Yup. Last image they [jury] have in their minds is an AR-15 being pointed at them all throughout deliberations.

I've created a Monster. 😁

Not intending to personally attack you, so don't take it as such, but that is another cause of the sport being in the position its in. Politics in te sport is not tasteful. Its messy, argumentative, disruptive and in an ideal world unnecessary. However the damage our own crowd has done to it over the past 12 to 15 years is monumentally larger than any legislation (which actually usually comes from direct input of one or more so called shooting organisations) and when people are warned about it before it happens the majority of people simply say "not interested in politics". They then wake some morning to find their sport is gone and the gun for it banned and then start bitching about it being banned.

You don't have to participate, but at the very least stay apprised of goings on. The general you, not you specifically.

Bit of a dig at the vast majority that do nothing, but expect everything. In any given sport there are 100% of members/people with 98% that compete and only 2% that do all the non glamorous adminsitrative, legal, and political work behind the scenes.

In a recent petition, well not so recent now I think about it, we asked for people to print it off and get it signed at club houses, ranges, by family, and sign it online if you have access to the interweb. After 7 weeks we got just under 2,000 signatures. Under 2,000. Out of some 150,000 people directly involved and a possible half a million indirectly.

Think about that for apathy. Less than 2,000 (or just over 1.3%) felt the need to have their voice heard or at least show their opposition by signing a bit of paper or clicking a button on the internet. Showing once again the 2% rule.

The bigger sign of this rule is when it comes to shooting organisations and governing bodies. A few men at the head table making unilateral decisions, sometimes withotu consutling members, that can and have called for:

• Banning of fox shooting
• Banning of 223 rifles
• Banning of semi auto rifles
• Ban on night hunting (of any quarry)
• Privatised courses for firearm ownership
• The control of pistol licensing
• Time lock safes for every firearm owner
• Banning of currently licenseable 22 pistols
• etc.

By the way, all the above has only been called for in the last 6 years. So this is not ancient history as some try to say to deflect attention from their actions. Best part, sense the sarcasm, its still happening to this day.

No accounting for their actions, no one to have to answer to and due to the 2% rule the other 98% are either apathetic or unaware of what is happening.

I'm not naive enough to believe we'll get 100% engagement nor do I believe that everyone should engage to the extent of demanding meetings, and other real world stuff that eats up time, but when I hear talk of "united shooting groups" I simply remember all the failed petitions, and without sounding like a broken record, all other stuff I listed above and wonder if we cannot get even 2% of signatures then we have no hope of anything else.

I don't oppose new groups and there are a lot that focus solely on the shooting/firearm aspect. They are fine and more power to them and they are a grass roots type organisation that only care for the sport/hertiage of the pursuit not who controls it and how they can benefit from it.

Take the money/power out of shooting and you'll see a lot of interest by some, wane.