlock an unrelated thread. It is too bad because the original locked post and my locked post were the same thing and there is duplication there.

Actually your post did nothing to open it, it was a post from someone else's. The only thing your post would have done was assured it stayed locked, so don't pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

Richard H:


mod·er·a·tor
[mod-uh-rey-ter] Show IPA

noun
1.
a person or thing that moderates.

2.
a person who presides over a panel discussion on radio or television.

3.
a presiding officer, as at a public forum, a legislative body, or an ecclesiastical body in the Presbyterian Church.

You are more of a very opinionated participant than a moderator. I suggest you choose what you are going to be.

Hey just telling you the truth, that's not opinion. One of the other participants actually politely explained a little more of the intent and I agreed with him. Your rude, obnoxious tantrum had no bearing on the thread being unlocked.

I don't now nor will ever take directions from you.

So if you like to get back on topic that's fine. If not your posts will be removed. No response is necessary or actually welcome.