Again you try to twist things Foxer. Those ccomments are in response to your incorrect assumption that the delegates opporate independently from membership. Good try though.
Oh for gods sake - do you know what the word 'mandate' means? There's several online dictionaries available for use free - do yourself a favor and look it up before you make ridiculous comments.
My argument is the same, I have just been attempting to clarify to *you* how the process works, since you appear to lack that knowledge.
Your argument changes constantly.
You claim the vote represents the will of the people! Oh -wait - no, they weren't polled, but that's ok because we don't need people to support it, we just need people to not ##### about it - no, that's not what i said, i didn't say we didn't need support - and they DO have a mandate because people COULD have come to the meeting but didn't, which isn't my fault, which is the same thing - no wait...
Please. I said a very simple thing. The delegates do not go to that meeting with a mandate from the members. And that's the truth - as you have confirmed several times. At best they'll accept input from those members who feel like showing up and/or the club executive. Therefore they do not represent the will of the members.
Not indicitive? Because you say so?
No - because YOU say so. As you said - only those who truly care about something show up to discuss it. This was not a polling of the membership, it does not reflect the wishes of the members directly.
Again - you trying to redefine your argument because you don't like how it's turning out.
IF the membership had been polled in some fashion - THEN it would be indicative of the will of the membership. As they were not, it is not. This is something the average kid in grade 4 could understand - they didn't ask people what they thought, therefore they cannot be said to be representing the thoughts of the people.
At the very least it is far more indicitive than gitrduns poll of 4 people, which started this discussion
Ok, i'll give you that
The purpose of the resolution was to remove any obstacles if someone wanted to pursue handgun hunting, especialy at the federal level, so the feds coudl not say "Well, you can't hunt in BC wiht handguns anyway"
It's a resolution, passed less than a year ago, and it hasn't been a priority, so litlte has been done. If and when some people want to get the ball rolling, it is my opinion that resolution and the letters sent to gv't sets a precedent that the BCWF will most likely support advances to further handgun hunting.
Ok - very nice - and you'll note that i said long ago that it was the right thing to do for that very reason: the discussion should have the right to move forward not be legislated off the table.
But that's all irrelevant to what we're discussing. The question now is what is needed to move forward. And the whole thing about the bcwf started with the idea that support is going to be required in order to move it forward. You offered the idea that there is support in the community because of the vote. That is not a conclusion that can be drawn.
And we're right back to where we started - what can be done to bring a sufficient number of hunters to a position where they support it, and where should that support be focused. The BCWF vote is at best an indication of the fact people are willing to discuss it and bring the issue forward, not an indication of the level of support from it's members. I have seen nothing to suggest that there is widespread support - in fact, just the opposite there's a huge amount of either apathy or intolerance. Therefore - that'd be the first order of business.
Supporters will be needed for both provincial AND federal fights, no matter what order they get addressed in. PRETENDING that there is support where there just isn't does us NO good whatsoever.
