• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Firearms in the UK ... POLL

t33j

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,384
Location
King George, VA
imported post

Voted yes, but wanted to vote no.

Who decides the definition of, "good character"? That qualifier is completely unnecessary. If that sort of language were law, you may as well have banned guns entirely.
 

t33j

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,384
Location
King George, VA
imported post

Somewhat related example:
The politicians are Sneaky and take advantage of any opportunity to snatch my rights.

Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia says, "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." That was the model for the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution BTW.

In Virginia, you must possess a permit to carry a handgun concealed... a concealed handgun permit. To obtain one you must submit fingerprints, pass a background check, and have no objections from your local chief LEO.

Section 13 does not say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms openly shall not be infringed. It says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" period, done, end of story, that's all she wrote.

Both my national and state governments infringe on that right anyway.

Don't give them an inch.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

t33j wrote:
snip...

and have no objections from your local chief LEO.
Local LE has NO personal, valid input. This is NOT part of the equation in Va.

Either you are qualified or disallowed by statute - past events are what count, not objections/opinions.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308

The above cite might work well as a planning model for you - you could do worse.
Only thing better IMO would be Alaska or Vermont style.

Yata hey
 

UKexcop

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
10
Location
, ,
imported post

“No … people do not have the right to effective defence of themselves and their families.”

How about ‘Yes’ … An increase in the number of suicides,domestic murders, ‘postal’ massacres and accidental deaths of children playing with guns is a small price to pay for our liberty to follow the lead of the USA’?

Or might that be a loaded question too?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

UKexcop wrote:
“No … people do not have the right to effective defence of themselves and their families.”

How about ‘Yes’ … An increase in the number of suicides,domestic murders, ‘postal’ massacres and accidental deaths of children playing with guns is a small price to pay for our liberty to follow the lead of the USA’?

Or might that be a loaded question too?
Defense of one's life is not and shall not be vetoed or subjugated by man or ruler. That is apparently a difficult concept for one of the rule enforcers to understand.

The gun is NOT the problem. The person is - end of argument. Punish the criminal, not the good citizen and stop making criminals of those truly good people.

Yata hey
 

saveyourself

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
64
Location
Swansea which is in Wales not England, , United Ki
imported post

Someone who leaves a potentialy dangerous objectin reach of a young child is neglectful and should recieve the attention of the law. The other events will occur regardless, with other tools in all probability. I accept a firearm is a very immediate and effective tool.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

UKexcop wrote:
“No … people do not have the right to effective defence of themselves and their families.”

How about ‘Yes’ … An increase in the number of suicides,domestic murders, ‘postal’ massacres and accidental deaths of children playing with guns is a small price to pay for our liberty to follow the lead of the USA’?

Or might that be a loaded question too?

Be very careful with laoded questions. You may get an answer you didn't want. :what:

;)
 

UKexcop

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
10
Location
, ,
imported post

Irony not a strong point of you americans is it.



Also, saying 'end of argument' after putting your point does not actually mean that it can't be rebutted, just that you're not prepared to listen.



As for sacrificing freedom for security, perhaps next time I come to the USA I should defend my freedom as an Englishman to drive on the left!



As to the 'other tools' argument, how many massacres in the USA or the UK have been carried out with, say, cricket bats or vegetable peelers. Since the gun was invented it is the best wayI know of killing lots of people. Ask the parents of Dunblane, whose children were massacred by a previously law-abiding and fully licensed firearms holder 'of good character'.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

UKexcop wrote:
Ask the parents of Dunblane, whose children were massacred by a previously law-abiding and fully licensed firearms holder 'of good character'.
Let's not forget that he was a scout leader - so be sure to paint all scout leaders with that broad brush while you are at it.

BTW - everybody is law abiding until they break the law - duh. So your point is a bit light on substance.

But you are right - penalize a nation for what the criminals do - don't need any freedoms - the state will decide for you - we'd rather you die than defend yourself. Hows that for irony?

Yata hey
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

It seems to me that the answers were all preloaded with some sort of bias. How about a "Yes (other reason)" and "No (other reason)" option? At least give folks a shot at weighing in with yes or no without attaching other things they don't agree with to it.
 

saveyourself

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
64
Location
Swansea which is in Wales not England, , United Ki
imported post

Some ofmy countymanscomments are plainly "incendendiary".

I wonder if he feels that if the RKBA in the UK were ever re-established, us potential citizens maywish to reconsider the rathergenerous pay-scale offered to hisformer (alleged) collegues?

Have to go, my wife tells me I have to execute somepotatoes with my trusty potato peeler:banghead:before the likes of him call for their prohibition:?
 

UKexcop

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
10
Location
, ,
imported post

BTW - everybody is law abiding until they break the law - duh. So your point is a bit light on substance.

Actually, that is my point! The fact that people are scout masters, priests, teachers or other people 'of good character' or 'law-abiding' is no guarantee that they will not suddenly stop being both without warning! Were all the massacres in the USA committed by obvious crazed lunatics? If so, why were they allowed guns in the first place? Or were they just people who didn't show up on the radar until they started shooting?

As I said elsewhere on this forum, if I lived in the USA Imight want to carry a gun. American society is so awash with firearms and with a murder rate 3 times that of 'violent' Britain, perhaps I'd feel safer. Of course I'd always be worried about someone not of good character trying to take my gun from me. Check out how many armed US police officers are shot with their own weapons.

In 30 years as a British police officer I nevercarried a weapon on routine patrol. There is violence in our society too, but I did not feel the need then or now to protect myself from my fellow citizens with a gun. They're not, generally, that bad!Remember, you're overwhelmingly more likely, in the UK at least,to be murdered by a member of your family than a stranger.

'penalize a nation for what the criminals do' The nation is not being penalised. Hardly any British people owned firearms before the latest gun controls.It is only the tiny minority of firearms enthusiasts who were inconvenienced. And, I repeat, the worst incidents of firearms murders were not committed by hardened criminals, drug dealers or persistent burglars. They were ostensibly non-criminal, until they started murdering!

Not being allowed to carry lethal weapons is not the same as having no freedoms. My freedom to get blind drunk and drive my car as fast as I can along the public highway is severely curbed by the law, but, on the whole, society is probably a better place as a result. I'll take the freedom to go about my life without being shot by some disturbed citizen over his freedom to carry a gun, whatever his motives,any day.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

UKexcop wrote:
BTW - everybody is law abiding until they break the law - duh. So your point is a bit light on substance.

Actually, that is my point! The fact that people are 'of good character' or 'law-abiding' is no guarantee that they will not suddenly stop being both without warning! Were all the massacres in the USA committed by obvious crazed lunatics? If so, why were they allowed guns in the first place? Or were they just people who didn't show up on the radar until they started shooting?

As I said elsewhere on this forum, if I lived in the USA Imight want to carry a gun. American society is so awash with firearms and with a murder rate 3 times that of 'violent' Britain, perhaps I'd feel safer. Of course I'd always be worried about someone not of good character trying to take my gun from me. Check out how many armed US police officers are shot with their own weapons.

In 30 years as a British police officer I nevercarried a weapon on routine patrol. There is violence in our society too, but I did not feel the need then or now to protect myself from my fellow citizens with a gun. They're not, generally, that bad!Remember, you're overwhelmingly more likely, in the UK at least,to be murdered by a member of your family than a stranger.

I'll take the freedom to go about my life without being shot by some disturbed citizen over his freedom to carry a gun any day.
So because there is no "guarantee" that someone won't step over the line, you "guarantee" that there will be plenty of defenseless victims waiting for them.

The number of policemen shot with their own weapons, is another reason to disarm the populous? Regardless of whom you're attacked by/murdered by, you would have them as defenseless victims. See a pattern here?

The right of self-defense does NOT originate from any government. You indeed are part of the problem.

You cannot ever have freedom from disturbed individuals - what is next thought police. The next time someone hijacks an airliner, maybe you'll be there to tell the victims that you have the answers - that should be very consoling to them.

Yata hey
 
Top