cart SHOPPING CART You have 0 items

Discussion Forums

Search forums


02 Apr 2019
@ 06:06 pm (GMT)

Jon Short

Hi fellow Kiwis,

With Nathan's & Steph's blessing I am posting the link below.

As you know the government is rushing legislation through regarding firearm reforms that could well adversely affect law abiding firearms users such as us. If you believe that they should slow down with the details of any legislative reform, & allow time for legitimate law abiding firearm owners & experts to have their say, then please go to the link below & consider signing the petition on line as I have;

Thanks guys,



03 Apr 2019
@ 08:03 am (GMT)

Andrew Murray

On this, as an Aussie, I know our gun laws are often toted out as being the gold standard. Make no mistake they are extremely effective, to a certain point. Gun crime is low. But our current laws do nothing to actually prevent the existing gun crime because it happens at the hands of those who never intended to follow the law in the first place. I do agree that our safe so rage laws are very good. I also agree that gun shops being required to record ammo sales is a bloody stupid idea. I like that our reasons for owning firearms cannot include "self defence".

Recently I spoke with the Commissioner of the NSW Firearms Registry, the body of NSW police that deal with legal firearm ownership, it was in relation to claim from gun control groups that the laws are being watered down. Our National Firearms Agreement is a naional document but each state has their own autonomy to implement it... the claim is that no state actually meets all the NFA. The commissioner said to effect that rather than meeting it the current laws are in line with the reality of firearm ownership and use. He was very careful but effectively said that the NFA is out of touch with reality and gun control groups are uninformed and use fear to push their agenda. It's taken 20 years for use to get here... but don't lose hope. At least your government announced a time to think about the changes. Our just ran with it.
03 Apr 2019
@ 09:22 am (GMT)

Thomas Kitchen

OK guys you need to make a submission today it's your only chance submission close at 6pm so much for democratic society
if you have made a submission but it wasn't to the select committee you need to re do it

I have been trawling through new law man oh man is it bad not just what it means but the writing of it with contradiction etc

All lever or pump action 22's that can hold more then ten rounds are banned (doesn't state that it's 22lr or short)
All lever action over ten rounds are banned.
All magazines over ten rounds detach or not are banned.
All semi auto or pump action over 5 rounds are banned (doesn't state if it's capable of mag extension if it's legal or not, it doesn't ban mag extension just makes it illegal to fit them)

The parts are the issues that needs clarification as all pistol grips, silencers, stocks and sights are banned.
This part gets real confusing as it could mean that all bolt action chassis are illegal and have to be brought back using tax payers dollars.

E category is completely gone which is one of the highest restricted categories in nz, stronger safes, no one else can shoot your gun even if they have E cat unless you change ownership of said gun to them.
Yearly checks compared to ten years etc

The new law is very hard to understand so I may have interpretated it wrong, the Lincoln case that went to the high court in 2010 shows that any law needs to be clear.

Nothing in new law about vetting or restrictions on any type of person owning firearms as long as the firearm fulsl within new category

03 Apr 2019
@ 05:44 pm (GMT)

Jon Short

Thanks Thomas & Andrew . No time for apathy huh.

All I can say to Kiwi gun owners, if you don't stand up for what is right, you have no right to complain about any changes you don't like.

Here is a saying I really like that I tend to live by... not sure if its a good thing ;-)

"Every time a man stands up for what is right, it sends forth a ripple of hope."

So really all you can ask is for kiwi firearms licensees is to do what they feel is right.


04 Apr 2019
@ 07:18 am (GMT)

Paul Leverman

Knee-jerk reactions like this from governments are quite common. After the shooting at Polytechnique, the Canadian government did much the same thing. They instituted sweeping laws that were made to placate the reactionary segment. After all was said and done, in their infinite wisdom, the ban on so-called "assault" rifles created a list of firearms that did not include the weapon used in the shooting. They also created the "long gun" registry. Basically ensuring that every legal firearm was registered with the government/RCMP. The cost was to be in the neighbourhood of $4B CDN, and turned into $17B before the registry was finished and up and running. And still no ban on the firearm used in the shooting. It was a monumental waste of time and money. Money that could have been used where it was needed in the fight against crime and the criminals who were using illegal and unregistered firearms. Throughout all of this "change for the good", I'm pretty sure that the government did not receive one registration or license application from a criminal.

Many years later , and change in governments (current), the long gun registry has been repealed (except Quebec, for some reason), and we are almost back to normal. There are still legislative acts in parliament targeting legal and law-abiding gun owners, so the battle continues and I doubt it will ever end.

And still no ban on the firearm that was used.
04 Apr 2019
@ 09:28 am (GMT)

Warwick Marflitt

Here's the driving source of the changes, this tragedy is just the moment they've been waiting for to implement change and remove firearms from civilian ownership...... It's the UNs Agenda 21 plan in action.

04 Apr 2019
@ 11:55 am (GMT)

Warwick Marflitt

Dear Elected Politicians
A man wrote a book about what you're about to do. Please reconsider the speed and follow a democratic process so that no citizen feels steamrolled. One persons actions shouldn't be used to punish all of New Zealand.
1 He's a rat and one rat shouldn't infest Our Beloved New Zealand!
2 Not because of the heinous disgusting crime that hes committed.
3 Look at the power you're giving to him from what hes done to our loving and humble Muslim citizens
4 We should change nothing.
5 Enforce the laws that we already have.
6Please Listen to licensed Firearms owners! They voted for you all and believed in our political systems constitution 7Challenge License holders to provide and have real working safe policies
8 Don't let FEAR grasp our society and shake it free of the foundations that Made New Zealand one of the safest countries too live in.
9 Don't grandstand and use this Idiots actions to criminalize good NZ citizens
10 The note inside New Zealand passports states: You as elected officials take note that!
The Governor-General in the Realm of New Zealand requests in the Name of Her Majesty The Queen all whom it may concern to allow the holder to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful assistance and protection.
11 Please slow down, Check your egos and think long and deeply about whats really happened and what will really help New Zealand and its people get through this trying and hurtful time in our history

Thank you for being good trustful leaders. We love and respect you all for choosing to represent us and our country
and making New Zealand an example for the rest of the world to respect and want to follow the good example we set.

The words to the New Zealand national anthem send a message to all. It talks about a set of values and standards that we strive to live well and kindly by....Words Worthy of standing and proudly singing

God of nations at thy feet
in the bonds of love we meet.
Hear our voices, we entreat,
God defend our free land.
Guard Pacific's triple star
From the shafts of strife and war,
Make her praises heard afar,
God defend New Zealand.

Men of every creed and race
Gather here before thy face,
Asking thee to bless this place,
God defend our free land.
From dissension, envy, hate,
And corruption guard our state,
Make our country good and great,
God defend New Zealand.

Peace, not war, shall be our boast,
But, should foes assail our coast,
Make us then a mighty host,
God defend our free land.
Lord of battles in thy might,
Put our enemies to flight,
Let our cause be just and right,
God defend New Zealand.

Let our love for Thee increase,
May thy blessings never cease,
Give us plenty, give us peace,
God defend our free land.
From dishonor and from shame
Guard our country's spotless name,
Crown her with immortal fame,
God defend New Zealand.

May our mountains ever be
Freedom's ramparts on the sea,
Make us faithful unto thee,
God defend our free land.
Guide her in the nation's van,
Preaching love and truth to man,
Working out thy glorious plan.
God defend New Zealand.

Take care everyone. Think and search your hearts n minds about whats really needed for a safe and healthy community.
Please Ponder on these wise words for some inspiration. Trust the people of New Zealand TRUST all the people of New Zealand. We elected you because we believed in your abilities to make wise decisions in the worst situations to keep New Zealand the New Zealand we love it too be!

By Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:.
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

05 Apr 2019
@ 11:13 pm (GMT)

Robert Kennedy

Andrew Murray, I disagree with you on this point. ' I like that our reasons for owning firearms cannot include "self defence" '. But many people would agree with you especially those who would want to break into your house and do all sorts of nasty things to you and your loved ones - it makes their job much less risky, almost a like condition for better occupational health and safety requirements for criminals
Also Christ himself pointed out the advisability of being sufficiently armed.
"When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth."
[luke 11:21]
This natural right to defend your home has been taken away by misguided legislation. Of course the government still says that you may use "sufficient force" to defend life and property - but with what?
I have lived in a time when any shopowner or person carrying large amounts of cash (eg. racecourse bookmakers) were allowed to have handguns to defend themselves from robbery.
But now we must dial the emergency number and wait for the police to do a post event report which may be for a murder, rape or serious injury.
Remember - "when seconds count, the police are only half an hour away."
07 Apr 2019
@ 05:58 pm (GMT)

Thomas Kitchen

for anyone interested in the oral submissions to select committee

it is what it is, everyone that speaks all think they are doing the best for the country.
it's how badly written it is that concerns me, plus the order of council stuff that mean they can make any firearm or ammunition prohibited without warning.
hopefully some details get cleaned up but its pretty fast moving.
ill do my best to keep updating this thread

colfo has released a statement on your rights with the coming inspections
09 Apr 2019
@ 06:03 am (GMT)

Thomas Kitchen

just an update.
report from select commitee
09 Apr 2019
@ 06:09 pm (GMT)

Jon Short

What really concerns me is the lack of signatures on the Livingston on line petition versus that on the green petition.

WTF fellow law abiding licensed firearms owners! Where are you?

Stand up & be counted!

I am pretty ashamed of & disappointed with my fellow licensees right now.

All that petition asked for was to slow down legislation so that it is well thought through. And bugger all of us signed it...

What to do... (shaking my head)

So apathetic!
10 Apr 2019
@ 08:06 am (GMT)

Nathan Foster

Well thats the saying, when good people do nothing.

We filed a formal submission as TBR and also signed the petition. We have the website here to share info (thanks guys for posting up to date info) and as much as I have tried to avoid it - social media. There is a legal process which can be followed but if nobody wants to pursue it, that's on them.
10 Apr 2019
@ 12:31 pm (GMT)

Warwick Marflitt

We need to unite and be responsible. United we stand divided we fall.
11 Apr 2019
@ 02:18 am (GMT)

zane cameron

Here's the driving source of the changes, this tragedy is just the moment they've been waiting for to implement change and remove firearms from civilian ownership...... It's the UNs Agenda 21 plan in action.

Hi Warwick Marflitt
Agree with you but can you explain (simply) what your link is saying or proving about the UN. I tried reading it but goes over my head .
11 Apr 2019
@ 06:47 am (GMT)

Thomas Kitchen

Looks like it'll be through today.

People are just waking up to what's going on federation farmers originally thought new law wouldn't apply to them because of their occupation how stupid can you get.

We were always going to struggle to keep AK's and AR's on a cat but now we have lost E cat which doesn't make sense.

People just don't understand the categories.
Simple way to look at is if a criminal gets a shotgun and cuts it down to under 30" it becomes a pistol by default, so would you then say we need to change pistol laws?

That's simply what happened in Christchurch, by adding a bigger magazine to an A category firearm it became E cat by default so they are getting rid of E cat altogether.
11 Apr 2019
@ 03:29 pm (GMT)

Warwick Marflitt

Here's the driving source of the changes, this tragedy is just the moment they've been waiting for to implement change and remove firearms from civilian ownership...... It's the UNs Agenda 21 plan in action.

Hi Warwick Marflitt
Agree with you but can you explain (simply) what your link is saying or proving about the UN. I tried reading it but goes over my head .

Zane. It's meant too. Documents written for scholars and Lawyers don't get read by Joe public! Makes it easy to pass laws. Have a read of this it might be easier to consume......

Cut n paste from link above

Armed violence is the main factor creating flows of refugees and internally displaced persons, and last year the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation announced that conflict had become the major cause of food emergencies. More human rights violations are perpetrated with guns than with any other kind of weapon; this misuse of guns is committed by ordinary civilians, by individual criminals or organised gangs, and by state security forces, including armies and police.

Apart from the physical and psychological damage to individuals and communities, the proliferation and misuse of small arms can have severe economic impact: by disrupting employment and commercial activity; discouraging and destroying investments; and draining resources from health and criminal justice budgets. The cost can be enormous even in a highly developed country like the United States, where gun violence costs the economy $100 billion every year. In a developing country, the cost is debilitating: in El Salvador, for instance, the cost of gun violence equates to 12.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

There is a crucial difference between small arms and other conventional weapons: unlike tanks and fighter jets, guns are cheap and portable. Their purchase per se is unlikely to place a heavy human or economic burden on a country. The true cost of small arms misuse comes not from the trade itself, but from the productivity lost through the ongoing death and injury these weapons cause, and the costs associated with insecurity.

As the United Nations appears to want to Farm all people. More people means more revenue.
People killing people reduces the size of the Tax and Revenue making Flock of stock......

I did like this paragraph

More human rights violations are perpetrated with guns than with any other kind of weapon; this misuse of guns is committed by ordinary civilians, by individual criminals or organized gangs, and by state security forces, including armies and police.

But when I really Annalise that statement. I think you'll find that More human rights violations are perpetrated with the human mind,voice,hands,money, wealth and and the theft of A natural path of history that if no one had invaded and taken over their part of the world........

The best index to a person’s character is (a) how he treats people who can’t do him any good, and (b) how he treats people who can’t fight back.

The power of the human mind to think clearly and effectively. Especially when in crisis is your only savoir....... When this Savoir is denied and skills not taught. You'll end up with ..........?


13 Apr 2019
@ 01:53 am (GMT)

zane cameron

heres an interesting watch -do share
14 Apr 2019
@ 07:54 am (GMT)

Thomas Kitchen

HI guys
Been bush for couple days so trying to catch up.
Looks like they completely screwed us and weren't even gentlemen enough to use lube.

Looks like they'll be after pistols next and specially pistol carbines.
Then fill registration to as that always prevents cars getting stolen.

It's a disgrace to new Zealand what's happened.
15 Apr 2019
@ 02:54 am (GMT)

Warwick Marflitt

"First they came ..." is a poem written by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984). It is about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent incremental purging of their chosen targets, group after group. Many variations and adaptations in the spirit of the original have been published in the English language. It deals with themes of persecution, guilt and responsibility.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Woe yea who betray his fellow Landsmen

There is an old trick! Its just been played on the citizens of New Zealand. Its called divide, fool and rule!

Only when you understand what really went on will you truly know just how well you where screwed over! By then it will be too late. All will be owned and controlled by another man. Sold to him by somebody who didn't Care! For the people, the Land and Our unity? Chief Gone Cloud!

The documented history of the "Apple" should send shivers of fear thru your bones! Yet you pay thousands of dollars for one, carry it into your home, connect it too the inter-spy-web and pay for the Data it uses to tell the world your secretes! It appeared in the Garden of Eden. Snow White fell victim to its juices. And now it peeks into your electronic dealings......

The old saying.....................................................................................
"You've got your Head in the clouds"..... Means the person is not paying much attention to what is happening around them, and has their attention on their own thoughts, or their head is filled with unrealistic ideas. Perhaps the idea is to shock the person out of their reverie by giving them a kind of jab in the hypothalamus.

Do you really want to keep your Data in "THE CLOUD"
What if the cloud rains? That's what clouds do!!! Rain data? Where does it go. Whose down pipe, What Tank does it end up being stored in?

It's all a bit too Ninglephut for my liking....... a bit like watching someone watch n wet paint dry...... I think We've been Idiwinked!
Joe blow just don't think enough to care or care enough too think.......

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. Because I'd rather you say what you feel and how you think, out aloud, than be in the dark without a clue to your true intent!

AS........You cannot see the True colour of a mans heart.....

But Gran-pop said that...."It's better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".

How much have the actions of this one Killer cost New Zealand???
Who thinks that weve played into his hand by allowing his actions to twist and turn Kiwis against Kiwis? How we've changed! Remember the Rainbow Warrior?
Sunk by the french government. Their bombing operation by the "action" branch of the French foreign intelligence services. It only killed one person but was an act of state terrorism. Two agents caught by the NZ Police and let go after weak sentence? Funny how history teaches things. Unless nobody's listening...... I voted when I was 18 I voted again when I was 49.... I won't be voting again...... Its a RACKET......... Here's a read for those who care?

War Is A Racket

By Smedley Darlington Butler

Major General - United States Marine Corps [retired]

Born West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881

Educated Haverford School

Married Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905

Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914, and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917

Distinguished service medal, 1919

Retired Oct. 1, 1931

On leave of absence to act as director of Department of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932

Lecturer - 1930's

Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932

Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940

For more information about Major General Smedley Butler, contact the United States Marine Corps.
Table of Contents
Chapter One
 War is a Racket
Chapter Two
 Who Makes the Profits?
Chapter Three
 Who Pays the Bills?
Chapter Four
 How to Smash this Racket!
Chapter Five
 To Hell With War

~ Chapter One ~

WAR is a racket. It always has been.
    It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
  A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
  In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
  How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
  Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few - the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
  And what is this bill?
  This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
  For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
  Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
  The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people - not those who fight and pay and die - only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.
  There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
  Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?
  Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
  "And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."
  Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war - anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.
  Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.
  Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.
  Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war - a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.
  Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit - fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.
  Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.

    But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
  What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
  Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
  Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
  It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people - who do not profit.

  Back To Top

  ~ Chapter Two ~

  The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.
  The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits - ah! that is another matter - twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent - the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.
  Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket - and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:
  Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people - didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.
  Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump - or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!
  Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.
  There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.
  Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.
  Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.
  Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.
  A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.
  Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.
  For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.
  International Nickel Company - and you can't have a war without nickel - showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.
  American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.
  Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.
  And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public - even before a Senate investigatory body.
  But here's how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.
  Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought - and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.
  There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn't any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it - so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.
  Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches - one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!
  Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.
  There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.
  Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 - count them if you live long enough - was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.
  Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them - a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers - all got theirs.
  Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment - knapsacks and the things that go to fill them - crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them - and they will do it all over again the next time.
  There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.
  One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.
  Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn't ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.
  The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn't float! The seams opened up - and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.
  It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.
  The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.
  Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee - with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator - to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.
  Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses - that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.
  There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.
  Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.

  Back To Top

  ~ Chapter Three ~

  Who provides the profits - these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them - in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us - the people - got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par - and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.
  But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
  If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men - men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.
  Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.
  Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.
  In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.
  There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement - the young boys couldn't stand it.
  That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead - they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded - they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too - they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam - on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain - with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.
  But don't forget - the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.
  Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share - at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.
  Napoleon once said,
  "All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."
  So by developing the Napoleonic system - the medal business - the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.
  In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.
  So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our is His will that the Germans be killed.
  And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.
  Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."
  Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.
  All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill...and be killed.
  But wait!
  Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance - something the employer pays for in an enlightened state - and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.
  Then, the most crowning insolence of all - he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.
  We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back - when they came back from the war and couldn't find work - at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!
  Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly - his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.
  When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too - as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.
  And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.

  Back To Top

  ~ Chapter Four ~

  WELL, it's a racket, all right.
  A few profit - and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.
  The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation - it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted - to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.
  Let the workers in these plants get the same wages - all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers -
  yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders - everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!
  Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.
  Why shouldn't they?
  They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!
  Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket - that and nothing else.
  Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people - those who do the suffering and still pay the price - make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers. Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant - all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war - voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms - to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.
  There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide - and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.
  A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.
  At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.
  Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.
  The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.
  The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.
  The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.
  To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.
  We must take the profit out of war.
  We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.
  We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

  Back To Top

  ~ Chapter Five ~

  I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.
  Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
  In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.
  Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?
  An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:
  "There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.
  If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't.
  Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars."
  Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.
  And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.
  Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?
  The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.
  The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.
  There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.
  The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.
  Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.
  But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.
  If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war - even the munitions makers.
  So...I say,

Back To History Is A Weapon's Front Page

15 Apr 2019
@ 10:48 am (GMT)

John D. Hays - New Mexico


Trenchant comment from Canadian Mark Steyn:

The real problem, in America, Britain, Canada, Oz, NZ, is not the left, who know what they want and are serious about getting it, but the pansy right. It's easy to mock AOC and Justin and Jacinta Ardern, but all they're doing is sailing full steam ahead for their desired utopia. The right, who profess to disdain the final destination, nevertheless follow along, albeit at a more desultory rate of knots.
16 Apr 2019
@ 08:39 am (GMT)

Andrew Murray

John, you raise a great point.

I'm taking a few leaps here but imagine if politics was based on trust rather than fear.

The left and right operate on fear. Imagine if you had the social policies of the left, caring for the needy, and the economic sensibilities of the right working together?

Imagine if rather than banning guns outright the people who had them in the first place weren't lunatics?

In Australia, our gun laws have reached the limit of their effectiveness. They are no longer doing anything to combat and prevent the use of firearms in crimes. All of these weapons are obtained illegally and outside of any kind of lawful process. I am sure the NSW Police (NSW sate authority that manages firearms licenses and registrations) are aware of this, yet nationally there is little effort to tackle this.

Our gun control groups bang on about fear and crime, spreading misinformation and half-truths. What's important to note that our "National Firearms Agreement" which is toted out around the world as the gold standard for gun control is not fully in place in any place in Australia. When gun control groups get on the soapbox about "weakening gun laws" you must ask why. The answer is even the police think the rules are too restrictive and have advised the governments of the day to change the laws to meet the reality of people using guns, not those who say guns are bad.

It's a small glimmer of hope amongst what seems to be endless assault on our rights to hunt and fish.
16 Apr 2019
@ 11:11 am (GMT)

John D. Hays - New Mexico


Nice points, Andrew.

However, I think I am now in agreement with Scott Adams that in politics, "Facts don't matter." Facts matter greatly in outcomes, but in persuasion and politics it is all preconceived ideas, images and emotions. For fun and epiphany, you might watch this amusing YouTube video with Scott Adams:

I personally found this concept hard to swallow, but its truth and utility grows on you and changed the way I view what is going on with digital-age politicians, the media and social-media.
16 Apr 2019
@ 11:30 am (GMT)

John D. Hays - New Mexico


Another concept that has changed my views came from the late Andrew Breitbart:

"Politics is downstream from culture."

This makes me consider who it is that is upstream from culture. That would be the media and now the social-media tech giants. What do they dam up, what do they add to the flow of information and bias, what do they consistently filter out?

For more on this concept of Culture>Politics, you may read this article:

I think it is clear that everyone who cares about shooting sports should reach out to most friends and acquaintances and introduce them to some appropriate aspect of the sport. Make it a part of their positive personal experience at every opportunity. [/b]
16 Apr 2019
@ 06:00 pm (GMT)

Jon Short

Hi all,

Just to bring you all back to what this post was really all about...

Its really important that legitimate license firearms users are not apathetic here.

Get off the fence those who are worried about what others may think & say your piece about what you believe. Keep it intelligent & don't let emotion get in the way.

Do whats right for the sake of those that follow you, like your kids or if like me you don't have any that you know of, your nieces & nephews, so that you have a clear conscience that you did your bit to protect their entitlement to own a firearm, hunt & shoot.

Game animals were introduced to NZ for food purposes so that the average guy or gal could catch a feed. Its important to protect that right by protecting legitimate licensed firearms users rights to own firearms for these purposes.

I also think that its important to keep things polite, simple & succinct when writing submissions, lobbying any politicians or just stating your point of view to others who do not use or understand firearms. Keep emotion out of it, just state the facts.


17 Apr 2019
@ 02:10 am (GMT)

John D. Hays - New Mexico


Hi Jon,

I’m not a Kiwi. Je suis un Américain, and I am grateful to Steph and Nathan, and all of you New Zealanders for allowing me to listen and to speak on this forum.

My purpose in being here is to learn long-range hunting, a subject of which I am quite ignorant but trying hard to better myself.

If I am ignorant of LRH, I am not ignorant of politics. I have been a rapt student of that dismal art since Friday, November 22nd of 1963, when our President was assassinated in Dallas. I was seven years old. After that, and after watching Jack Ruby assassinate Oswald on live TV, raw politics have been my voyeur obsession.

I can’t talk to you all about the NZ situation. I’m a foreigner.

I can talk about politics. Everything you and others here have said is important and contains much that is sincere and true. I will tell you something else that is true, the three top things that motivates a politician.

1) Getting elected.
2) Getting re-elected.
3) Self-enrichment.

The last of these, enrichment is both financial and social status.

Any politician who fails to adhere to these three priorities will not stay a politician for long. Only by keeping these maxims does a politician retain power.

If you want to influence politicians you must cater to these necessities.

You, the individual, will not make a drop of influence, of change — not a ripple.

You must organize.

As you say, Jon, avoid emotion in your public efforts

Facts don’t matter.

Change the culture on you issue.

Focus like a laser beam.


Thank you all for allowing me to speak here.
17 Apr 2019
@ 02:40 am (GMT)

John D. Hays - New Mexico


Oh, one more thing.

If you all do organize, set up your own online forum to do it.

It’s not fair to Nathan and Steph to politicize their livelihood.


We are a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing.