Stabbings continue during amnesty

[Fosbery]

Now that everything is banned think of how easy it would be to take over the U.K.!

My first instinct was to say "You can damn well try, I'll be waiting for you." but on second thoughs, it might do the country some good so please, get over here

I'm not all that unusual. There's another couple down my road who shoot and a few of my friends (the ones I don't know through shooting) go clay shooting. My partner also shoots and I've got to know a few other shooters through airsoft, and some of my ex-army friends also shoot now.

 

[carebear]

*sigh* It seems clear that the time is not far off when the UK will be conducting Fresh Fruit Amnestys, in an effort to reduce the number of serious or fatal fresh fruit attacks with bananas, bunches of loganberries, and passionfruit.

http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/Self-defenseAgainstFruit

Colonel (Graham Chapman): get some discipline into those chaps, Sergeant
Major!

Sargeant (John Cleese, shouting throughout): Right sir! Good evening, class.

All (mumbling): Good evening.

Sargeant: Where's all the others, then?

All: They're not here.

Sgt.: I can see that. What's the matter with them?

All: Dunno.

Chapman (member of class): Perhaps they've got 'flu.

Sgt.: Huh! 'Flu, eh? They should eat more fresh fruit. Ha. Right. Now,
self-defence. Tonight I shall be carrying on from where we got to last
week when I was showing you how to defend yourselves against anyone who
attacks you with armed with a piece of fresh fruit.

(Grumbles from all)

Palin: Oh, you promised you wouldn't do fruit this week.

Sgt.: What do you mean?

Jones: We've done fruit the last nine weeks.

Sgt.: What's wrong with fruit? You think you know it all, eh?

Palin: Can't we do something else?

Idle (Welsh): Like someone who attacks you with a pointed stick?

Sgt.: Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit...

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

My first instinct was to say "You can damn well try, I'll be waiting for you." but on second thoughs, it might do the country some good so please, get over here

Maybe something more along the lines of Red Dawn, rolling in, handing out weapons to the citizens to fight back
I'd never trust a government that disarms it's citizens...or do they still consider you "subjects"?
Heaven forbid a country over there gets completely taken over by the next group of protesting muslim radicals with little or no resistance. The neutering of cultures will continue as long as the gub'ment and liberals feel it's "acceptance", while citizens watch in horror on the news that their patriotism is not only no longer acceptable, but racist.

 

[Fosbery]

I have no qualms with being regarded as a 'subject', I still am technically. I'm not a huge fan of the monarchy, but I'd rather be loyal to them than to the government. As my sig proudly declares "the subjects shall have arms for their defence".

Actually, there's a bit of trouble in the courts because of this! You see, the Home Office decided in 1949 that 'self defence' would no longer be a 'good reason' to own a firearm (you need a good reason to own one, and before then pretty much anything went). So now, you have to say 'target shooting', 'hunting', or 'collecting' or some such to get a firearm (I use taret shooting because I do). In 1968, the Firearms Act made it illegal to carry a firearm in public without 'good reason or lawful authority' and 'self defence' was ruled out as a good reason.

Now, it's been assumed in previous court cases that these laws and guidelines repealed the English Bill of Rights and the Coronation Act, which stated "the subjects shall have arms for their defence" (EBOR) and made it an Englisman's duty to attend a breach of the peace to restore order, armed if nescessary (CA). However, a judge recently ruled that the Bill of Rights cannot, by definition, be repealled! So really...the law is illegal. Doubt anything will come of it though, they'll find some way around it.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Wow Fosbery that's interesting! I was wondering why there wasn't a right to keep arms but it seems like the gov't just decided to toss it out. We Americans should keep this in mind.
By giving up your arms you give up the ability to stop the government from doing anything it dang well pleases.
That's nice that target shooting takes precedence over self defense. I mean that's ok to watch your wife or kids get raped and killed right? Just as long as those paper targets don't escape the range unscathed.

 

[Cromlech]

Fosbery is spot on.

The Americans on this board need not fear any instantaneous dis-arming of citizens.

You should, however, fear the growing state of apathy within your country when it comes to liberty and personal freedoms. As I am sure most of you are aware, your rights will not be stolen overnight. They will be eroded, undermined and eventually terminated. This is a gradual process, aided by the apathy of those who do nothing.

I'm not bitter. Honest.

 

[1911Tuner]

Subject

Quote:


>I have no qualms with being regarded as a 'subject'..<

I do. I read it as being "subject" to the whims of a master...which I am decidedly NOT!

 

[Fosbery]

Ours started in 1920 with the introduction of firearms licensing to avoid a revolution. That's fine by me on it's own. But then in the 30's automatic weapons were banned, self-defence ownership was stopped in 1949, automatic knives were banned in the 50's, public carry was banned in 1968 and licesning laws were tightened, self-loading rifles (except .22 LRs) were banned in 1988, handguns (with some exceptions including rimfire pistols) were banned in 1996 and finally rimfire pistols were banned in 1997 (what POSSIBLE danger does a rimfire pistol pose, even in the hands of a murderer!?).

Eighty years of slow errosion of our rights. I fought against both the self-loading rifle ban and both handgun bans, unsuccesfully. Ironically, these laws are what changed my mind on the issue of general public ownership. If the government could do this, it could do anything. An armed citizenry was what was needed to stop it.

 

[Cromlech]

I was too young to do anything (Born 1985). I was three years old at Hungerford and 12 years old at Dunblane.

My first memory of a serious interest in guns/firearms was buying copies of Airgunner and Gun Mart in 1994. I only remember this because it was the year I went to Butlins in Minehead and watched 'Batman Forever'. It is strange to think I was buying those magazines at age nine.

My first real taste of firearms was in the Army Cadet Force with L98A1s in 5.56mm and Lee Enfield No.8s in .22LR. I did get to use the L86A1 (LSW) on occasion, but by the time I left the Cadets they were mostly reserved for Iraq.

The problem is that there just aren't enough in my generation (And younger ones) that have been able to take up target shooting without jumping through many legal 'hoops' to get there, so to speak.

 

[iapetus]

Subject

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

Quote:


>I have no qualms with being regarded as a 'subject'..<

I do. I read it as being "subject" to the whims of a master...which I am decidedly NOT!

Officially, we in the UK are Citizens, not Subjects. (Until relatively recently, both catagories existed. "Citizens" were I think those naturalised in the UK, or born to naturalized parents, and had full residency rights; "British Subjects" were people from certain Dependancies/ Protectorates, and didn't have unlimited rights to move to the UK).

Interestingly, in the UK, it tends to be the Left who most vocally objects to being "subjects", and I have very occasionally seen letters to newspapers by dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, complaining about the government overriding their status as Loyal Subjects of the Queen and making them into citizens ("a totalitarian, French concept", I think was one correspondent's damning opinion).

 

[1911Tuner]

Subjects

Well...I can assure you that I'm neither liberal nor left-wing...and if someone should refer to me as a subject...or specifically "their" subject, I'm afraid that
I'd probably become verbally abusive. We stopped being subjects on April 19th of 1775 at a little place known as Lexington Green.

Tally ho!