General election

[Kent Militia]

If you're basing your vote on shooting matters everything you need to see is shown in the above link. You'd be mad to vote for anyone BUT the Conservatives. I'm voting for them anyway as they're the only ones with at least a half decent track record with the economy, aswell as shooting issues. Even if they're just blowing smoke up our @ s s e s with the repeal of the 1997 (2) pistol ban, at least they're blowing my flavour smoke!

 

Mark

 

Conservatives banned self loading rifles in 1988, not Labour. I trust them as much as Labour on shooting matters, not very much.

[anser2]

QUOTE (Breastman @ May 5 2010, 08:17 PM)

If you're basing your vote on shooting matters everything you need to see is shown in the above link. You'd be mad to vote for anyone BUT the Conservatives. I'm voting for them anyway as they're the only ones with at least a half decent track record with the economy, aswell as shooting issues. Even if they're just blowing smoke up our @ s s e s with the repeal of the 1997 (2) pistol ban, at least they're blowing my flavour smoke."

 

 

 

Breastman almost all the anti shooting laws for the past 50 years has come in under Tory govenments! Protection of Birds act 1953 and later admendments , both Countryside and wildlife acts , and firearms restrictions after Dunblane. Not that i trust any of the other parties that much , but the Tory track record is not good at all. I will not be voteing Labour , but at least they have added a few bird species onto the shooting list.

Edited May 5, 2010 by anser2

[Breastman]

I'm in agreement that the Conservatives track record on firearms isn't great but i think thats much more to do with the fact they've been in power much more than Labour in the last 100 years and the incidents that drive the restrictions have always fallen when they are in office so its came down to them to appease the uneducated masses with some bull$h!t regulation.

 

I have no memory of the 88 SLR ban (i was 10!) and ive not been able to find any parlimentary transcripts so i can't comment on that but with regard to the 1997 (1) Act i'm firmly of the belief that if it hadn't been an election year the ban would have never came about, for certain .22's wouldn't have been banned. Any government would have had to give serious consideration to banning firearms after such major incidents but as far as i can see only the Conservatives would give consideration to NOT banning certain guns outright without a second thought.

 

Just look at the figures in the BASC report for the number of pro's versus anti's, the Conservative ratio is titanic. And do you hear ANY other major party even considering relaxing firearms legislation??

 

anser2 - Isn't it DEFRA who decide what is and isn't included on the general license, labour had nothing to do with it?

 

Mark

Edited May 5, 2010 by Breastman

[Algiz]

Conservatives banned self loading rifles in 1988, not Labour. I trust them as much as Labour on shooting matters, not very much.

 

Very true.

 

The Firearms Amendment Act 1997 (ban on all handguns over .22) was introduced by the Conservatives too.

 

All Labour did was bump the ban up to cover .22's as well.

[Colster]

Still disappointing to see that 75% of our enquiries went unanswered. Never got a reply to any of mine. Ah well I suppose they don't have so much time now they have to clean their own moats

[David BASC]

BUT after the election don't stop - keep lobbying your MP!

[Ozzy Fudd]

the tories dont have a great record on firearms legislation but dont forget labour brought in the violent crime reduction act (or whatever), giving us all the hassle with carrying a knife, and making it impossible to buy a bb gun that isnt bright pink god only knows what the result would have been if dunblane or hungerford had happened during a labour govt

[al4x]

I've mixed views on this one really do you just let Dunblane and Hungerford happen and say oh well its one of those things? Unfortunately handguns and automatics don't really have a vital use such as pest control so are an easy target. Ok it has stopped pistol shooting but there is a little justification behind it and at the time it had probably the least effect on overall firearms ownership than any other options as the anti lobby certainly had something they were fighting for.

 

As for knives Ozzy are laws against carrying for legitimate purposes a bad thing, I'm far happier that if PC plod finds someone in a pub or on the street one that they have some course of action they can take

[MM]

my first thoughts on how i vote are not for the good of firearms, but what is best for families, workers..ect,, firearms comes second as its only a hobby. I understand that there are people who have invested their whole lives in the lifestyle/career, but for me, its my family/work first.

[Ozzy Fudd]

As for knives Ozzy are laws against carrying for legitimate purposes a bad thing, I'm far happier that if PC plod finds someone in a pub or on the street one that they have some course of action they can take

 

eh... hoping thats a mistake, but if not, then yes, a law stopping me doing something i have a legitimate reason to do is a bad thing

 

and if you look up the thread on here lately (cant find it) youll see how annoyed people are with it. i suppose it was designed to get blades of hoodies, but when you have people being fearful of carrying a knife as a tool in their car, etc, then something has gone wrong

Edited May 6, 2010 by Ozzy Fudd

[al4x]

eh... hoping thats a mistake, but if not, then yes, a law stopping me doing something i have a legitimate reason to do is a bad thing

 

and if you look up the thread on here lately (cant find it) youll see how annoyed people are with it. i suppose it was designed to get blades of hoodies, but when you have people being fearful of carrying a knife as a tool in their car, etc, then something has gone wrong

 

 

I did mean if you had a legitimate use then fine otherwise they shouldn't be carried. You only have to look at the papers round us and every week someone in the local area is stabbed something has to be done and this is about the only way I can think of. Personally I take one shooting on my belt and take it off when I get home when I don't need it any more. I usually have one in the car but have never been asked about it and its usually out of the way so I'm not too worried about it having only been stopped about twice in my life and never searched.

[anser2]

Breastman , DEFRA is a government department and as such will carry out government policy. If the government of the day decided it does not want a species to go on the list it will not. As for the Tory government being power for more time in the last 100 years that might be true , but in the last 60 when most anti shooting laws have been passed the Tories have not been in power that much more than Labour aprox 12 years of Wilson \ Callhan and 13 years of Blare\Brown . I cant remember if or how long Huge Gateskill was in power back in the 1950s .

 

 

Its interesting when the new shooting laws have been introduced under Tory governments they have been slanted in favour of the richer shooters. Ie in the Countryside and Wildlife bill , we kept golden plover \ woodcock and snipe all birds likely to be shot by the landed gentry , but lost stock dove , sea ducks , curlew , wrimbril , redshank , bar tailed godwits and grey plover all birds likely to be shot by the poorer members of the shooting community.

Edited May 6, 2010 by anser2