The Firearm Control Act. An Act of oppression
By P. Moss
There are some things that just can't be fixed because they are built on a lie and an unfounded belief. The Firearms Control Act cannot be made to reduce crime or the supply of guns to criminals, which is its stated purpose and reason for the control of "guns".
Why then are firearm owners determined to panel beat the FCA into some kind of shape as yet undermined? Because we have a plethora of organisations and clubs that have decided that it would be unreasonable to oppose the FCA who promoted this false ideology.
This appeasement brigade makes the appeal to reasonableness and then tries to hold the moral high ground by claiming those who oppose the legislation are "radicals" not to be taken serious and claim they will tarnish or destroy the "good" name of firearm owners to shame them into submission
What is wrong with this appeasement argument?It has taken Martin Hood of SAGA more then 9 years of appeasement to realise it has not worked. Read the latest Magnum (May 2009) Trail talk the last two paragraphs.
It is something many have told Martin over the years that trying to be "reasonable" is a foolish and stupid mistake we simple cannot afford to continue making.
Is it reasonable to expect people to forfeit their rights to self-defence with the best means available?
Is it reasonable to rip property from the hands of citizens and not compensate them at all instead of paying replacement value?
Is it reasonable to expect people not to complain and object to the manner in which the ANC government has ignored and treated firearm owner’s valid input and objections to this law now and in the past?
Is it reasonable that firearm owners were never ever consulted on the policy of the legislation? In fact they were thrown out the office and told to go away by Safety & Security "we know what you want to say and are not interested" -- A. Cachalia.
Is it reasonable to expect firearm owners to help build the means to their disarmament and also expect their help and support in implementation?There is absolutely no evidence to show that any of the many requirements of the FCA can possibly reduce crime or the supply guns to criminals.
Is it reasonable that we are expected to support a law, which has as its only intention another unstated agenda?
When those who are not blinded and paralysed by fear come along and say lets be reasonable, you guys have been sold down the river by the appeasement brigade and it is time to wake up from the slumber of acceptance of government’s fate. They are called "radicals" and other more derogatory names.
Is it reasonable that what they say is rejected out of hand? Is it reasonable that they are ostracised with petty derogatory words? That they be threatened if they do not behave as the appeasement brigade determines. Is nobody listening to what they say and arguing on truth and validity?
The appeasement brigade tries to paint them as nutters radicals and people who are trying to sink the ship of happiness and salvation. Is it a ship of happiness and salvation or are these the illusions of the appeasement brigade as they sucker people into their eventual fate. Total disarmament.
The appeasement brigade is dishonest and fraudulent in that they hide the truth from firearm owners. Appeasement has only one outcome, disarmament. Yet they falsely advise and enforce their ideology that this is the only reasonable response. Not one success can be shown that appeasement will gain anything from government other than disrespect.
People who do not fight for what is theirs do not get any respect from anyone especially government.
Appeasement has not shown that government will respect or honour promises made. In fact SAGA has yet to have a single promise made by the SAPS in all its years honoured. Government cannot be trusted under any circumstances.What the appeasement argument has not done is show WHY it is reasonable!
Why is it reasonable to go like lambs to the slaughter? Why is it reasonable to want to help build the road to the slaughterhouse?Beware of the appeasement brigade because they offer nothing less than what GFSA and government want. Eventual disarmament.
It is reasonable they be asked for whom are you working? It is definitely not to promote firearm ownership or retention of our rights. While what they say is dressed up in the pretty appealing words of "reasonableness" the payload at the end is no different to government or GFSA's objective.
First prove to the world that appeasement is different to what GFSA and government want. Justify your claim that this is the salvation of firearm owners. That appeasement will help in any way at all and is the right response. Show that appeasement will promote and grow the sale, ownership, and sporting and recreational use of firearms. Show that appeasement has not failed in every other country.
Is that unreasonable or too much to ask?
Oppose this Act with everything you have before it is to late.
2 Opinion(s):
APPEASEMENTRe: Appeasement by Arbitrationists, you may find the Military Strategy thoughts of Homer Lea (Valour of Ignorance and Day of the Saxon) informative:
It is on account of the prevalency of this smattering of education that every ism has its followers, every form of religious dementia its sanctuary and apostles, every visionary his devotees; and it matters in no way from what depths of absurdity they may come up, they have their adherents.
Usually these delusions are harmful only to the individual, and as such are not worthy of concern, but when the hallucination is apt to become so widespread as to affect the welfare of the nation, then it is time to point out the mockery of their hopes and the quicksands into which their aspirations have led them.
In this class of visionaries we place International Arbitrationists and Disarmamentists, who are so persistently striving through subservient politicians, through feminism, clericalism, sophism and other such toilers to drag this already much deluded Republic into that Brobdingnagian swamp from whose deadly gases there is no escape.
The idea of International Arbitration as a substitute for natural laws that govern the existence of political entities arises not only from a denial of their fiats and an ignorance of their application, but from a total misconception of war, its causes and its meaning.Valour of Ignorance (Excerpts); Roger Yung's Homer Lea Site: Who is Homer Lea?; PDF Free Book Downloads: Valour of Ignorance; Day of the SaxonGUN CONTROLInteresting South African Gun Control Letter at Survival Blog: Letter Re: Life Under South Africa's Gun Laws, by Joe Ordinary VoortrekkerLara
There seems to be a really silly belief that if one complies with the Firearms Control Act all will be well. When the SHTF the sock smoking believers may possibly want to reflect on the fact they ignored history. They therefore need to relearn the harsh lessons it could have and should taught them.
In the last century more than 120 million people have been killed by their own governments. In each and every case without a single exception the people have been disarmed first. The precursor to genocide is Gun Control.
Complying with the law gives government all the information it needs to come and collect any firearm you had hoped to retain for "when the SHTF".
The single best course of action is to object and remove this law NOW before it is to late.
Post a Comment