Call for shooters to vote LDP
17 Aug 2010
Shooters and other users of firearms who vote for the Liberal Democrats (LDP) on Saturday will be joining forces with others who prefer freedom over government control.
“Single issue parties that want the government to simply leave them alone have little to offer their supporters. That includes shooters and fishers, who are politically isolated and lack support. In the case of shooters they also appear determined to be ineffectual,” said Jim Fryar, LDP Queensland Senate candidate.
“The Shooters and Fishers Party has given their preferences to the Coalition in all states intead of working with the other minor parties. That’s detrimental to the interests of shooters as we negotiated outstanding preference deals among the other minor parties, and in NSW have the potential to succeed.
“They seem to have simply forgiven the Liberal/National parties for the confiscation of hundreds of thousands of firearms from law-abiding shooters, at a cost of a billion dollars, and the imposition of draconian gun laws.
“As victim group therapy, single issue parties are great. If you just want to talk about your troubles, they are the way to go. But if you actually hope to reclaim your rights, you have to support a party that is committed to individual liberty across the board,” Mr Fryar said.
“Members of any party formed to oppose oppression and denial of their natural rights should support the Liberal Democrats, as together we can combine into a powerful group. Together we can create a force that has the capacity to replace the old Coalition with a real alternative that will not only stand against the violation of your rights, but reclaim those already lost.”
“Shooters and other firearms users who do not want to reward the Coalition with their preferences are advised to vote for the Liberal Democrats. A vote for the Shooters and Fishers Party will go straight to the Coalition,” Mr Fryar said.
“The LDP has pro-shooter policies that no other party can match. This is because we develop our policies from the perspective of individual liberty, and a strong belief that the state has no right to restrict non-coercive activities by individuals,” he concluded.
The Liberal Democrats regard all sporting uses of firearms as legitimate, and support the right to own firearms for self defence. Details are on the party’s website: www.ldp.org.au
As a gun user, what are your thoughts on gun registration, calibre restrictions, modifiers, and gun licensing?
/See, not asking about tax cuts this time. =)
Ripped from their firearms policy doc:
http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1152:firearms&catid=101:policies&Itemid=290
Specific firearm policy:
* Sport, hunting and self-defence are all legitimate reasons for firearm ownership.
* Firearm ownership should be subject to possession of a licence. However, all adults over 18 years of age have a right to a licence unless it has been removed because of a history or genuine prospect of coercion.
* Those who wish to carry a concealed firearm for self-defence are entitled to be issued with a permit to do so unless they have a history or genuine prospect of coercion.
* All genuine sporting uses of firearms are legitimate.
* There should be no registration of long-arms.
* There should be no special prohibitions on semi-automatic firearms.
* Individuals and organisations have a right to establish facilities that involve the use of firearms. This includes shooting ranges and hunting reserves.
‘Coercion’ is a weird choice of word. Having followed the link I see what the policy is getting at, but ‘violence’, ‘harm’, ‘threat of harm’ or even ‘misuse’ would be much clearer.
What’s the LDP’s response to the fact that a gun is more likely to shoot a member of one’s family than an intruder in the home?
I don’t really have a problem with sport shooting, and I know there are plenty of people who would be responsible with their guns. However, even the most responsible people can’t protect against every eventuality, and I severely doubt those people are in the majority; there are a lot of stupid, irresponsible people out there. Opening it up to anyone over 18 is a recipe for disaster.
I have no problem with people being allowed access to firearms, provided they can legitimately explain why they need access to them.
Sport-shooting, recreational hunting and pest-management are all completely valid reasons for anyone to own a gun, provided they are stored safely and those in the house are educated on their proper use.
However, I don’t see why any Joe Random on the street should be able to carry a concealed weapon, and I absolutely believe there needs to be registration of every gun, handguns and rifles, including a ballistics record to keep people accountable for their firearms.
The LDP will disagree with me on the registration part I’m sure, and no doubt the ballistics record part to.
I don’t agree that banning guns because some people are irresponsible is the answer. Ive heard that argument used against the R18+ rating too many times for me to want to employ it on someone else. Although, the Shooters Association used it in their Discussion Paper submission… so maybe there’s a karmic balance to work out here.
Or it could just be that they were ignorant.
Not saying ban outright, merely that there need to be a whole lot of precautions to stop the irresponsible people doing harm. I think we basically agree on the precautions.
I didn’t explicitly state such, but my problem is with the ‘reason’ for gun ownership of self-defence.
“What’s the LDP’s response to the fact that a gun is more likely to shoot a member of one’s family than an intruder in the home?”
If you let every man have a weapon far too many of them will go off half-cocked. That is why abortions are always an issue at election time.
Concealed weapons are an absolute no no in a society that I am happy to live in, but I have no problem with firearms in the correct hands. Couldn’t eat rabbit otherwise.
[...] the rest of this great post here Comments (0) Posted in Liberal Candidates [...]