How the Brits "Dumb Down" on the Gun Issue

The funny thing about all this is that, (outside of my Gun club) I probably know of more people with illegally held firearms than legal ones

If you wanted a UK legal pistol Starting from scratch ,
You have to:
1. Join a club (£90+6mths probation+Travelling costs to & from Range)
2. Apply for license (£50+hope you don't get turned down)
3. Buy a gunsafe (£100+)
4. Buy the gun (£600ish)
5. Buy Ammo (decent .44mag is £23per 50)

(Hopefully I havn't left anything out??)

Or....

Walk 10 mins down the road to a local pub and pay £200-300 for a nice little 9mm and a handful of rounds

And people wonder why gun crimes are still high in the UK?

And obviously, if the rights of an individual makes life dangerous for other people, then that right should be taken away.

Click to expand...

Good now lets get rid of religion and all live in peace.

I like how the "anti gun" response pointed to "drug gangs" as the reason gun crime is high.

Wait a second, aren't drugs outlawed too? Come to think of it, isn't orginized crime outlawed as well? What makes you think banning GUNS will solve any problems?

Anything to do with crime was a smokescreen

If any firearms were illegally obtained and used in crime,then there is no connection whatsoever to legally-held firearms.But in the UK as I have said before it was mainly the civillians who kicked up a fuss about legally-held guns-the same happen in Australia and Tasmaina,after Port Arthur-where civillians were demonstrating against gun ownership.750,000 people in SCOTLAND added their support to banning handguns in the CIVILLIAN POPULATION, not members of the GOVERNMENT in Westminister.Those slimy Tory-turds in Westminister sold us out,because of angry Scottish civillians in Dunblane and elsewhere who caused a riot-which could have affected their election campaign ,for the following years General Election-and to make matters worse Tony Blair finished us-off by banning match-Pistols ,because he wanted to ensure that he would have won votes-by being sympathetic towards the antis-especially from Scotland.Not suprisingly most antis voted for his party,himself and the Liberal Democrates.The GCNs message was:Robert Kennedy was killed by a .22 rimfire revolver,so they are as dangerous as an ordinary 9mm semi-automatic or .38 Smith and Wesson revolver.

SMGs,Assault-rifles have been used before in crime,but the real-reason from the various antis is:WE DONT WANT A PSYCHO/s LIKE MICHEAL RYAN-DONNED IN COMBAT-FATIGUES-CARRYING AN AK47 OR SIMILAR,WITH GRENADES AND A PISTOL AND SHOOTING ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD SEE-FOR FUN!!!!!!!

An interesting quote from Dr Mick North-who lost his daighter Sophie at Dunblane:I want sensible controls on firearms.My quote:Im sorry for your loss Doctor,but you won't finish us off with your sensible bans-WELL NOT YET ANYWAY.
750,000 Anti-handgun signatures is alot compared to 60,000 or so, licensed Pistol-shooters.

Would someone please tell me again why we saved England from the Germans?

Click to expand...

Not to worry, we really didn't. You see, I have been re-educated by some of our British and European friends. The thought that we saved England is an arrogant American lie. The British and the Soviets had already essentially defeated Hitler long before any Americans showed up.

And, although the Brits and the Soviets where happy to accept our contribution -- some food and supplies -- all America did was help in the clean up stages of the war, and our participation in no way influenced the outcome.

I am glad that I am now in possesion of the TRUE story.

You see, this version of WWII was not the same one told to me by my father and 2 uncles who fought in France, Germany, and Italy.

But, of course, I am going to believe internet Euro-Trash rather than men who were there and helped to defeat fascism, right?

[Sarcasm Off]

Gun laws in Britain were originally passed with one intention - to prevent the peasantry from poaching His Royal Bullhockey's game, which was reserved for shooting by His Royal whatever and his buddies, the Earls and Dukes. Mostly this was done by imposing laws that made guns too costly for anyone but the very wealthy.

After the general strikes and anarchist ("terrorist") attacks in the 1920s scared the pants off the Royal whosis and the Noble whatsis, more gun laws were passed. As to rights, the British are subjects of Her Royal Majesty, and have only such privileges as She (meaning her Prime Minister) chooses to graciously grant.

Britain is not a Democracy in any sense (neither is the U.S.; it is a republic) and it is a republic only when there is a general election. Once the election is over, and one party controls Parliament (the House of Commons - the House of Lords is powerless, a quaint anachronism) the PM is a virtual dictator; he tells his party members how to vote on any issue of importance, and they better obey or they will not be allowed to run ("stand") for Parliament again. No "maverick" MPs are allowed, and a Brit simply cannot understand American Congressional votes that are other than strict party line. A British PM reportedly once told an American President, "Just order Congress to vote the way you want, that's all you need to do." Most presidents wish it were that easy.

There are no primary elections; party leaders pick the party candidate for each district. There is no way anyone can get on the ballot except as the candidate of a party. I believe now the candidate actually has to have some kind of "residence" in the district, but it is often a hotel room. The candidate usually knows nothing about the district and cares less.

There is no written constitution, and "rights" are whatever the government of the day decides they are. The press is theoretically free, but an "independent" press board tells them what they can print; in practice that means the press can print all the scandal it wants, but the government controls the press when it really matters. No court can void an act of parliament; any law is automatically "constitutional." In other words, all those "checks and balances" in the U.S. Constitution don't exist in England. Which is why they are in the U.S. Constitution.

Jim

We are not Americans, and we don't aspire to be Americans. Whether it would be better or worse, we don't want to live in a little pale copy of America, with all its virtues and vices.
But politics here now is getting like America; both parties in hock to Big Business, trying to persuade the voters there is some substantive difference between them.

I would argue that the UK was MORE British when people there had a right to keep and bear arms, and exercised that right freely. Victorian England was hardly a copy of the wild west, yet the Brits of that time invented the first modern CCW handgun--the bulldog. And it was extremely popular both there and abroad and widely copied by Belgium arms makers. Yet somewhere along the line Brits were indoctrinated into believing that they never carried firearms!

No frontier. No hostile Indians. No dangerous wild animals (all hunted to extinction centuries before). So what did we need them for?

Look, can we stop comparing old Britain from the Present Britain

Gun laws in Britain were originally passed with one intention - to prevent the peasantry from poaching His Royal Bullhockey's game, which was reserved for shooting by His Royal whatever and his buddies, the Earls and Dukes. Mostly this was done by imposing laws that made guns too costly for anyone but the very wealthy.

For your information the people making these ridiculous laws are government-suits or polititions,that sit in Westminister-not on the THRONE.Labour appeases the antis who want guns banned and this is why we have the pistol ban.Labour gets alot of votes from Scotland and it is ordinary peasants who want bans with misguided polititions-NOT THE ROYALS.The ROYALS were and are on ourside.Prince Philip spoke out against the handgun ban in 1997 and he was heavily critisized by the antis.THE SOCIALIST MISFITS=LABOUR.

It would be interesting if Blair owned a gun and was interested in shooting,but it is doubtful.
If you lived in the UK,then you would understand why we have these daft laws.These have been drafted by people who hate guns and who don't want further massacres by crazy civillians(All written in their perspective,not mine.).Thats the reason why we have to suffer-because of morons who abused their firearms licenses-in the past 20 years.

Please look up target-shooting in wikipedia (Online free encyclopedia) and you will see that the voters are as bad as legislators-especially in modern-day BRITAIN.

Thomas Hamilton=sad,pathetic-loser with four hanguns and kills 17 children and their teacher.The teachers at Dunblane:We are so angry that anyone can own a hangun with a firearm license and practise freely at their local club.Note that these comments were not made by the government,but by the teachers at Dunblane-who were civillians.

Click to expand...

No frontier. No hostile Indians. No dangerous wild animals (all hunted to extinction centuries before). So what did we need them for?

Click to expand...

There were and are plenty of dangerous animals in the UK. They just go on two legs instead of four.

But your question itself is fascinating. The modern British mind is indoctrinated to believe that firearms aren't really NEEDED by civilians. And because they're not NEEDED, they should be outlawed. The possibility that there is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, or a fundamental right to do anything at all, is now foreign to them. Rights are what Parliament says they are.

If you lived in the UK,then you would understand why we have these daft laws.These have been drafted by people who hate guns and who don't want further massacres by crazy civillians(All written in their perspective,not mine.).Thats the reason why we have to suffer-because of morons who abused their firearms licenses-in the past 20 years.

Click to expand...

The original sin was in 1920, when licensing (FAC) came into play. From that point it was only a matter of time before Parliament called in the chips. Bit by bit, Parliament curtailed more and more rights until the present day. The problem was not abuse of licenses, but licenses themselves. These were first put into place out of fear of red revolution, but like any good government program they lasted far longer than the threat they sought to eliminate. The licenses opened the way to confiscation as public opinion, indoctrinated from the left, turned against civilian gun ownership after WWII.

But there was a day, before the madness of gun control, when a gentlemen could toss a bulldog in his pocket and walk around the heart of London without fear of arrest and prison time.

and who else besides should get to say which rights are fundamental and which aren't? "We hold these truths to be self-evident" amounts to nothing more than 'because I say it is'.

Guns are designed ...

I get tired of the claim that guns are only designed to kill. What about my Colt Officer's Match single action? It's designed for one thing and one thing only, to shove wadcutters through a target. In other words its nothing other than an elaborate paper punch. It was designed to do nothing other than punch holes in paper. Sure it can be used as a weapon but then so can a base ball bat, hatchet, chain saw, bow and arrow, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

It sort of negates the claim that cars aren't made to kill.

Guns are designed ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I get tired of the claim that guns are only designed to kill. What about my Colt Officer's Match single action? It's designed for one thing and one thing only, to shove wadcutters through a target. In other words its nothing other than an elaborate paper punch. It was designed to do nothing other than punch holes in paper. Sure it can be used as a weapon but then so can a base ball bat, hatchet, chain saw, bow and arrow, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

It sort of negates the claim that cars aren't made to kill.

Click to expand...

+1 I agree. And also the first "guns" were used in a fireworks display and for sporting purposes. However of the things you listed that can be used as weapons, how ironic it is that many of them are restricted or prohibited in many countries.

Pro gun
A gun is only a tool. It doesn't kill by itself. People kill, not guns. Are you going to ban knives next?

Anti gun
Guns and knives are not the same<...>

Click to expand...

(unspoken) "...and yes, we are going to ban knives next."

- Cliff

"We hold these truths to be self-evident" amounts to nothing more than 'because I say it is'.

Click to expand...

If you read on in that preamble you will notice they say that all men are "... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." The rights PRE-EXIST the Constitution or the Republic. Indeed those words were written over a decade before the Bill of Rights and have never technically had force of law. But they express the notion that there are rights that trump the power of the sovereign no matter what the law may or may not say.

Jim Keenan said:

Britain is not a Democracy in any sense (neither is the U.S.; it is a republic) and it is a republic only when there is a general election.

Click to expand...

Isn't a republic a form of democracy?

(And I suppose regardless of whether the answer is yes or no, by the definition of "republic" normally used on THR, the UK could be considered to be a republic with a hereditary, primarily symbolic head of state. Although in the UK itself, "republic" generally implies "no monarch", regardless of how else the government is set up).

Once the election is over, and one party controls Parliament (the House of Commons - the House of Lords is powerless, a quaint anachronism) the PM is a virtual dictator; he tells his party members how to vote on any issue of importance,

Click to expand...

That really depends on how much a party is inthrall to its leader. It is entierly plausible for a weak (or non-contrl-freak) PM or party leader to party members vote freely. Although at the moment, what you say is entierly accurate with regards to Blair.

and they better obey or they will not be allowed to run ("stand") for Parliament again. No "maverick" MPs are allowed,

Click to expand...

Again, that depends on how much control the PM and the heads of a party have (and are willing to exhert) over their party. And even if they did crack down on mavericks, the worst they could do would be to stop them running as an official party candidate with party support. They could still run as an independent, and many do. (Although unfortunately not often very successfully).

and a Brit simply cannot understand American Congressional votes that are other than strict party line.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are plenty of Brits who could understand that. (And if they didn't, that would probably be more likely because of misunderstanding how much power the President has, rather than having no concept of someone voting independently).

There are no primary elections; party leaders pick the party candidate for each district.

Click to expand...

Normally (traditionally), it is the local party association that chooses their candidates, not the party leaders. Although it is true that under Blair, many New Labour candidates are chosen centrally.

Besides, I'm not sure the UK is big enough or divided enough into
anything equivilent to your States for Primaries or equivilent to be practical.

There is no way anyone can get on the ballot except as the candidate of a party.

Click to expand...

Not true. Most ballots frequently include an independent candidate(s), as well as numerous minor parties. And they seem to do marginally better than independents and minor parties do in the US.

There is no written constitution, and "rights" are whatever the government of the day decides they are ... No court can void an act of parliament; any law is automatically "constitutional." In other words, all those "checks and balances" in the U.S. Constitution don't exist in England. Which is why they are in the U.S. Constitution.

Click to expand...

Too true (unless you count the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, and various pieces of EU legislation, but they're not strictly comparable, either in how they work, or what they protect).


Its also not true (as someone else implied, I think), that British people have no concept of fundamental rights, or that there is any sense of anything being wrong with the state of our politics.

While the RKBA is pretty alien to most Brits, most of the other rigths enshrined in your BoR would be and are appreciated by most people here, and there is a great deal of frustration about the workings of our political system and the general uselessness of our politicians.

Labour politician Ken Livingstone defied the Labour Party's official candidate to run for Mayor of London as an independent, and won.
The interminable American presidential election process, which seems to start again the week after the last one finished, is widely seen here as an example of how not to do it. We prefer campaigns to be short and intense - more than about four weeks is too long to most of us.

But your question itself is fascinating. The modern British mind is indoctrinated to believe that firearms aren't really NEEDED by civilians. And because they're not NEEDED, they should be outlawed. The possibility that there is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, or a fundamental right to do anything at all, is now foreign to them.

Click to expand...

No doubt if you grew up in a town where everyone walked around with a monkey on his shoulder it would seem strange to find that there were places where they didn't feel a need for monkeys. But it's you who are the aberration, not the monkeyless ones.

No doubt if you grew up in a town where everyone walked around with a monkey on his shoulder it would seem strange to find that there were places where they didn't feel a need for monkeys. But it's you who are the aberration, not the monkeyless ones.

Click to expand...

It's better to have a monkey on your shoulder and not need it, than to need a monkey on your shoulder and not have it.

You can have my monkey when you pry it from my cold, dead shoulder.

.

Torpid

If I had a primate on my shoulder who could instantly destroy any lethal threat to my person, I'd carry him everywhere. Instead, monkeys tend to throw excrement. I'll take my "monkey," which throws .357 slugs.

Freedom has always been the exception. Most of the world continues to live without it, and frankly most people in the world are unable to cope with it. They prefer to give power over to the state and shrug their shoulders as one liberty after another vanishes. The Brits of 100 years ago were people I could deal with. The ones today are mostly spineless. Bitter cynicism and vitriol have replaced courage and fortitude. Maybe too many of the best ones got slaughtered in the wars.

But I would have loved to shoot handguns in TE Lawrence's back yard or discuss firearms with Leslie
Durrell--the gunsel brother of Gerald who famously packed a suitcase full of revolvers when his family moved to Greece. Those were MY KIND of people. Dangerous? Yes, absolutely. And innovative, daring and courageous. They'd have no place in the sterile, neutered Britain of today. Except perhaps as criminals. The ban on firearms is just a symptom of a much deeper problem. Britains of today no longer trust themselves with freedom. Indeed they doubt the existence of liberty except as strictly defined by the Parliamentary edict du jour. They're imposing punishments on themselves far more strict than anything an invading German army would have been able to get away with.

The British Government believe that by 2020 unemployment and general social breakdown will be so bad it will result in widespread anarchy and because of this, they are aiming to disarm private citizens of all legally held firearms before then.
These feelings reach right back to when firearms were first licensed and whenever a situation has presented it's self for further firearm removal they have jumped on it, from the banning of semi-auto rifles in the '80's, to the banning of short arms and handguns in '97.

They can't effectively remove the illegal weapons, so they take the legal one's instead, in their eye's it still means less guns for Joe public to get their hands on.

Quote from Boom-Stick:

The British Government believe that by 2020 unemployment and general social breakdown will be so bad it will result in widespread anarchy and because of this, they are aiming to disarm private citizens of all legally held firearms before then.
These feelings reach right back to when firearms were first licensed and whenever a situation has presented it's self for further firearm removal they have jumped on it, from the banning of semi-auto rifles in the '80's, to the banning of short arms and handguns in '97.

They can't effectively remove the illegal weapons, so they take the legal one's instead, in their eye's it still means less guns for Joe public to get their hands on.

Yes, well this is no surpise considering the fact that state-pensions will dissolve into thin-air in a few years from now.When the unemployment riots arrive-if it ever arrive, and if the government has banned all legal weapons,by then-then I shall steal government and police weapons to protect myself with if neccessary.Hmmm a nice Glock 17 9mm,with 4 magazines and 1000 rounds of JHP ammo-hey I haven't seen this for 13 years and now I have it.Also a Heckler and Koch MP5 Smg,with several magazines and several rounds of ammo-all stolen from the Metropolitan Police S019 arsenal.Wait,Wait,steal all the confiscated weapons,-that previously belonged to various criminals-that are locked away in the various evidence room lockers and cabinets- and distribute them to fellow club-members.Hahahaha .When theres a will there will be a way,from many more like me in the UK.Considering the fact tax payers,paid for these weapons in the first place-it feels like you have your moneys worth here-with this little lot.

I hope we have a sensible government by then and not one that appeases the liberals and antis,which can cause serious problems for us shooters and shooters of the next generation.

By the way Boom-stick,where did you get your information,regarding the governments unemployment predictions in 2020?

Cosmoline said:

They're imposing punishments on themselves far more strict than anything an invading German army would have been able to get away with.

Click to expand...

Well, apart from execution for being Jewish, or execution for being gay, or execution for being a communist, or execution for disagreeing with the government. But yes, apart from that, current British laws are entierly worse than anything the Nazis would have imposed

(That's not to say I disagree that a huge amount of our law is either stupid, or authoratarian, or both, because it is. But there is still a long way to go before we are "worse than the Nazis". And its not as if the US doesn't have its fair share of stupid laws and power-hungry politicians).


By the way, what sort of monkey would you recommed for home defence? Do you need a special licence to carry one concealed? And is there a list of "assault monkeys" that are banned in CA?

I knew that something freaky came over on the same plane with the Beatles. :banghead: