[Crimson]

Now I've read these boards for some time now and in that time the concept of "sacrifice" has been a recurring theme.
The sacrifice of privacy, civil liberties, etc, by governments for the sake of security.
An example from the thread on the proposed EU gun laws;
"Civil liberties can be sacrificed if we can prevent people from being killed"

Now I've been thinking, and I've come to the conclusion that, if it dosen't belong to you, its not really a sacrifice,
In fact a more accurate definition would be "theft"

Please discuss

[RLsnow]

i think its a nicer way of saying " we want to make sure you cant stop us from doing whats good for you..." Us being the government, and you being the people.

[556nato]

Agreed. I don't remember ever willingly agreeing to "sacrifice" my civil liberties.

[crankshop1000]

Don't forget for a minute that this is the same group that gave us the Nazis. First thing on their list was to disarm the public too.Any American politician buying into this drivel should be out of work.America is the ONLY home of the brave and land of the free.I look at it this way, I the topic would turn my dad's WWII war veteran's stomach,I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and am against it until proven wrong.

[armoredman]

Used this before, seems like a good time to trot it out again.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/civilliberties.jpg

[SomeEnglishGuy]

Ok im new here 19 years old and just some random English guy (love guns for the record)

***stop reading if you cant take constructive criticism / diffrent views***

I seem have a few problems with this thread
Are you actually trying to suggest that you being allowed to keep guns keeps Nazis or similar political groups at bay?
You see it as a sacrifice of your civil liberties for the sake of security but you have to ask yourself how many fellow country people are you willing to sacrifice for your right to bare arms? you cant deny allowing ownship of guns increases gun fatalities...

I always liked guns growing up and liked the idea of going over to america for a shooting range kinda hoilday even. As I have got older I have come to realise where I live my liberty of owning a gun is taken away so others around me cant. You see that as a high price but my entire life I never even given thought to being shot and I certainly dont fear Nazis or similar type of group ever taking control of my life.

You claim that your the only home of the brave and land of the free then why did you need a civl war to stop slavery? why did you wait for Japan to attack you before you joined World War II? Why did Germany delcare war on you while Britain had already declared war on Germany a year earlier? I cant argue that you didn't save the day but you didn't do it on your own.

*** ***

Personally I think you should be allowed to keep your rights for guns its a defining point of american culture. But personally would just prefer if you didn't make outlandish claims as to it keeps Nazis at bay and that your the only free (and brave) country in this world.

[RLsnow]

*snow ducks into his foxhole*

[Cougfan2]

SomeEnglishGuy Pardon me for being blunt, but that's exactly why we kicked King George's troops butts out of here. They wanted to disarm our militias "for our own good" and we weren't having any of it. Live in the land of the sheep if you want to, but as for me, read my sig. :banghead:

[David904]

Ahh... SomeEnglish Guy....

The Nazis of whom we speak are of the home-grown variety. Any country can and does grow its own despots. The second amendment was put in place to prevent that sort of thing from being able to take root. That amendment is the one that guarantees all the rest of our amendments remain unmolested.

As for the quip regarding our slave-owning past... It is a part of our history. It is an ugly, reprehensible part of our history and nobody is proud of it. But it happened. No country or people is perfect. We all have blood on our hands at some level or another. The Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression (depending on what region you are from) was not initially there to free the slaves. It was a war over states rights versus federal influence. The emancipation angle was enacted to give the federal government the moral high ground in the eyes of the world. Slavery would have died out on its own as industrial advancements would have made the keeping of slaves too expensive in relation to what could be accomplished with machinery.

The presence of firearms increases the number of firearm deaths. Well, the presence of cars increases the number of car related deaths. Conversely the presence of cars increases the number of lives that have been saved by rapid reliable transportation to hospitals. So by correlation, the presence of firearms has saved the lives of good people being attacked by bad ones.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are there to limit what the government can do - not what we as free people can do. That is the difference between your government and ours. We are free citizens. You are subjects - servants of the state.

[Tyris]

Are you actually trying to suggest that you being allowed to keep guns keeps Nazis or similar political groups at bay?

Tell it to the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto. It certainly does make genocide against a populace more difficult if that populace is armed. Don't you think?

how many fellow country people are you willing to sacrifice for your right to bare arms? you cant deny allowing ownship of guns increases gun fatalities...

Are gun fatalities any worse than knife, blunt-force, or choking fatalities? Apparently your country thinks so, thereby eliminating an effective self defense method, and allowing long gun ownership only for "sport".

At the end of the day, criminal statistics are a drop in the bucket compared to the millions killed in europe alone by their own governments over the past century. This is why we own arms as a people. Crimes of citizen on citizen pale by comparison by orders of magnitude compared to crimes of government on citizen. We don't own our guns only for sport.

As an individual, I keep a handgun on my person so I can protect myself and family from criminals. I've noticed that you cant do that in england. You get boned in court if you fight back and kill a yob, right?

-T

[Liko81]

Ben Franklin said "those who trade liberty for security deserve neither". The saying holds true.

Giving up liberties is a "sacrifice". You have yourself, time and possessions; you also have rights, and they all belong to you. Giving up a possession in return for an intangible is pretty much the definition of sacrifice, even though what is sacrificed is also intangible such as rights. A sacrifice of rights for security is contrary to the Founder's intentions.

Now, that's not to say rights do not entail responsibility. To shoulder that responsibility is not a sacrifice; it is a duty, and a virtue, and the cost of the right. "There is no such thing as a free lunch"; to get something, something must be exchanged, generally of equal value. A free society carries with it the burden of living up to your responsibilities in that society, and if you do not you are punished by society by being removed from it, or by being forced to pay society back for your failure (community service, a fine, etc.).

However, our Constitution in the Preamble places upon government a duty to "... establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty...". That's government's job, and in doing so it may define and require the responsibilities inherent in exercising rights. You have created a balancing act; unfettered rights wielded by those who do not shoulder the responsibility threaten the government's mandate to protect the people from elements of themselves. However, "ensuring" protection of the population by denying rights is a violation of the protections the Constitution requires the government to hold sacred. Therefore, if a law is a required responsibility inherent in exercising a right, or a protection of a specified right over an unspecified one (or even another enumerated right), it is a necessary evil. If a law however is a requirement that is NOT an inherent responsibility inferred by a given right, or reduces free exercise of rights without ensuring protection of another, it is an infringement of said right.

This creates a lot of gray area, even when the right stated is stated using "shall not be infringed". That language is very clear, however it has been decided time and again that responsibilities can be required of those who exercise a right by rule of law, and that rights can be denied to those who cannot or will not shoulder responsibilities.

[AndyC]

You see it as a sacrifice of your civil liberties for the sake of security but you have to ask yourself how many fellow country people are you willing to sacrifice for your right to bare arms? you cant deny allowing ownship of guns increases gun fatalities...
Au contraire, mon vieux - please explain how an inanimate object just jumps up by itself and kills people. We're waiting...

http://img108.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2007/12/13/guncontrolcomic-48tko0fqz.jpg

[amprecon]

The ability to defend oneself is existential with life/survival itself. It isn't even a right, it's part of our being. For any entity to deny any living thing that ability is wrong. The denial of that ability jeopardizes the full potential of one to effectively continue to exist and to defend against threats and to secure it's own survival.

As I have said before, all living things are born with their defensive mechanisms, to remove that mechanism will result in the extinction of that species.

I can't even comprehend that some even entertain the thought of "sacrificing" or denying themselves something that ensures their own survival :confused: :uhoh:

[Old Dog]

how many fellow country people are you willing to sacrifice for your right to bare arms?This issue is a new one for me. However, having spent a bit of time in Grandpa's homeland, I can state for the record that here in the States, the climate is much better than the UK's, hence, long-sleeves are not always necessary.

Really, what's the old saw about wrestling with the pig? You just get muddy and the pig enjoys it? Same as attempting debate with someone (especially anyone who just hasn't been around that long) whose mind is already made up ...

And yes, the OP is correct. One cannot unwillingly "sacrifice" one's basic human rights ... those rights are stolen.

[BridgeWalker]

Are you actually trying to suggest that you being allowed to keep guns keeps Nazis or similar political groups at bay?

Yep.

You see it as a sacrifice of your civil liberties for the sake of security but you have to ask yourself how many fellow country people are you willing to sacrifice for your right to bare arms? you cant deny allowing ownship of guns increases gun fatalities...

You can't deny allowing ownership of cars increases car fatalities or that ownership of sidewalks increases tripping fatalities or that ownership of bathtubs increases drowning fatalities. Life is dangerous. Get used to it.

Oh, and baring arms is wearing short sleeves. I think you mean bearing arms.

As I have got older I have come to realise where I live my liberty of owning a gun is taken away so others around me cant.

Wow, sucks to be you.

You see that as a high price but my entire life I never even given thought to being shot and I certainly dont fear Nazis or similar type of group ever taking control of my life.

Your fears or lack thereof don't define reality. Incidentally, I've also never feared being shot. I grew up two miles north of the city line of one of the most dangerous cities in America. (For the Enimen fans out there, I lived on Ten Mile Road.) And yet I never feared being shot. Most Americans don't. There isn't a constant cross-fire in every urban area. I've never been the victim of a violent crime. But my fears and perceptions don't alter reality any more than yours do.

You claim that your the only home of the brave and land of the free then why did you need a civl war to stop slavery?

I dunno, why did your government offer a bounty for people who turned in various body parts of the enemy in colonial Africa? Why did your country massacre and expel Jews? Why did your country wage war on Catholic recusants for over a century?

I guess nobody is perfect. ;)

Personally I think you should be allowed to keep your rights for guns its a defining point of american culture

Hey, thanks, that's very generous of you. :rolleyes:

But personally would just prefer if you didn't make outlandish claims as to it keeps Nazis at bay and that your the only free (and brave) country in this world.

If your perception is such that any people who believes in the positive benefits of firearms ownership is arrogant and outlandish and should adjust their attitude to be probably in live with your own views, well, then you're gonna have to learn to live with disappointment. :p

[elrod]

SomeEnglishGuy
Ok i'm new here 19 years old.....

Welcome to The High Road.
You are entitled to your opinion. I deduce from your post that you really don't care for our country and the way we do things. That's all right, too. To each his own. I don't believe that you really know what it is to be truly free to keep and bear arms. You don't know what it is to have a little extra cash, and one afternoon decide to drop by the local gun store (or sporting goods, or pawn shop, or Wal-Mart, etc...) buy a firearm (w/ ammo) and take it home with you. No permit, no note from your government, no nothing.

Are you actually trying to suggest that you being allowed to keep guns keeps Nazis or similar political groups at bay?

Damn right!!!

I cant argue that you didn't save the day, but you didn't do it on your own.

That's right, we had to get into the fray and bail the rest of you guys out. And you did help, using a lot of our ships, our guns, and, in some cases, our pilots in your planes.

You're only 19, you need to get some education on who has done what and why before you denounce anyones' rights to do anything. Out of curiosity,have you ever set foot in the US of A?:confused:

[Millwright]

SEG, Welcome aboard !! I suppose you can be forgiven the absoluteness of youth, and I hope my knowledge of English history exceeds your grasp of Americas'.

English shipowners engaged in the 3-cornered slave trade, as well as our native Yankees. In fact, many early americans came here as English 'bond slaves' to work English-owned plantations. But by 1825 most Northern shipowners had voluntarily forsworn the slave trade.

Slavery was not the genesis of our Civil War; states' rights were. You might say it was our Bosworth Field. Hard economic reality clashed with romantic idealism. At stake was the continuance of a nation of states subservient to a national government, or an oligarchy of independent city/states warring and allying for convenience or opportunity. And this devate continues today.

Our, "facination with firearms" is merely an expression of our founding principle; an armed man is free, and unarmed one is not. Most nations of the world - England in particular - were quick to seek aid from the "arsenal of freedom" in two World Wars and literally hundreds of conflicts since. >MW

[Cougfan2]

SomEnglishGuy I know you may have taken some whuppin on in this thread, and I probably started most of it, but I think you can use it as an insight as to how much we cherish our liberty and are loathe to sacrifice it for some well meaning, but miguided folks, who would strip it from is in the name of the common good.

If you ever make it over to the U.S. I know many of us would be willing to host you for a day at the range, myself included.

Welcome to the High Road.

[esq_stu]

Women don't have the right to bare arms in the middle east. Not sure if they have the right to bear arms, though.

[SomeEnglishGuy]

If there was anyway I could get this thread back on track I would :)

Slavery was opening a massive can of worms. It was only tiny point of my argument in the sense we didn't resort to guns to make people free nor needed them. The British Empire did a lot of bad things but you have to look at actions relative to there time in history we did end up being one of the first countries to abolish slavery.

[Nolo]

Slavery was not the genesis of our Civil War; states' rights were. You might say it was our Bosworth Field. Hard economic reality clashed with romantic idealism. At stake was the continuance of a nation of states subservient to a national government, or an oligarchy of independent city/states warring and allying for convenience or opportunity. And this devate continues today. People have been saying this a couple of times, and I have to disagree. The Civil War was caused by a distinct social schism between the North and South--a schism created because of the existence of slavery. All of the legislation that was being fought over in the Senate at that time was over slavery. No one wanted to admit it when the South broke away, but slavery was the meat and potatoes of the war.
As to our friend SEG here, I would just like to say that you've never been threatened by your own government before. When the **** hits the fan, the ammo comes out of the can.

[RLsnow]

^^ was that voluntarily?....

[fiddleharp]

No American has had to "sacrifice" anything since WWII. For the last sixty years, we seem to be in a constant state of war/police actions and there is no commodities rationing of any sort. We just keep buying Chinese-made nonsense at the malls till we drop. Then, we buy some more before we spend thousands for a 50-yard line seat at a football game. (Comment deleted) When the time comes for Big Brother to finally get around to collecting our guns, all you keyboard commandos will not only cave immediately, but you'll turn in your neighbors as well. :rolleyes:

[strat81]

SomeEnglishGuy,
When the local government representative (lord, king, mayor, whoever) comes to deflower your daughter or wife, you'll wonder where your guns are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur

Tyranny comes in many forms. "First night" is one, genocide is another. While I am not a Holocaust scholar, I don't recall hearing about too many firearms in the hands of Jews in the Ghettos of Warsaw and Krakow.

[1911Tuner]

you cant deny allowing ownship of guns increases gun fatalities...


As to that, we can't deny that having unprotected sex results in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, either...but the fault lies with people engaging in dangerous and/or irresponsible behavior.

Owning guns doesn't increase fatalities. People who are willing to kill other people is what causes fatalities...whether a gun is used or not.

See...I know this may come as a surprise...but guns can't do anything at all until they're picked up...loaded...and fired. And, for the record...nobody ever caught gonorrhea from a toilet seat, either.

[Nolo]

I don't know about you, but to me there's nothing more important in life than watching large, overpaid Negroes chase a ball around!
I'm not sure whether this is racist or not. I think it is.

[1911Tuner]

I'm not sure whether this is racist or not. I think it is.

It was close enough, so I deleted it.

[Noxx]

I seem have a few problems with this thread
Are you actually trying to suggest that you being allowed to keep guns keeps Nazis or similar political groups at bay?
You see it as a sacrifice of your civil liberties for the sake of security but you have to ask yourself how many fellow country people are you willing to sacrifice for your right to bare arms? you cant deny allowing ownship of guns increases gun fatalities...

Hello SomeEnglishGuy and welcome to THR.

I think it's remarkably introspective of you to pose such blunt questions on what is obviously a pro-gun board, and I commend your initiative and drive to learn what motivates "the other side".

I would like to address this quote specifically you have to ask yourself how many fellow country people are you willing to sacrifice for your right to bare[sic] arms?

I am not willing to sacrifice any of my countrymens lives for my right to bear arms. If there is a sacrifice to be made, it is for each man to make himself.

I think however, that what you are referring to is not in fact a "sacrifice (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacrifice)" as we collectively define it. What you are really asking, if I may be so bold as to restate your question is "Is it worth the collective damage that gun crime causes to american society, to preserve your individual right to keep arms?".

My response is simply this. I cannot control what the unlawful elements of society choose to do. I cannot un-make a criminal by surrendering my own weapons. As a free citizen with the right of self-defense and self-determination, the best I can do is ensure my personal safety, and that of my family, via the most effective means available to me, which happens to be the possession of, and training in the use of, firearms.

If I choose to surrender my arms, in the *hope* that all arms be surrendered, I only achieve two things. My personal reliance on the effectiveness of the police state for my protection, and the sure domination of the weak by the powerful, the elderly by the young, the female by the male.

Disarmament is a bit like national socialism in this fashion. In an ideal world, it is a fine theory. However the world is not ideal, people are not ideal, and the ideal of equality among without weaponry, is as surely doomed as the ideal of economic equality among all citizens of the former soviet union. People are imperfect, and these notions simply *DO NOT WORK*.

Because I cannot, and will not rely upon the state to ensure my safety, to protect the most basic of my rights, to my own life, I must as a citizen, as an empowered and responsible individual, take it upon myself to be the defender of my own life and liberty.

The best means by which I can achieve this, is with a modern firearm, and adequate training in the use thereof.

It is a fine ideal that you posit, but it is an ideal doomed from it's inception by the flawed notion that the state can universally, fairly, enforce it's laws, with the best interests of all peoples in mind.

As an American and a Jew I must reject this notion, and state simply that I am prepared and able to take up arms to defend that which is given to me by God, my very life, which is no mans to take.

[1911Tuner]

English guy...I'm afraid you've picked the wrong forum to suggest that firearms that are owned by Law-Abiding American citizens are somehow responsible for the gun-related crimes that are being committed by the criminal segment of our society...especially seeing as how your own government has effectively made you and your countrymen helpless subjects.

The Second Amendment was put in place precisely to prevent that from happening. The Founding Fathers knew and understood all too well the dangers of a governing body with to much power.

Your "rights" in Great Britain are granted by the governing body, and revoked at whim. Our governing body is granted the privelege of serving the nation by the will of the people...or at least that was the original plan. These days, it seems that too many of our elected officials have lost sight of that fact, and would work feverishly to undo what has made us free citizens rather than subjects. And, that, my young English friend...is precisely what the Second Amendment is all about. It's the one right...not privelege...right...that insures that all the others remain intact.

You may be comfortable with asking permission to own a gun...with waiting
for the government or the police to come to your rescue...with being unable to say: "Hold! By God, that is enough!" when your governing body gets a little too uppity. (Well...you can say it, but you don't have the teeth to back it up.) We, on the other hand, are decidedly NOT comfortable with that concept...because we are decidedy NOT subjects to a king or to a queen or to a president or to anybody, save God Almighty.

Therein lies the difference between your country and ours.

Cheers...and welcome to The High Road.

[Roswell 1847]

I might point out that while Slavery existed in the Southern states the US Navy joined with the British Navy in interdiction of transatlantic transportation of Slaves.
I can also point out that Slavery in Canada slowly became unprofitable and was abolished only because the British Government still had final say in the matter. At the same time that escaped Slaves from the US took shelter in Canada Canadians held slaves on a small scale up until the 1830's. Not just Africans but some Native Peoples as well.

Slavery was legal in parts of Africa till the 1960's and is still practiced regardless of legality in parts of Africa and the Middle East.

States Rights was the legal concept presented as the cause for secession but the actuality was the States Right to allow Slavery to continue. Less than 20% of the population of the South was able to buy off and or terrorise the other 80% into going to war in order to secure their fortunes.
They might well have suceeded in establishing the Confederacy if they had not fired on Fort Sumter, but few European nations would recognize the Confederacy and honor agreements with them unless they proved their claims by right of armed confrontation with the Parent State. That's just the way it was back then.

Also I might point out that although Slavery was abolished in the UK the British Anthropological societies were pushing the Darwinian concept of Racial Inferiority, and many British Citizens openly supported the South's racist policies. The favored Rifled Musket in Confederate use was the British Enfield obtained from the same Civilian subcontractors who supplied the same weapons to the British forces. The Favored sniper rifle was the British Whitworth. The majority of war materials imported to the South came from British ports, in exchange for Cotton.

[kamagong]

I don't believe that you really know what it is to be truly free to keep and bear arms. You don't know what it is to have a little extra cash, and one afternoon decide to drop by the local gun store (or sporting goods, or pawn shop, or Wal-Mart, etc...) buy a firearm (w/ ammo) and take it home with you. No permit, no note from your government, no nothing.

I wish I did, but I live in California. Still, I continue to hope for the future and the return of both reason and full Second Amendment rights to our fair state.

[SomeEnglishGuy]

because we are decidedy NOT subjects to a king or to a queen or to a president or to anybody

I have been told I should learn some history well I am sorry to tell you that we removed most of the monarchy's power over 350 years ago for a goverment. We are a democratic country shocker I know. So can you please explain how you are free and we are subjects? Is it becuase you are allowed to walk down to Walmart and pick up a gun? on that logic would I be more free if were allowed to pick up a nuclear bomb at Tescos? Maybe I am blowing it out of proportion but we have already established that being able to own a gun keeps the Nazis at bay.

So yer I do have to apply for a gun licence but if that stops just one random depressive getting a hold of a gun I will go with that any day.


Another strange thing is I dont live in fear of my goverment. I never understood how much mistrust you had in yours.

Again I have to say I am not against guns :)

[BridgeWalker]

I've seen the light! Halleluyah! Please, take my guns, and my swords, and my knives, and um....my rubber band gun?

Please! It is the only way I can stay safe!

I *love* my neighbors, and don't to hurt them with my crazy, rampaging guns!

That you so much, random English dude.

Up to this point my whole life I had never thought about guns and government and safety and human rights. Thank you for schooling me. I know now what I need to do.

Anyone have a sledgehammer handy so I can attempt to destroy these implements of destruction before they kill someone?

:evil::evil::evil: :D:D:D

[Sage of Seattle]

Anyone have a sledgehammer handy so I can attempt to destroy these implements of destruction before they kill someone?

Umm... sorry. I'm still waiting on my sledgehammer permit background check. One can never be too careful.

[RKBABob]

delta9, destroying firearms with a sledgehammer is bad idea... they could retaliate all on their own, and begin firing themselves in your direction. Send them to me! I'll take care of 'em.

While you're at it, send your fountain pen collection, too.

EnglishGuy, when the Founding Fathers of this country broke free of King George, they did so with the intent of having every common man living as a king, with government as our shackled servant. In other words, they set the world on its ear, and established a society which was structured exactly the opposite of every nation on Earth.

As Citizen Kings, we do not take kindly to being told what to do... especially when it is our servant doing the telling. NO! We are in charge here, and we will do as we please so long as it doesn't infringe upon the Life, Liberty and Happiness of our fellow Citizen Kings.

[Sage of Seattle]

So can you please explain how you are free and we are subjects?

Our constitution limits our government, yours does not.

So yer I do have to apply for a gun licence but if that stops just one random depressive getting a hold of a gun I will go with that any day.

And if it does not, sir? What then?


Another strange thing is I dont live in fear of my goverment. I never understood how much mistrust you had in yours.

And to some Americans, they never understood how much trust you have in yours. Hopefully, we can all continue to debate and discuss and reach some level of insight into one another's culture.

[bluestarlizzard]

someenglishguy,
you show your innocence and naitivity with your statements. you see your world as a basically safe and peacefull and those bad things that happen out there, happen to 'other' people. it is your preogitive. but think about this. what happens when someone busts through your door, intent on doing violence to you or your loved ones? are you going to fight back? how are you going to fight back?
and most importantly, what if those who burst through your doors are government officials who have come to silence you for something you said? my i remind you of the history of your own country, which is rich with such situations. remember the reign of bloody mary, when people when protestents were burned at the stakes?
the american bill of rights was written expressly for the prevention of such tradgiedies. it allows its governement to stay true to the understanding that we have a governement by the people for the people. our rights to bear arms are directly correlated to our other rights and the 2nd amendment is our gareentee that the american people can NEVER be oppressed.
as for the dude who said we won't fight back and will just give it up.
come to my house and try it buddie.

[zxcvbob]

Another strange thing is I dont live in fear of my goverment. I never understood how much mistrust you had in yours.

Didn't your police execute a Brazilian electrician a few months ago who was minding his own business after getting on a train?

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Englishguy, to start our country we had to shoot at your government's overbearing and oppressive representatives 230 years ago. You are not even in the same position to do so today in the 21st century. You are a subject. If that doesn't make a lightbulb go off in your head, nothing will.

[SomeEnglishGuy]

I've seen the light! Halleluyah! Please, take my guns, and my swords, and my knives, and um....my rubber band gun?

Please! It is the only way I can stay safe!

I *love* my neighbors, and don't to hurt them with my crazy, rampaging guns!

That you so much, random English dude.

Up to this point my whole life I had never thought about guns and government and safety and human rights. Thank you for schooling me. I know now what I need to do.

Anyone have a sledgehammer handy so I can attempt to destroy these implements of destruction before they kill someone?

You really just read what you want me to say "you cant have guns" yet thisn't what I am saying:confused:

If you think what I am saying is silly then in that case I better had hurry up and get a gun so I can stop the natzis returning, protect my yet to be conceived virgin daughter from my "Lord" and stop being a subject to my government. Freedom is only a big gun away :D

And you think your the one who has seen the light :rolleyes:

[akodo]

Are you actually trying to suggest that you being allowed to keep guns keeps Nazis or similar political groups at bay?

Take a look at the old USSR. People lived in fear of the KGB. Why? Because a black car could pull up at night, to men with pistols get out, kick in the door and haul off a dissident.

Take a look at how the USA has to 'collect someone' (from drug dealers to Elian Gonzalez). SWAT team in the middle of the night. Two black vans full of 20 policemen with SMGs.

Why the difference? In the USA, the person being 'collected' is MUCH more likely to have a gun, be he criminal or a vocal political advocate. The simple resources to take control of vocal anti government activists is a huge strain, enough that we all benifit.


Second. There is a difference between being free and being safe. Being free is inherently unsafe, but boy is it worth it.

[bluestarlizzard]

englishguy,
no you havn't said ban all guns, but you also fail to understand why we so strongly oppose restrictive gun control.
by taking guns away from people you do not make them safer. you make them unable to fight back and dependent on those who can 'protect' them. think of midivial europe, when those in power were those with the arms and money. if you were their your life would be determined by the station in which you were born and if you were of low station and lived under the rule of a bad lord, you would have NO way to defend yourself against him. it fact the invention of the gun patially oblivated this social structure because it GAVE the lowly peasent a way to kill the knight in shining armor. even today, the first step taken by dictators has always been the disarming of the populance. the geniocides of our centurey are commited by the side that has the guns, and often commmited after disarming the side they want to kill.
the reason so many of us americans hate the thought of gun control is because we see it as a mistaken attempt by some crybaby to stop violence and we KNOW that such a step is not going to work. and we also know that disarming ourselves is going to make us completly vunrable to those WITH the guns, wether they be government or criminals.

[ArfinGreebly]

So yes I do have to apply for a gun licence but if that stops just one random depressive getting a hold of a gun I will go with that any day.
And this is flawed reasoning.

A) Laws do not prevent lawbreakers from obtaining arms nor from applying them in the breaking of other laws. Any pretense on the part of government that laws prevent anything is the purest fiction.

B) Anyone who intends harm will find a way. Removing tools (or trying to) will not achieve prevention. No gun? Use a knife. No knife? Use a bottle. No bottle? Use a rock. No rock? Use your boots. No boots? Use a scarf. And so on and so on. The socialist purists will attempt to decree that nothing may be dangerous, and that nothing with a point may be made, all furniture must be soft, cars must be made of plastic and made to self-avoid accidents, dogs must be bred to have no teeth, and water must be made to boil at 110°F. And on and on.

I can't wait until trains are made of Nerf foam.

Have you ever wondered why it is politically expedient to "protect" the people? Why Parliament feels it necessary to ensure that no one may have the means to effectively see to his own defense? Why it is that government figures the populace must be unarmed? Except, of course, for the police and the armed forces -- which they own and control.

Have you not wondered?

I will close with this: you are, what, 19?

You are as smart as you have ever been in your life. You have more information and knowledge today than you did when you were, say, 12.

I daresay, given another few years, you will be 25, and you will have even more experience and knowledge than you do today.

One of the ways that young people live to be 25 is they learn from the mistakes of those who have gone before, and manage to miss out on the more egregious -- and fatal -- of these mistakes.

And by the time you are 30, there will be things you see with clarity that are today "assumed knowledge" because you have only what you have been taught as a resource. Once you have traveled that road, you will be able to judge for yourself whether the "assumed knowledge" was adequate.

You will -- after learning that some "truth" is a load of codswallop -- try to tell someone who is, say, only 20. And he will argue with you, protesting that your perception is flawed. You will insist that you used to think as he does, and that he can save himself much pain and confusion by disabusing himself of this now, rather than later.

Sometimes you will even succeed.

There are those of us here who have been through the fire.

There are those of us who believed as you do, and to whom life has taught hard lessons.

Many of us here are in our 40s, 50s, and 60s.

We do not believe as we do "because it's taught at school." Quite the contrary.

We believe as we do because we've been there.

You are free to accept our observations or argue with them.

However, even though you are, today, at the most informed and intelligent point of your life thus far, will you not be smarter and better informed tomorrow?

Maybe.

Some people stop learning when they know everything.

Others somehow keep on learning.

My advice?

Keep on learning.

Listen to these people.

There is the wisdom of years here.

[SomeEnglishGuy]

Ok apart from not being allowed to own lots of nice big shiny guns what other freedoms am I missing out on? Because you seem to all know more about my rights than I do.

Actions that people have mentioned havn't occurred to my knowledge here in at least reccent history (few 100 years) and looking at the old USSR guns were pretty free flowing from my understanding anyway.

[bluestarlizzard]

englishguy,
a few hundred years is a drop in the pan of human history. after all the united states is only 200 years old. learn more history and relize that it really does repeat itself.
if its been done, its been done before and most likly it will be done again.

[RKBABob]

Actions that people have mentioned havn't occurred to my knowledge here in at least reccent history (few 100 years) Yes, and a gun would have been a handy thing to have back then, no? Can you tell me that these actions might never occur again? Does it stand to reason that a gun may be a handy thing to have in the future?

[Roswell 1847]

Well here are some interesting stats, probably a bit dated but in recent years the stats are not so reliable as we might think.

A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7.



By contrast, consider Brazil. All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government. This registration process can take anywhere from 30 days to three months. All civilian handguns are limited in caliber to no more than 9mm. All rifles must fire handgun ammunition only. Brazilians may only buy one gun per year. At any one time, they may only have in their possession a maximum of six guns: two handguns, two rifles and two shotguns. To transport their guns, citizens must obtain a special police permit. CCW permits are available but are rarely issued.



Therefore, it should not be a revelation to anyone that Brazil has a thriving black market in guns. Virtually any type of gun is available, for a price. Incidentally, Brazil's murder rate is 19 victims per 100,000 population per year.



In Cuba, Fidel Castro controls every aspect of life with an iron hand, including gun ownership. Castro remembers well how he and his rag-tag armed Communist rebels overthrew the government of Fulgencio Batista and set up a Communist dictatorship. An armed populace is threatening to a repressive government. Still, somebody in Cuba is obtaining guns and using them to murder fellow citizens. Cuba's murder rate is 7.8.



The former Soviet state of Lithuania is now an independent democratic country. But it still retains some vestiges of Stalinism. Lithuania's citizens must obtain a police permit to buy a gun. All guns are registered with the government. Somehow these restrictions are not deterring the criminal element; Lithuania has an unenviable murder rate of 11.7.



Gun control in Mexico is a fascinating case study. Mexican gun laws are simply draconian. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed.



Mexican authorities seem to take a particular delight in arresting and imprisoning unwitting Americans who are not familiar with Mexican gun laws. Americans may not bring legal guns or ammunition into Mexico. Possession of even one bullet can get you thrown in a medieval Mexican prison. The State Department says that at any one time there are about 80 Americans imprisoned in Mexico for minor gun crimes. The State Department even went so far as to issue a special notice to U.S. gun owners, warning about harsh Mexican gun laws. Americans are allowed to hunt in Mexico, but they must first obtain a permit from the Mexican Embassy or a Mexican Consulate before taking their hunting rifles south of the border.



Mexico's murder rate is an eye-popping 17.5. Mexican authorities are fond of blaming the high murder rate on firearms smuggled across the border from the United States. Nonsense. The U.S. has many more personal guns than Mexico, yet our murder rate is far lower than Mexico's. It is Mexico's absurd gun laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against illegally armed criminals.



Guns are effectively outlawed in Russia. Private handgun ownership is totally prohibited. A permit is required to purchase a long gun. All guns are registered with authorities. When transporting a long gun, it must be disassembled. Long guns may only be used for self-defense when the gun owner is on his own property. By the way, Russia's murder rate is a staggering 30.6.



It is surprising to learn that there is gun trouble in the tropical paradises of Trinidad and Tobago. Here a permit is required to purchase a gun. All guns are registered with the police. In spite of (or perhaps because of) these restrictions, Trinidad and Tobago together have a murder rate of 11.7.



In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies. The countries I have discussed, along with many others, have gun laws that are more restrictive than U.S. laws, yet their murder rates exceed the U.S. murder rate. These laws clearly do not meet the fundamental measure of success, which is ultimately to save lives.


From article here
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/

PS
The Soviet Union allowed shotguns to some extent for bird hunting but at one time only one family in Russia was allowed to own high powered rifles. This was a family of professional hunters dating back to the days of the Czar and they were specially licensed by the State to control the Tiger and Bear populations.

Black Market guns were easily available to the criminal element, mostly salvaged WW2 weapons dug up from battlefields or forgotten supply depots.


Also isn't it true that when British Doctors refused to accept socialized medicine they were drafted into the army in mass and ordered to report to work or go to prison.

[SomeEnglishGuy]

Basically your saying you don’t trust your politicians, your police nor your armed forces to defend you? Are you allowed to drive tanks on the road because we are :D

[RKBABob]

Basically your saying you don’t trust your politicians, your police nor your armed forces to defend you?No, we don't trust our politicians, or yours for that matter.

The police cannot protect me because the police aren't here right now. I suppose if anything happened to me right now, in my living room, a policeman could stop by in 7 minutes or so to take a report... but untill then, I'm on my own.

The military can not serve as law enforcement in this country. The only protection they provide is to repel foreign invaders and protect American interests overseas. We haven't experienced a large-scale invasion recently, so I guess they're doing their jobs well.

I don't know if a tank would be considered street legal... but if it was, we could drive it right into New York City without having to buy a special permit or pass, and without having numerous tax cameras record the license plate at every intersection... can you say the same thing about driving a tank to London?

[akodo]

Actions that people have mentioned havn't occurred to my knowledge here in at least reccent history (few 100 years) and looking at the old USSR guns were pretty free flowing from my understanding anyway.

why how could that be? Didn't anyone tell them that in the old USSR, civilain ownership was illegal?

Guns were free flowing...in the hands of criminals. Also note, the USSR didn't spend a whole lot of time tracking down and locking up criminals, they spent more time tracking down and locking up people who spoke wrong or thought wrong.

[doc2rn]

When the time comes for Big Brother to finally get around to collecting our guns, all you keyboard commandos will not only cave immediately, but you'll turn in your neighbors as well.

I am my brothers keeper! I can not say what you would do, but all are welcome here.

[bluestarlizzard]

>>Actions that people have mentioned havn't occurred to my knowledge here in at least reccent history (few 100 years) and looking at the old USSR guns were pretty free flowing from my understanding anyway.<<

WWII happened in living memory.
secondly, the genocides and wars going on RIGHT now in africa are determined by which side has the means to fight.

[SomeEnglishGuy]

New York City without having to buy a special permit or pass, and without having numerous tax cameras record the license plate at every intersection... can you say the same thing about driving a tank to London?
Oh yer I feel my human rights are being so badly violated (you pass by a camera going into central London and you get charged for that day). Well done for successfully hitting on the point that are old citys are unable to cope with modern day traffic levels.

why how could that be? Didn't anyone tell them that in the old USSR, civilain ownership was illegal?
Well I never said it was legal.

But why are we still talking about USSR I despise communism...

[Roswell 1847]

Well English guy, you do realize that Canadian, South African, Australian, and New Zealanders, almost all of whom learned to shoot well while civilians , formed a large portion of the UK ground fighting forces during WW2.
Canadians were especially well know for their marksmanship skills, on a level with the superior individual marksmanship and woods craft of the American Infantryman.

I can remember reading of a pair of Bolshevik armed robbers in the 20's being run to ground by a crowd of English policemen and civilians, the crowd showed great courage and continued the pursuit though the robbers shot down more than twenty of them. The English police and their civilian helpers didn't have a firearm between them, only raw courage, something the Brits have never been short on.

[hankdatank1362]

I'm just glad you're here for the debate, englishguy.

Ever watch the movie "V for Vendetta" ?


It is a fictional account of what might happen in the near future of Britain. Curfews, thugs coming to snatch you out of your house in the middle of the night, restrictions on every form of expressions, etc....

I know it's fictional, but what could stop this from happening in real life, today, in Britain?


Unfortunately, your government has deprived you of any forms of resistance if they decide to abuse your basic human rights.

The references to Nazi Germany don't reflect the thinking that Nazi's are going to enjoy a resurgance of power, but rather that we, as Americans, have the power, the ability, and the God-given right to resist any power, governmental, criminal, or other, that may try to do us harm.

It isn't that a gun in our hands automatically grant us freedom, but they ensure us the means to violently resist, if necessary, anything that may attempt to infringe the freedoms we enjoy.

[RKBABob]

Oh yer [sic] I feel my human rights are being so badly violated (you pass by a camera going into central London and you get charged for that day). Well done for successfully hitting on the point that are old citys are unable to cope with modern day traffic levels. Ummm... Didn't YOU bring up the fact that you were so free that it would be legal for you to drive a tank?

You ARE free... to choose not to visit the United States, especially if our abundance of firearms and utter lack of tanks concerns you too much. You probably couldn't adjust to the proper pronounciation of the American language, anyway. :neener:

[Nolo]

SomeEnglishGuy:
Let me ask you something. Is there someone you love? Someone that you care more for them than yourself? Someone whom you would gladly endure pain, torture, madness and death for? Is there anyone like that in your life?
I feel that way about everyone in my life. Every single one of my friends, acquaintances, family, everyone commands my love and devotion to the very end. People concede that I am especially caring. I care even for my enemies. So having one murder prevented is very attractive to me. However, I know that preventing one murder by restricting access to guns will encourage millions more. It will leave people that I love dearly defenseless. 17 times more people would die from restrictive gun legislation than would be saved, assuming, of course, that the laws actually prevented crime.
I care about people. I want to be everywhere that anyone I love is all the time, to protect them from harm. I cannot. But I can give to them the gift of firearm ownership. With a S&W 342 revolver on duty, they can have the help and comfort of five small assistants.
You speak of peace of mind, and feelings of security. You speak of being "safe". Would you remove from me the feeling that all those people that I love are, at least in some way, safe? Would you take that very peace of mind that you cherish away from me?
SEG, I do not see evil in the barrel of a weapon; I see freedom and safety. I see brave men creating order and peace; I see criminals and cowards bowing to the law that has honest civilians defending it at every turn. You have only encountered guns in the movies or in crime. There, they are shown in the company of evil. In that world, sawn-off shotguns are the weapons of mobsters, MAC-10s are the weapons of thugs, AK-47s are the weapons of tyrants. Of course you see guns as evil. That is the only time you have seen them, in the company of evil. You see them as the battleflag of criminals and corrupt society. You see them as the Jews see the red swastika flag. They are a symbol of what you and I despise.
I do not see guns this way. When I have encountered guns, at the shooting range (thankfully, that is the only place), I see camaraderie, fun, focus and order. When I hear the tales of veterans on Memorial Day, Veteran's Day and any other time, I see bravery in guns. I see good people given the chance to do right. For me, guns are not the standard of evil, they are the standard of capability, the standard of people being able to combat and defeat evil where it stands. Where one would be weak, old or expecting, they are now fit as the toughest bodyguard, toned as the largest bodybuilder. They cannot be harmed. They experience freedom and peace. You claim to have peace, at the small expense of freedom. We in this country value freedom over all other things. And yet, in all this freedom, the arbiter of chaos, we have peace. We have peace as no other country now or in the past has achieved. So you can give away your freedom for the promise of peace, as granted by your government. Or you can retain your freedom, the freedom to make your will manifest. The freedom of peace.

[amprecon]

Regarding mistrust of authority, just as a side note, aside from religion and disease, governments are among the top progenitors of human death and suffering and I consider myself a religious person.

I trust any government (authority) like I would trust myself to not feel ill after eating a slice of bread with fuzzy green spots on it.

[Roswell 1847]

Ummm... Didn't YOU bring up the fact that you were so free that it would be legal for you to drive a tank?


Actually that sounds like baloney, since even Hummers sold in Britian had to be sectioned to reduce their width because British roads aren't wide enough for them. I serious doubt a tank would be anymore street legal there than here.
Private ownership of Obsolete and un armed armored vehicles is common enough in the US provided you can afford one. A friend has been negotiating the purchase of a British Armored vehicle with his ball and chain. He claims he just has to have it to mount his beltfed machine guns on. He's already got the pintle mounts ready to bolt on.

Private ownership of surplus Military aircraft is also common in the US, and Britian too the last I heard. Migs are especially popular, being sturdy and relatively cheap.

PS
I'm less distrustful of our Government than most for the simple reason that according to polls our military are mostly folks who feel much the same as I do on most issues. There are no elitist Marxist drones running our armed forces as in much of Europe and South America.

Oh and another thing.
Friends of mine in Britian were going on about the police tracking a female driver with helicopters and arresting her because she'd been caught on camera taking a bite of an apple while driving. Not like she'd been shoveling fish and chips down her maw with both hands while steering with her knees afterall. The cost of the helicopter and all ran into the thousands of pounds.

Also creeping political correctness resulted in the arrest of a Catholic Priest merely because he'd said he believed Homosexuality was a matter of choice. I can remember a Gay Scientist by the name of LeVay practically being crucified by Gay activists because his research indicated a biological causation for Homosexuality. The thing there was they were still calling Homosexuality a Sexual Preference and of course that would mean it was a matter of Choice.
Wish they'd make up their minds.

[Mot45acp]

Quote:
how many fellow country people are you willing to sacrifice for your right to bare arms?

All of them, including myself.

[1911Tuner]

Our British friend stated:

Basically your saying you don’t trust your politicians, your police nor your armed forces to defend you?

I've been waiting for that single utterance with bated breath...hoping...hoping...

No. I do not. It's not anyone else's responsibility to protect me, personally.

Nor do I want to rely on someone with zero interest in the outcome of my struggle for survival to come to my rescue. Why would I? If my rescuer is successful, he...or she...will be lauded as a hero. If the attempt to save me is unsuccessful...my hero still goes home to HIS family. I don't. "Just another day on the job, honey. I almost kept a guy from getting killed, but I didn't get there in time. I'll do better next time...maybe."

What can we glean from this? Simply that I do have a keen interest in whether I live or die, and I'll fight harder than someone who doesn't...because in the final analysis...my would-be hero won't likely even remember my name next month.

Finally...The very notion of bleating like a lost sheep while waiting for somebody else to come rushing to my rescue is repulsive to me. My parents didn't raise me to depend on somebody else. They taught me to stand on my feet like a man...to behave like a man...to fight my own battles...and to
lick my own wounds without whining like an abandoned whelp. As I see it, one of the most serious problems with America today is the fact that there aren't enough honest-to-God MEN. The powers that be would much rather emasculate the ones who are, because it makes them uncomfortable that we can and do take care of ourselves instead of snivelling...and it makes them uncomfortable because THEY can't do it.

Sorry, English. I'm not a "girlyman" who waits for a knight in shining armor, 'cause sometimes...they get held up in traffic.

[SomeEnglishGuy]

Ummm... Didn't YOU bring up the fact that you were so free that it would be legal for you to drive a tank? I just threw in the fact we are allowed to drive tanks on our roads just for fun but its not how I would even start to define freedom.

You ARE free... to choose not to visit the United States, especially if our abundance of firearms and utter lack of tanks concerns you too much.
Again I wanted to vist the States just to shoot guns you seem to be unable process that I like guns ;)


You probably couldn't adjust to the proper pronounciation of the American language, anyway.
I am happy with the proper pronunciation of the English language thanks, but your just getting childish now :p

I never did get around to watching it hank but I will the next time I have the chance.

I am off to bed but I want some constructive criticism of why the British are "subjects" of our goverment why you are the only ones who live in the land of the free.
Please explain how our goverment was unable to extend the time it was allowed to hold terror suspects without charge while (I wont try to claim to understand american law) George Bush was able to sign away your rights to Habeas Corpus for a time(as basic as rights get I understand).

The Magna Carta was 400 years before the English Bill of Rights which was 100 years before United States Bill of Rights. Fair few your founding rights were based on old English law yet you tell me I am the one who is naive and am not as "free" as you are.

[Nolo]

SEG, you are not free. You may feel free, but you are not free.
Not as we define it.
My parents allow me to go out to parties, to attend get-togethers, to buy items, to ell items, to loan money, etc, etc.
They allow that. In respect to my parents, I am not free.
They allow me to have my freedom.
As long as your government allows you to have things, you are not free. In our country, we'd like to think, the government is merely a standard set for all people. It does not allow things. It is controlled, limited by the people.
So we'd like to think anyway.
Certainly we are more free than you. When your government sees fit to spy on your every move, to restrict what you can and can't do in private, to control where you go, what you take, who you bring, etc, etc, you are not free.
Your government may allow those things.
My government does not. My government does not have the authority to "allow" me anything. Only I have the authority to control my actions, no one else does. I do not pledge allegiance to the state or to the head of state. I pledge allegiance to the flag, and all the rights, privileges and responsibilities contained within that concept.
I am free, no matter what law my country makes.
I am free because I feel that I am free. I am free because I am not dependent on a state to provide for my basic needs. I am free because I have made myself.
You are not, bound by loyalty to your state, dependence on your welfare and by the repeal of your sovereignty as a private citizen.
We sneer when we say "subject". We sneer because in our ancestral memory, some of us know what it is like to be subjects. Some of us know what it is like to be children of the parent state.
A citizen of the United States is an adult. A citizen of a country such as yours is a child.
We are free.

[Roswell 1847]

I just threw in the fact we are allowed to drive tanks on our roads just for fun but its not how I would even start to define freedom.

Care to tell us in greter detail what you mean by "drive tanks on our roads".
It would seem to me that no tracked vehicle is street legal, even earth movers and bulldozers aren't allowed to tear up pavement for a lark.

I know that there are a number of private collectors of armored vehicles in Britian, just as there are here and in several other western nations. The Tank is not a weapon unless it carries active weaponry. Swiss armored Tractors double as farm machinery, they mount the armor plate which is stored in the barn when using the tractor for military purposes.

I've never heard the British refer to themselves in any other way than as "British Subjects".
As for recent history the UK and former Commonwealth are still Monarchies. The Queen is even a War Chief of a tribe of Headhunters that are bound by treaty to the United Kingdoms.

It wasn't until the mid 19th Century that the working class could even vote in Britain. Democracy has progressed in fits and starts in the UK.

[SomeEnglishGuy]

Nor do I want to rely on someone with zero interest in the outcome of my struggle for survival to come to my rescue.
Why would I? If my rescuer is successful, he...or she...will be lauded as a hero. If the attempt to save me is unsuccessful...my hero still goes home to HIS family. I don't. "Just another day on the job, honey. I almost kept a guy from getting killed, but I didn't get there in time. I'll do better next time...maybe.

What can we glean from this? Simply that I do have a keen interest in whether I live or die, and I'll fight harder than someone who doesn't...because in the final analysis...my would-be hero won't likely even remember my name next month.

Finally...The very notion of bleating like a lost sheep while waiting for somebody else to come rushing to my rescue is repulsive to me. My parents didn't raise me to depend on somebody else. They taught me to stand on my feet like a man...to behave like a man...to fight my own battles...and to
lick my own wounds without whining like an abandoned whelp. As I see it, one of the most serious problems with America today is the fact that there aren't enough honest-to-God MEN. The powers that be would much rather emasculate the ones who are, because it makes them uncomfortable that we can and do take care of ourselves instead of snivelling...and it makes them uncomfortable because THEY can't do it.

Sorry, English. I'm not a "girlyman" who waits for a knight in shining armor, 'cause sometimes...they get held up in traffic.

Your sorry I am a "girlyman", I am sorry that live in fear in a place where you only feel safe with a gun at your side.
If someone wanted to kill me they would be done well before any police would be around they know that I know that... look at me getting on with my life :)
On the plus theres a good chance he dosen't have a gun so a good fight entails... it would be very ungentleman like to shoot an unarmed man anyway :D

[Slinky]

I feel that 1911Tuner hit the nail on the head.

Stand up for yourself

To me the essence of freedom is being responsible for yourself. Do you want to live under your parent's roof for the rest of your life? Do you want your future children to live under yours? Sooner or later you must leave the nest and take responsibility for your own actions, your own welfare, and your own safety.

It is not the government's place(or anyone else's for that matter) to tell you what is in your best interests, because the only person who truly knows is you.



PS:
I am a Paramedic, before that I was a Rescue Swimmer in the Navy, it is literally my job to save people. As such I know all too well that Help doesn't always arrive in time.

[ColinthePilot]

You may be free, right now. Aside from gun ownership, you more or less live your lives the way you wish across the pond. However, when those in power decide they want more control and start pulling more and more of your liberties, you will be powerless to do anything about it. I don't know much about the British system of government, but here in the US, the resistance would start with protests and letters to congressmen. When that failed (those in power are not going to give up that power because of some letters) and we are forced to resort to violence to keep the government in check, we'll be able to. You won't. We don't trust our government because our country was founded by men who didn't trust theirs(yours). They had no reason to trust government and they understood that power corrupts. King George had his way with us, we didn't like it, and luckily, we had guns and were able to fight off the oppressive government.
As for trusting the police, I do, for the most part. The fact that I can't rely on them to protect me is not a matter of trust. I believe that most LEO's would do everything in their power to save my life. The fact is 6minutes is a long time when theres a goblin headed for your bedroom.
And as for trusting the military, I do, explicitly. I am in the US Air Force and the people I work with are unequaled. federal law prohibits us from acting as law enforcement, we are here to keep foreign threats out. The oath that everyone in the US Military takes is not an oath to the government, or the president, or anyone else. It is an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States. People are corruptible, that document and the ideas it represents are not.
the second amendment is the protection of the rest of our rights. Without it, the others wouldn't be far behind. Ask any dictator, they'll agree. Hitler told the German people that banning guns would result in a safer Germany; then he killed all the unarmed Jews and started a bloody war.

I don't think that everyone must have a gun. While many here consider it our duty and responsibility, I wouldn't force that on anyone. That would be no different from taking them away. If you're happy not owning, not being able to, and not caring, then keep on doing it. Who am I to tell you how to live? But don't call me when you wake up and you're living in a police state. I tried to warn you.

[SomeEnglishGuy]

Care to tell us in greter detail what you mean by "drive tanks on our roads".
It would seem to me that no tracked vehicle is street legal, even earth movers and bulldozers aren't allowed to tear up pavement for a lark.

I know that there are a number of private collectors of armored vehicles in Britian, just as there are here and in several other western nations. The Tank is not a weapon unless it carries active weaponry. Swiss armored Tractors double as farm machinery, they mount the armor plate which is stored in the barn when using the tractor for military purposes.

I've never heard the British refer to themselves in any other way than as "British Subjects".
As for recent history the UK and former Commonwealth are still Monarchies. The Queen is even a War Chief of a tribe of Headhunters that are bound by treaty to the United Kingdoms.

It wasn't until the mid 19th Century that the working class could even vote in Britain. Democracy has progressed in fits and starts in the UK.
Whats funny is I dont ever remember anyone ever referring to themselves as "British Subjects" but what would I know... if there were a time it was dropped before I was born.
The Queen keeps many titles its called heritage/tradition the few bit of power that remain with her would be highly unusual if she acted upon them. Yes we keep her for the tourists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=409518&in_page_id=1770
rubber tracks :p

[Roswell 1847]

If someone wanted to kill me they would be done well before any police would be around they know that I know that... look at me getting on with my life

So you ignore the possibility rather than prepare for it. Which since your government gives you no choice in the matter is about all you can do.

On the plus theres a good chance he dosen't have a gun so a good fight entails... it would be very ungentleman like to shoot an unarmed man anyway
As if no one here has ever had a fist fight before, or defended themselves with their hands when the gun was handy in case it was necessary.
Many a good man has been beaten down and killed or crippled because the bad guys don't like to play one on one, I'm suprized that you are ignorant of that fact considering the mass Soccer Riots, street gangs, and such.
Ungentlemanly armed robbers have a habit of herding unarmed employees and patrons into the back room and shooting them in the head. On the rare occasion that an employee or patron has a gun that doesn't happen.
Several people I know have killed armed robbers to protect themselves and their family. If they had not had access to a legal fire arm the robber with his illegally owned firearm or other weapon would have killed them.
Several other people I know have used firearms to scare off armed robbers without having to fire a shot. One saved my sister from a serial murderer using a pistol she took from her boss' desk after seeing the creep trying to force my sister into the passenger seat of her car so he could rape torture and kill her just as he did six other women. The creep was armed with a knife, he liked to carve women up as he raped them. They caught him when a girl friend of his tried to use my sister's ID to cash one of the checks that were in the purse he grabbed before running away.
If the young lady had not seen this and known where her boss kept his pistol my sister's body might be lying mutilated in the mangrove swamps with the rest of his victims.

I'm very pleased that Britian has no worse crime rate than it has, friends of mine live there. My Mom and Sis visited there years ago and liked the place.

Smaller populations in long civilized countries which have secure borders and more easily monitored ethnic groups have an advantage when it comes to crime control.

PS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
rubber tracks
Interesting all the other references I could find showed off road excursions in tanks owned by companies that sold rides.
Rubber treads are used on tanks for parades and when they must be moved by roads, They wear out quickly.
It looks like this guy's tank is unique and I doubt this will last long before whatever passes for a road commision barrs him from paved roads, or unpaved country roads for that matter.

From Wiki

Although the term "British subject" now has a very restrictive statutory definition, there is no problem with the word "subject" per se. Accordingly, nationals of countries of which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State may still be referred to as "Her Majesty's subjects", while British nationals may accurately (if circuitously) be described as "subjects of Her Majesty in right of the United Kingdom".

[Nolo]

it would be very ungentleman like to shoot an unarmed man anyway
Okay, it is my professional opinion that this man is from Mars.
What reality are you living in?
A). If you're talking about a criminal, it'd be very ungentlemanly to rob someone, rape someone, kill someone or any number of other nefarious acts. Doesn't matter. They don't care! Ungentlemanly isn't in their vernacular.
B). If you're talking about yourself, you owe men like this no gentlemanliness! They want to rob you, kill you or worse! Manners do not work here. They serve no purpose in this situation. 230-grain .45 rounds, however, do.

[RKBABob]

I am sorry that [you] live in fear in a place where you only feel safe with a gun at your side.EnglishGuy, we don't live in fear... but a gun at our sides does make us feel safe. Most of us on this board think of firearms the same way we think of fire extinguishers and car seat belts... we're not likely to need any of them today, we hope never to need them, but their presence is reassuring in case we ever do.

If someone wanted to kill me they would be done well before any police would be around they know that I know that... look at me getting on with my lifeThis is one reason we Americans keep firearms for protection. Bear in mind, many areas in the U.S. are still very rural, and police response time can be greater than 45 minutes. We've accepted that the police can't always protect us, and we've gotten on with our lives as well.

On the plus theres a good chance he dosen't have a gun so a good fight entails... it would be very ungentleman like to shoot an unarmed man anywayAn attacker does not need to have a gun in order for a shooting to be ruled self defense. Knives, clubs and chains are all deadly weapons... and I wouldn't consider facing a knife wielding thug while unarmed to be "a good fight." Furthermore, I'd like to avoid "a good fight" because I see nothing "good" about a fight.

Honest citizens do not go around shooting unarmed men. About the only time such a thing would be legally acceptable would be in a situation where there was a great disparity of force... say a 260lb bodybuilder attempting to kill frail old man, or a petite female, who could not possibly defend themselves otherwise. In all instances, most states' laws dictate that the defender must be in fear of their life in order for a shooting to be justified.

[Bezoar]

SomeEnglish Guy

England took the handguns away and most longarms to "save the people" from vicious gun crime. They, the english government that is, claimed the confiscation worked as intended to remove violent gun crime. but yet why did the official government statistics for violent crime, and violent gun crimes almost triple or quadruple that year?

Its true your government has brainwashed you into thinking its fine to give up things to prevent others from hurting themselves. Kitchen knives are regulated as they can hurt people. Should the cook, wood carver, knife thrower give up the tools of their livelyhood simply to keep the retarded child down the street from huritng himself?
Here in america, it used to be, "you shouldnt be stupid enough to cut yourself suzy/johnny next time you cut carrots"

Or why give up guns based on the premise its not nice to shoot would be rapists and serial killers? I bet theres alot of people who were on the mass transit system when the bombers had their bombs who would have been happy to shoot them before they could detonate.

Or even better yet, STDs is such a huge issue, lets outlaw sex so that little 500 pound 12 year old timmy/suzy down the street wont get AIDs or the clap?
dont see any backers of that bill now do you?

We have a distrust for big government that wants to dictate our everyday activities. Its why we chased the malcontents out of america and sent them back to England. Our founders were driven out of europe being they were discontent and outspoken against the harsh rule of kings.
Out in the wilderness they learned what freedom is, and that its better to live and die free in the forest fighting off indians while eeking out a living in the dirt then to obey the edict of a moron on a throne.
We learned that along time ago, that we dont want a big central government disarming us so that they can do as they wish with us.

[Roswell 1847]

Interesting
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

As handgun ownership and the right to carry becomes more prevalent in the US crime goes down, while in Britain crime is rapidly going up.

[Sage of Seattle]

This is the same kind of crap that I saw when I linked over to the laughable "UK Skeptics" website. "Any unseemly sort that comes round my flat, well, I'll just give it a go and box his ears, by jove! How on Earth could I even PRESUME to not give a fair fight, after all?"

Ah, well. After seventy something posts, I'm personally going to give up on this one.

[CajunBass]

Young man. You dismiss the Nazi's with a wave of your hand, as if they were the boggie man, yet I assure you, that in your countries not too distant past, the threat of very real Nazi's, just a few miles away, was very real.

In those desperate days, between the evacuation at Dunkirk, and Hitlers turning his attention to the East, the only thing that stood between Great Britain and those very real Nazi's was a few miles of salt water.

Over a quarter million men had been evacuated from the beaches at DunKirk, but men, without weapons are not an army. They're not much more than a mob. And the British Expeditionary Force had been forced to leave most of it's equipment behind when they swam out to the evacuation boats.

A call went out to the United States for anything that would shoot. And the United States responded. Not just the American government, but private citizens, mostly through the National Rifle Association, sent thousand of privately owned weapons to Great Britain.

Now the Nazi's never came across that few miles of salt water as we all know. The Royal Navy, and the Royal Air Force held the line. Hitler turned his attention to the East and Russia, but it was a very near thing for a while.

Most of those weapons, donated by generous Americans, were issued to Home Guard units, and never played an active part in the war, and I understand after the war were destroyed, although some of them may have found their way back to the US.

Yes, there was a time, when your own countrymen, didn't have weapons to defend themselves from those Nazi's. I pray it will never happen again. I fear it will.

[1911Tuner]

Your sorry I am a "girlyman", I am sorry that live in fear in a place where you only feel safe with a gun at your side.

No, English. I didn't say you were a girlyman. I said that I'm not...and I don't live in fear. In fact...I don't even lock my doors at night where I live...or when I'm away from home all day. No need. Folks don't bother things very much around here.

No, I prefer to be armed because that's what free people can do if they choose...or not. It's not being armed that's the issue. It's the freedom to decide without assistance that's so important, and that's the part that I don't think you can grasp.

[bluestarlizzard]

englishdude,
in all your harping about it not being sporting to shoot an unarmed man, you seem to forget those of us that do not have a fair chance at defeating someone who may very well be a lot stronger than us.
you're not, per chance, saying that, I, a woman, fight off in hand to hand combat a guy who has about a foot of hight on me and outweighs me by 100 pounds?
now i'm off to work.....
good morning THR :)

[Roswell 1847]

Just reread English's first post.
why did you wait for Japan to attack you before you joined World War II? Why did Germany delcare war on you while Britain had already declared war on Germany a year earlier? I cant argue that you didn't save the day but you didn't do it on your own.


If English had stayed awake in History class he might have known that in the mid thirties the US had a smaller standing army than France, and one of the least well equiped. The economic depression of the thirties had drained the US.
He might also have known that thousands of American merchant seamen lost their lives transporting war materiels and food to the beleagered British Isles.
He might also have learned of the thousands of Americans who crossed the border to join the canadian army and airforce to fight the NAZI.
Theres an old saying that most these days don't understand "If that were true then I'm a Chinese Airline Pilot" this saying originated when US commercial aircraft companies used subtrefuge in order to bring hundreds of Chinese officers to the US in order to train them to fly modern aircraft so they could fight the Japanese.
Since the US is seperated from Europe by thousands of miles of Ocean, and stood little or no chance of being invaded by German forces or directly attacked, it required a direct threat to American territories and protectorates in order to stir up the people to put forth the most massive arms build up in history and the rapid development of advanced weaponry necessary for our involvement to make a difference.
The biggest mistake that the Japanese ever made was to bomb Pearl Harbor and the biggest mistake Hitler ever made,( and he made some beauts) was to declare war on the US.

[RKBABob]

After seventy something posts, I'm personally going to give up on this one.Me too.

[akodo]

The original poster seemed to not like examples from the reign of the USSR, nor from WW2 genocide, as it was too far back in history.

*Ottoman Turkey, 1915-17; 1-1.5 million Armenians murdered;
*Soviet Union, 1929-53; 20 million anti-Communists and anti-Stalinists murdered;
*Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe, 1933-45; 13 million Jews, Gypsies, and Anti-Nazi murdered;
*China, 1949-52, 1957-60 & 1966-1976; 20 million anti-Communists murdered;
*Guatemala, 1960-1981; 100,000 Mayan Indians murdered;
*Uganda, 1971-1979; 300,000 Christians and Political Rivals of Idi Amin murdered;
*Cambodia, 1975-1979; 1 million murdered.

Genocides happen, and continue to happen, a handful every century. Sometimes you have a 30 year gap between them, sometimes just 5. However, history shows us they keep on cropping up, again and again.

And really, WWII wasn't that long ago. Heck, many guns we OWN were made in world war 2, stored for 50 years, and are now being sold. Many of the gun designs we use predate world war one. Just because we didn't have a genocide in the last 3 years doesn't mean we can blisfully assume they will never happen again. Guns, history, freedom, these all require taking the long view.

[Geronimo45]

I do not see evil in the barrel of a weapon; I see freedom and safety
*checks rifle*
I see dust bunnies. :p

[armoredman]

Time to shoot it, and clean it. :)

[Nix]

an american leader was quoted as saying "walk softly and carry a big stick"
a british leader was heard many times for begging the us for help.

americans rely upon themselves, britains rely on someone else.. be it police, military or a different country. WW2 was completely englands fault (the us advised you against the policy's that strangled germany you didnt listen) then you continously begged hitler to stop instead of acting.
Look at englands most recent history (since the 1700's) you have lost your teeth, as a country and as a people. Look at your violence rate now that youve given up your protection.

Do not try and tell me how law abiding americans are the problem when your country has to beg us for help every so many years. Who saved you from the germans? Who stopped the japanese? You think that a few weeks in boot camp make some of the amazing warriors (yes warriors) that we had in ww2? NO. You can bet a lot of those men grew up shooting and hunting.

You can hand over your manhood in hopes that your country will protect you, but i my friend will continue to protect myself, my family, my friends... and if you screw up the world again... you as well.

[Nix]

OH i would also like to comment on your first post English. Your right... we didnt attack first. We didnt go looking for trouble. However once it happened, our country UNLIKE yours was able to rise to the challenge. I'm not hating on the british, im simply saying that your country that is only a country thanks to a people it once treated as slaves... still calls us yankee's and looks down on us, when in all reality you should be thanking us for our "gun toting" ways.

[1911Tuner]

still calls us yankee's and looks down on us, when in all reality you should be thanking us for our "gun toting" ways

And..."Colonies." That's one of my favorites.

And all the privately-owned rifles and handguns that we sent just in case Hitler's Wehrmacht crossed the channel...and then expended American lives and materiel to keep that from happening.

Nobody ever got their guns back, by the way. The Brits scrapped them after the war.

Then...after they retook the Falklands...they did the same thing with all the captured rifles...mostly FN-FALs. Yep. Scrapped'em. Guess they figure that there won't ever be any more Hitlers and Mussolinis.

These people will never learn...

Probably time to close this thread. It's pretty much run its course, and I really don't see it going any further than it has. I'll wait and see what the assigned moderator here wants to do about it. Not my jurisdiction.

[Nix]

if at all possibly i would like to see his reply... if not i understand :-)

[the pistolero]

Now I've been thinking, and I've come to the conclusion that, if it dosen't belong to you, its not really a sacrifice,
In fact a more accurate definition would be "theft"
That's about the most succinct, on-the-nose assessment of the gun-grabbers' definition of "sacrifice" that I've seen yet.

As I have got older I have come to realise where I live my liberty of owning a gun is taken away so others around me cant. You see that as a high price but my entire life I never even given thought to being shot
Neither have I, and I live in Texas -- you know, the place the gun-grabbers think one could be shot just for looking at somone wrong. Am I living in a delusion, a fantasy world? Or could the my "right to bare arms" (sic) not be the problem? I've lived in Texas for a little over 25 years, out on my own for not quite 10 years, so I'm thinking I am pretty well grounded in reality.

[Nolo]

Honestly, I'm wondering where his answer to my posts is.
Is it too much for him to realize that I carry and encourage carry because I love, not because I hate?