Speak you Brains - For Paintball
- Thread starter Bully
- Start date
May sound silly but why not invite a politician to Campaign Cup or a PA league event to present the trophies, minister for sport for example
Damn good call Dark...
But make sure you get loads of pictures og him with a gat in his hand......just in case they need to be "produced" later
But make sure you get loads of pictures og him with a gat in his hand......just in case they need to be "produced" later
Dave, he's clearly just following the title of this thread to the letter.....Originally posted by le-pig
and in english,your point is
Apparently he's also the paintball man, so you never know when you might need him, when the streets aren't safe and are filled with hardly-believable criminals: Dorset Luke, once an ordinary guy, until he was bitten by a radioactive paintball, will be watching over you.....
Presentation
We have evolved a bit since then ain't we
Nothing wrong with trying it again, if it was years ago.
We have evolved a bit since then ain't we
yup, you don't get to the moon with that sort of attitude............. and look what the space race got us......... kevlar for making bullet proof vests!!!!!!!!
oh and teflon for making armour piercing bullets.
Net gain......... SFA
oh and teflon for making armour piercing bullets.
Net gain......... SFA
OK - I want to chuck in a personal opinion here, because I believe this is potentially pretty serious.
As things stand, the Govt.has left the whole paintball community in something of a grey area with this consultation document. I'd like to assume that they recognise paintball exists, but perhaps don't want to legislate for it for fear of getting their real agenda bogged down in distraction? Whatever - we will never know.
So - what should we do? Back Steve Bull up and send him a whole shedload of personal responses as he requested?
Well, let's assume the best possible outcome from doing nothing instead, which is that this document eventually becomes law and leaves paintball in limbo but free to carry on as per.
Hooray.
Now look past the next general election and to a possible new home secretary who might want some easy colum inches. Hey presto - he has an easy target UNDER EXISTING LEGISLATION! There is no definition of paintball markers as such, but a whole host of very broad definitions of other types of projectile firing weapons which might do very nicely thank you. (I use the word 'weapon' here, not in a paintball sense but in the way the Govt or indeed the public might see it)
An earlier post on this thread suggested that so few paintball markers looked like rifles, what's the bother? I have two responses to that.
One: I personally choose to play scenario and rec paintball, and I would hate to think that I might be prevented from enjoying that by having my choice of marker decided by some faceless public servant with no idea about the different facets of the game. To put it another way, my new marker DOES look remarkably like an American M4 rifle, but sure as hell shoots slower than any recent tourney style marker. How would an 'acceptability' judgement be made here by the legislation? - what a marker looks like or how it performs? I'd suggest very strongly that it's the former.
Two: If anyone believes that ANY marker will continue to be 'safe' in legal terms because it doesn't look like a firearm is frankly fooling themselves. If the tide turns and paintball becomes identified with public menace (and let's face it, it won't be your actual paintball players who bring that one about!) then maybe they will start with 'firearm imitation' markers but don't believe for a moment they would stop there. Next might be specific barrel lengths (short = concealed weapon?, long = 'sniper'?) with a ban on rifled barrels to follow.
Now comes the crunch part - we all know that the trigger skill of many players can get a currently perfectly legal paint marker to shoot CONSIDERABLY faster than most fully auto firearms. It wouldn't take much for that fact to break the 'surface tension' of the legislature and bingo - the beginnings of enforced and increasingly limited RoF. Fun, huh?
I'm not taking a pop at any particular P8 poster, I just want to illustrate how classic divide & rule tactics could work under those circumstances.
I need to point out that this is my personal opinion, and doesn't necessarily reflect the views of my team or sponsors. I just feel that this is an issue that should be debated so that however things turn out we all recognise that we had the opportunity to express our views to the people we elected to make the laws we live by.
As things stand, the Govt.has left the whole paintball community in something of a grey area with this consultation document. I'd like to assume that they recognise paintball exists, but perhaps don't want to legislate for it for fear of getting their real agenda bogged down in distraction? Whatever - we will never know.
So - what should we do? Back Steve Bull up and send him a whole shedload of personal responses as he requested?
Well, let's assume the best possible outcome from doing nothing instead, which is that this document eventually becomes law and leaves paintball in limbo but free to carry on as per.
Hooray.
Now look past the next general election and to a possible new home secretary who might want some easy colum inches. Hey presto - he has an easy target UNDER EXISTING LEGISLATION! There is no definition of paintball markers as such, but a whole host of very broad definitions of other types of projectile firing weapons which might do very nicely thank you. (I use the word 'weapon' here, not in a paintball sense but in the way the Govt or indeed the public might see it)
An earlier post on this thread suggested that so few paintball markers looked like rifles, what's the bother? I have two responses to that.
One: I personally choose to play scenario and rec paintball, and I would hate to think that I might be prevented from enjoying that by having my choice of marker decided by some faceless public servant with no idea about the different facets of the game. To put it another way, my new marker DOES look remarkably like an American M4 rifle, but sure as hell shoots slower than any recent tourney style marker. How would an 'acceptability' judgement be made here by the legislation? - what a marker looks like or how it performs? I'd suggest very strongly that it's the former.
Two: If anyone believes that ANY marker will continue to be 'safe' in legal terms because it doesn't look like a firearm is frankly fooling themselves. If the tide turns and paintball becomes identified with public menace (and let's face it, it won't be your actual paintball players who bring that one about!) then maybe they will start with 'firearm imitation' markers but don't believe for a moment they would stop there. Next might be specific barrel lengths (short = concealed weapon?, long = 'sniper'?) with a ban on rifled barrels to follow.
Now comes the crunch part - we all know that the trigger skill of many players can get a currently perfectly legal paint marker to shoot CONSIDERABLY faster than most fully auto firearms. It wouldn't take much for that fact to break the 'surface tension' of the legislature and bingo - the beginnings of enforced and increasingly limited RoF. Fun, huh?
I'm not taking a pop at any particular P8 poster, I just want to illustrate how classic divide & rule tactics could work under those circumstances.
I need to point out that this is my personal opinion, and doesn't necessarily reflect the views of my team or sponsors. I just feel that this is an issue that should be debated so that however things turn out we all recognise that we had the opportunity to express our views to the people we elected to make the laws we live by.