Gun bans in the UK(Vid)


PDA






Isildur
September 26, 2007, 11:36 AM
Just found this video Gun bans in the UK(NRA) (http://www.weaponvideos.org/viewvideo/259/Gun_bans_in_the_UK__NRA_/)
It shows up why it is so crucial to resist any infringement of our rights.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun bans in the UK(Vid)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Deacon Blues
September 26, 2007, 01:30 PM
What a broken and defeated people. That made me truly sad. What they're saying is dead on, though. Disunity - hunting vs carry vs machine guns - is giving the antis plenty of places to "drive the wedge in."

Lurp
September 26, 2007, 03:36 PM
It's funny how we seem some of those similar things happening right here in the USA such as Semi-Auto bans, Assult Rifle bans, hand gun bans, etc... That video should be enough to make any firearm owner go our and join one of the major gun rights organizations.

Isildur
September 26, 2007, 03:43 PM
In this context I recommend the amazing article All the way down slippery slope: Gun Prohibitionin England and some lessons for civil liberties in America(by Joseph E. Olsonand and David B. Kopel)) (http://www.guncite.com/journals/okslip.html) which explains this problem in great detail.

Kentak
September 26, 2007, 03:49 PM
I am so sick of hearing the phrase, "a safer society." As if safety is the highest purpose in life. Time to tell the nannies to shove it.

K

MaterDei
September 26, 2007, 04:12 PM
Tragic...

fletcher
September 26, 2007, 04:39 PM
Unbelievable to watch that happen.

I do like what one guy says early on "my dad always told me that the day you hand your guns in, the country is no good to live in anymore".

Isildur
September 26, 2007, 05:25 PM
"my dad always told me that the day you hand your guns in, the country is no good to live in anymore".Wise words. If one day the guns in Germany will be dispossessed I will finally emigrate, probably even before that happens.
What really scares me though is that there are not many countries beside the US where law-abiding citizens can still exercise their rights.

ServiceSoon
September 26, 2007, 10:15 PM
What really scares me though is that there are not many countries beside the US where law-abiding citizens can still exercise their rights.

Even with our [America’s] easy to understand second amendment there are infringements. If they outright banned firearms in America I believe there would be another revolution. The only way our guns will disappear is if they continue to ban one evil feature at a time…down the slipper slop indeed.

Needlenose
September 26, 2007, 10:28 PM
One of the first things Hitler did when he took power in Germany was to eliminate private ownership of firearms. He said, "if someone wanted a gun he should join the SS". One can only imagine what course history would have taken if the head of every Jewish family had a revolver with six bullets. Does one really believe that radical Muslims will obey the gun ban in the UK. The British made the mistake of allowing the colonists to have guns, they lost a country. What if the Muslim terrorists do the same? Will they make the same mistake again by banning guns for their citizens to protect themselves ?. We must not allow this to happen in our country.

Australian Shooter
September 26, 2007, 10:33 PM
Australia will slowly follow the same path if John Howard is re-elected in the up-coming election.

The Cavalry
September 27, 2007, 11:13 AM
There seems to be a common theme in the video...each group, be it black powder, match shooters, or target plinkers seemed to think that their personal brand of shooting wouldn't be affected.

Hang together, or hang separately is the lesson to be learned.

Wheeler44
September 29, 2007, 02:12 AM
this made me sad:( thats just terrible and wrong.

Hazel
September 29, 2007, 12:26 PM
Wow, that is a great video. Everyone should watch it.

I can't help but wonder, though, about what would actually happen if they were to attempt a nationwide gun ban in the US. I know we all say that we'll fight anyone who even dares try and perhaps even cause another revolution, but saying that we will and actually doing so are two very different things. As far as I can tell, we've all been just as silent as our british friends so far. Sure, we have forums like this and the like, but the antis have a large part of the media behind them, which makes it easier for them to control the population that doesn't think about these things all the time. Don't get me wrong, I would love to be reassured that everyone who claims that they won't be silent will actually speak out when the time comes. It would be great to know that there are truly this many great people willing to fight until the end for liberty, but that really is far easier said than done.

hankpac
September 29, 2007, 12:35 PM
NOt only by working on one type of gun then another, bt also by creating classes of people who cannot wn guns who are otherwise qualified. Check this out:
PTSD is by definition a condition associated with EVERY veteran who saw combat, EVERY one. from WW2 to present. the Feds want to disarm an entire population of people.
How? The Veterans Disarmament Act -- which has already passed the House -- would place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

This is exactly what President Bill Clinton did over seven years ago when his administration illegitimately added some 83,000 veterans into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system) -- prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD.

The proposed ban is actually broader. Anyone who is diagnosed as being a tiny danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away ... forever. It is section 102(b)(1)(C)(iv) in HR 2640 that provides for dumping raw medical records into the system. Those names -- like the 83,000 records mentioned above -- will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.

sterling180
September 29, 2007, 12:45 PM
The Violent Crime Reduction Bill,is the next ban that will come into force on Monday,but fortunately I'm registered with an airsoft site and with an associated retailer-as well as with Battle Orders Ltd,meaning that any gun that I buy in a replica format,will be in it's original colours and not a bright colour.

I have already sent an email to Gordon Brown stating that licensing is better than the current legislation and that if my drafted- pilot system works in London and in Greater London,then it can be implemented across the entire UK mainland and for the government not to interfere with the air/replica gun crowd again.Marshall Andrews is an ignorant cow and she applauded the attack on Mr Micheal Yardley,who spoke out against the pistol ban.Yardley was an army officer,who risked his life for his country and he was treated appaulingly by her organization.What a cow.

I'll be sending an email to the GCN,telling them that they are insane and thick,to say the least.

Fosbery
September 29, 2007, 01:33 PM
Sterling,

Any idea how imports will work? Are personal imports gone or do you just need to prove to customs you are registered?

sterling180
October 2, 2007, 01:16 PM
Any idea how imports will work? Are personal imports gone or do you just need to prove to customs you are registered?
Fosbery,I actually believe that 'Imports' are gone for good,unless the company that you are buying from,has the nessesary proof,that is a maditory requirement,of the VCR bill.However I might be wrong and there are many loopholes to exploit,anyway.I know two dealers that are breaking the law,as we speak.

What I mean is,that say for example you wanted to order a Walther P99 licensed blank-firer,from Umarex in Germany,then you might be able to,if you prove to them that you are a member of a reenactment society,James Bond Fan Club(Like the Jaguar fan club) or are a member of a media production company.So target-shooting,etc,etc,isn't an acceptable reason,for this gun in military green,black or black and nickel.Instead it would be bright red or pink,but all blankfirers have to be Home Office approved anyway,so the cops could get you on this,via the customs,if you did order it.If it was non-firing,then you could get away with it completely.

Get your gun dealer or online replica dealer to order one for you,if you want to do this,so that if there's an issue,then it's being handled by a Section 5 holder.

Customs officers,no matter how much you can try and bribe them or decieve them,they will shop you to the cops.I remember that many people,who used to do the continental xxx(you know what)runs in Amsterdam,got caught by sending parcels from Amsterdam,into the mainland UK.Those people ended up in jail.If a dealer has it,then you are covered for the time being.Most customs officers and that administration,are ignorant of the VCR bill,covering replica guns.

woodybrighton
October 2, 2007, 01:32 PM
there has been a real problem with criminals converting replica guns.
although Germany does'nt appear to be a waste land occupied by mutants because they allow people to own guns:rolleyes:

Fosbery
October 2, 2007, 03:35 PM
Sterling,

I don't believe that even my section 5 dealer can order replicas. Machineguns? Sure! Toys? Hell no! :banghead: The replica ban is entirely seperate from firearms legislation and doesn't make them restricted to section 5, it actually bans them.

You should technically be able to import replicas (realistic ones in realistic colours) for all of the exempted purposes: airsoft skirmishing, performing arts, reenactments etc. The problem is that the burden of proof is on you and customs may destroy the article before you get a chance to prove you have good reason. I may have to give HM Revenue & Customs a call and ask about this because the law does exempt airsofters from the ban on imports, it's just difficult to do from a practical point of view.

I don't believe whether a replica 'fires' or not has any bearing on its legality (beyond the previous legislation on blank firers).

sterling180
April 3, 2010, 06:38 PM
To round off the question 4 years later...lol....European,gas-signal blanks are prohibited in the UK,as they have the ability to launch cs gas&pepper gas.Best import from the USA.

Webbj0219
April 3, 2010, 07:26 PM
You gotta weigh the balance of many things, there is ups and downs to either position. Im trying to be unbiased here. Without gun owners a country probable has less gun thefts, which may translate to less guns used in crimes. But on the other hand I think you get more brazen criminals. Especially if the cops dont even carry. I mean lets just coddle the criminals.
But anyways. Seeing how a country handles guns usually is a good indication of who is in charge of that country.

sterling180
April 5, 2010, 12:16 PM
Watching that video again,where UK&Australian shooters,were blaming themselves:No,it wasn't your fault,as the ban was going to happen anyway,no matter how hard you campaigned.When I first heard about the Dunblane incident,I thought,'here we go again'.Polititions collectively decide what to keep&what to ban.Notice that what they shoot with,won't ever get touched.They are so dumb,as they can't freely shoot handguns,on their own soil.Gill Marshall-Andrews spited the Olympic pistol team,just because they used match pistols.Without the GCN&the gullible idiots,that support them,we might of still had pistols legally-held.They are insane.Lambs to the slaughterhouse or like that silly prat Norman Kember,or whatever his name was,who was abducted in Iraq&ungrateful for the SAS rescuing him,condemning the war in Iraq.

Cosmoline
April 5, 2010, 12:55 PM
Not to defend the UK, but it isn't ALL about the guns. In fact the anti-gun laws are part of a much broader movement that goes back several generations. These laws go hand-in-glove with the very lenient criminal codes instituted in the 60's. Criminals are not really criminals to British LEO's. Not in the sense we would think of. They're more akin to social welfare cases, and the cops are more like social workers than cops. This is why you will find the system coming down much harder on the law abiding than on actual career criminals. Gun laws are part of this. Armed criminals are just troubled people who have lost their way and need to be re-educated. Armed citizens are wild "cowboys" (an insult in the UK) who need to be put down.

This is why you'll read stories about bobbies being beaten up with impunity and no major consequences for the offenders. Or why you'll read about a man who is sent away for many years for lawfully bringing a firearm from his back yard to local authorities.

With no real Constitution and an elite cabal running 99% of the government, there is no way to effect change. Local governments are mere administrative agencies. They are not sovereign as our states are. So there's no equivalent to Alaska or the Mountain West.

. As far as I can tell, we've all been just as silent as our british friends so far.

?? I'm not sure where you got that idea. The RKBA lobby has been extremely powerful on the state and national level. The Dems are so terrified of alienating gun owners Obama & Co. haven't even pushed for revival of the AWB. That's not because they don't want to, it's because they remember what happened in 1994 and 2000.

In the past few decades most states have gone from prohibiting any concealed weapons to shall-issue. That's nothing short of revolutionary.

Not to mention the breakthrough in the federal courts. A breakthrough I grew up hearing would NEVER happen.

So I'm not too pessimistic about the near future (at least as far as gun rights). What worries me more are the long-term effects of "zero tolerance" at schools and the indoctrination that goes on there. This is where our enemies have been concentrating their efforts. They know they won't beat us until we're in the grave. But they're willing to wait.

19-3Ben
April 5, 2010, 12:56 PM
Wow. I just watched that. Very very powerful.

I'm going to sell a few items in the Trading Post in the next few days, and use the proceeds to join a new gun rights organization. I already am a member of NRA and JPFO. Perhaps GOA and CT sportsman. That way I get one national and one local.

Manco
April 5, 2010, 01:44 PM
You gotta weigh the balance of many things, there is ups and downs to either position. Im trying to be unbiased here. Without gun owners a country probable has less gun thefts, which may translate to less guns used in crimes. But on the other hand I think you get more brazen criminals. Especially if the cops dont even carry. I mean lets just coddle the criminals.
But anyways. Seeing how a country handles guns usually is a good indication of who is in charge of that country.

My guiding philosophy in matters of sovereignty, tyranny, and freedom is simple: the entity that sets the consequences for the actions of others and deals out the punishment accordingly is the one that is in charge. In a free country, citizens are not merely "permitted" to keep and bear arms--it is their natural right and it cannot be taken away because they are in charge. If the government, for no good reason but their own preservation, successfully takes this right away from the people, then they are the tyrants and the people are not citizens but subjects. If instead this right is sacrificed in order to (futilely) prevent criminals from stealing arms and using them against people, then the country is not free because the people are the subjects of their own criminal element, with the criminals themselves being the tyrants and the government their accomplices who are capable of doing far worse. Only when the people can set the consequences for and deal punishment out to both the government and criminals are the people truly citizens of a free country. Everything else--democracy, republic, monarchy, etc.--are just empty words with no real force of meaning.

The Founding Fathers of the United States knew this and codified it in both the Bill of Rights and the Great Seal of the United States. What good is being able to speak freely, as the First Amendment spells out, to decide on matters in earnest without the means to both defend this right and act upon it when necessary, which is spelled out in the Second Amendment? It's no accident that these are the very first, most fundamentals rights "granted" (not really--more of an explicit limit set on the power of the State). We can also read the intent of the Founding Fathers in their symbolism in the Great Seal, where an eagle--the ultimate symbol of freedom--holds an olive branch in its right claw and arrows in its left claw. Peace and peaceful discourse should always take precedence over war, but when the first is threatened it is only the second that can help restore and preserve it, as well as freedom in general.

I'm not trying to speak in absolutes here and say that we can never make concessions (government itself and its laws are all necessary concessions to start with), but when doing so always keep in mind what defines a free country and who rules over it. So is the United States really a free country? Well, it started out as one and we're still kind of hanging in there today, partially--the fight isn't over yet but so many of its citizens are ignorant and weak, and just want the government to protect them from themselves as much as anything else. :( That is why the Second Amendment is always under siege--it may be their natural right, but many people are scared of it and want to be rid of it. As for other countries, some have benevolent governments, for the moment, but few are truly free and probably never were, otherwise they would not have lost their natural rights so easily.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun bans in the UK(Vid)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!