Iraqi gun owners stop UK style gun confiscation
Ignoramus32229
still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
below)
Another thought: it has been claimed many times that the ability of
the people to own weapons is irrelevant as far as defense of their own
country is concerned. The gun haters would say, what can a small AK-47
or an RPG do against an armada of attack helicopters, submarines and
tanks.
Well, it turns out that civilians in a well armed nation can fight
invaders better than its own army. Turns out that you cannot control a
country with attack helicopters or submarines. Just like in
Afghanistan, the current occupiers of Iraq will probably find
themselves confined and surrounded in garrisons, unable to control
anything and even unable to steal as much of Iraqi oil as they wanted.
See this article:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030626/ts_nm/iraq_attack_dc
It is not too late to withdraw from Iraq, apologize to the Iraqi
people as well as to our own citizens, and perhaps compensate Iraq for
its destruction.
i
======================================================================
LONDON, June 27 (AFP) - The British army has ordered searches for
weapons to be suspended in the area of southern Iraq where six British
military police were killed this week, the Independent newspaper
reported Friday.
The military has agreed to a two-month cooling-off period in Al-Majar
Al-Kabir, a Shiite town in British-controlled southern Iraq, about
mid-way between Baghdad and Iraq's second city of Basra, the paper
said.
The Independent added that the policy may be extended to other areas
while a review takes place on whether the local civilian population is
allowed to carry guns.
The six soldiers Tuesday became the first British troops to die in a
hostile incident since US President George W. Bush declared the Iraq
war over on May 1.
Several London-based newspapers reported that the troops displayed
photographs of their wives and children after surrendering in a last
attempt to save themselves as they were cornered in a police station
by an angry mob.
Ali Al-Ateya, a radio journalist who had followed the British soldiers
as they entered Al-Majar Al-Kabir, told the Daily Express: "They
wanted to show them, 'We are just like you, look we have wives and
children too'.
"They hoped this would save them from the killers but it did not. They
were not shown mercy."
British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said in London Thursday that the
killing of the six soldiers may have been triggered by a
misunderstanding over an end to weapons searches.
Hoon said: "I think, certainly, that the fact that we have decided to
call off (weapons) searches on Monday clearly hadn't been properly
understood by the local population, and not communicated properly to
them."
Shaun
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
>If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
>still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
>below)
>
Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
Ignoramus32229
They may stil have some antiquated pieces locked up at gun clubs. But
Brits do not, "enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms". And now they
want to disarm Iraqis. How disgusting. By The Way, I am adamantly
against the aggression against Iraq.
i
William Black
"Ignoramus32229" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnbfp60c.bse...@manifold.algebra.com...
> In article <r65pfvkrudfca1tnh...@4ax.com>, Shaun wrote:
> > On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
> > <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
> > >still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
> > >below)
> > >
> > Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
> > they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> They may stil have some antiquated pieces locked up at gun clubs.
Mine are locked in a steel cabinet and were all manufactured after 1980.
I'm even thinking of getting a pistol or two, black powder of course...
But why let the truth get in the way of your ideas...
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Ignoramus32229
Are you serious about suggesting that you are free to own guns, if you
can only own blackpowder pistols? ROTFLMAO.
i
Robert Frenchu
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Ignoramus32229" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote in message
>news:slrnbfp60c.bse...@manifold.algebra.com...
>> In article <r65pfvkrudfca1tnh...@4ax.com>, Shaun wrote:
>> > On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
>> > <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > >If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
>> > >still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
>> > >below)
>> > >
>> > Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
>> > they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
>>
>> They may stil have some antiquated pieces locked up at gun clubs.
>
>Mine are locked in a steel cabinet and were all manufactured after 1980.
>
>I'm even thinking of getting a pistol or two, black powder of course...
Why not a nice new Springfield 1911-TRP
http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-trp.shtml
or maybe an HK USP 40
http://www.hecklerkoch-usa.com/pages/civilian/uspframeset.html
How much do they go for at your local gun shop?
[alt.support.marriage,alt.support.divorce removed from followups]
AlanG
You aren't allowed to have a gun if the police decide you can't have
one.
This is not the same as the situation that existed when I was born
where the police had to have a damn good reason to stop any adult
owning a gun and when a 14 yr old could quite legally get a shotgun
cert over the post office counter.
--
Alan G
"The corporate life [of society] must be
subservient to the lives of the parts instead
of the lives of the parts being subservient to
the corporate life."
(Herbert Spencer)
AlanG
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Ignoramus32229" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote in message
>news:slrnbfp60c.bse...@manifold.algebra.com...
>> In article <r65pfvkrudfca1tnh...@4ax.com>, Shaun wrote:
>> > On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
>> > <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > >If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
>> > >still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
>> > >below)
>> > >
>> > Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
>> > they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
>>
>> They may stil have some antiquated pieces locked up at gun clubs.
>
>Mine are locked in a steel cabinet and were all manufactured after 1980.
Cos if they weren't the police would take them off you.
>
>I'm even thinking of getting a pistol or two, black powder of course...
>
>But why let the truth get in the way of your ideas...
Indeed
JHBennett
"AlanG" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:igapfvos397p8db5f...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:07:49 +0100, Shaun
> <shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
>
> >On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
> ><ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
> >>still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
> >>below)
> >>
> >Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
> >they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> You aren't allowed to have a gun if the police decide you can't have
> one.
>
> This is not the same as the situation that existed when I was born
> where the police had to have a damn good reason to stop any adult
> owning a gun and when a 14 yr old could quite legally get a shotgun
> cert over the post office counter.
>
sighted, 22 automatic rifle at Western Auto, the legal requirement was $25.
My first 22 revolver was a High Standard at age 15. By then the legal
requirement I had to meet was $65. Of course, I did have my Boy Scout
Marksmanship Merit Badge, but nobody asked to see it. Then, not many months
later, I did get a 45 ACP, Model 1911-A1, from the US Government, via
Director of Civilian Marksmanship, for $25. The postman delivered it to our
house, while I was at school.
Cheers,
Jack B *USA*
William Black
> <shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
>
> >On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
> ><ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
> >>still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
> >>below)
> >>
> >Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
> >they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> You aren't allowed to have a gun if the police decide you can't have
> one.
Not true.
To refuse a certificate the police must have a reason as laid down in law or
as directed by the Secretary of State.
And you can appeal against their decision, and if you're a member of any
one of several shooting organisations they'll pay your legal bills.
Anything else you want to know, oh, I forgot, you know everything about
UK firearms legislation...
William Black
"Ignoramus32229" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote in message
English obviously isn't your first language.
Try and read it again.
I currently don't actually own any pistols at all.
I own a couple of shotguns, oh, and a cannon...
Dersu
>
> British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said in London Thursday that the
> killing of the six soldiers may have been triggered by a
> misunderstanding over an end to weapons searches.
>
> Hoon said: "I think, certainly, that the fact that we have decided to
> call off (weapons) searches on Monday clearly hadn't been properly
> understood by the local population, and not communicated properly to
> them."
Does anyone here really believe this? Jesus H. f---ing Christ are there no
depths of despicability to which the British Government will not stoop?
D.
Dersu
> where the police had to have a damn good reason to stop any adult
> owning a gun and when a 14 yr old could quite legally get a shotgun
> cert over the post office counter.
Quite so. When I bought my first gun in Britain I had to go to the Post
Office and buy a ten bob gun licence first. I then travelled on the tube to
Uxbridge where I handed over my hard earned sixty nine pounds at an
ironmongers shop (remember them?) and went home with my brand new AA Model 4
in a canvas gun slip I had bought a few weeks earlier by mail order for a
pound. On the way home I stopped at Marshals (another ironmongers) in
Ruislip High Street to pick up two boxes of Eely Grand Prox - they were a
shilling a box cheaper there than in Uxbridge if memory serves. No, Bill,
you are no longer at all free to own firearms in Britain. And this is just
one of the things that is so very sad about Britain these days. The British
public have lost so much since about 1965 but so apathetic have most people
become that they don't even realise what has gone forever.
D.
Gunner
<shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
Yup..all the pump shotguns, the semiautomatic 22s and the FN-FALs are
simply a drop in the bucket, compared to the vast numbers of handguns
in British hands. Correct?
Gunner
"personal weapons are the ultimate decentralization of political power."
Mort
"Shaun" <shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote in message
news:r65pfvkrudfca1tnh...@4ax.com...
I thought it was about 700,000?
Shaun
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:07:49 +0100, Shaun
><shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
>>>still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
>>>below)
>>>
>>Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
>>they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
>
>Yup..all the pump shotguns, the semiautomatic 22s and the FN-FALs are
>simply a drop in the bucket, compared to the vast numbers of handguns
>in British hands. Correct?
Yes, only 1 in a thousand people now own a handgun now they are
illegal. Thats how much British citizens have been disarmed
whoops, that shoud read:
Only 1 in a thousand people owned a handgun when they were legal.
Thats how little British citizens have been disarmed
Gunner
<shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 09:37:15 GMT, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:07:49 +0100, Shaun
>><shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
>>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
>>>>still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
>>>>below)
>>>>
>>>Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
>>>they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
>>
>>Yup..all the pump shotguns, the semiautomatic 22s and the FN-FALs are
>>simply a drop in the bucket, compared to the vast numbers of handguns
>>in British hands. Correct?
>
>Yes, only 1 in a thousand people now own a handgun now they are
>illegal. Thats how much British citizens have been disarmed
>
>whoops, that shoud read:
>
>Only 1 in a thousand people owned a handgun when they were legal.
>Thats how little British citizens have been disarmed
http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/fl26bots.htm
http://reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/It_Isn't_About_Duck_Hunting.htm
A sterling example
By Kevin Baker
web posted March 5, 2001
England is pointed to by the gun control forces as the exemplary case
of the way gun control should be done: a sterling example. They credit
British gun control with being responsible for the extremely low rates
of firearm-involved homicide experienced there. They point at the
licensing, registration and storage laws implemented by the British as
models to use here. They praise Britain's recent bans on rifles,
shotguns, and all handguns as "common sense" solutions to the large
homicide problem we have here in the U.S.
I don't think so. Americans are not the British. Gun owners here have
been paying attention to what has happened in England, too. We know
the facts that the gun control forces don't tell you, and we don't
like what we've seen. While gun owners are a minority in this country,
we are a much larger minority than in England, and we have the Second
Amendment to point to, where the British do not. We are vocal and very
politically active, and we will not sit by and allow to happen here
what British gun owners were unable to stop. Here are some facts that
you just possibly were not aware of, because Handgun Control, the
Violence Policy Center, and the other "gun control" proponents don't
think it important enough to tell you:
"Gun Control" started in England about 1920. There were various
measures before that, but after the turmoil of World War I there was
fear of armed insurrection by communist controlled labor groups
brought on by the overthrow of the Russian government. The Firearms
Act of 1920 required registration of all handguns and rifles and
restricted them only to people who could prove they had "good reason"
for them. Shotguns and air guns were exempted, as they were perceived
to have only "sporting" purposes. Though the legislation was written
because of a fear of civil unrest, it was presented to Parliament as a
crime control measure. There were a total of 313 homicides recorded in
England and Wales in 1920, and only a small percentage were committed
with firearms.
In 1937 the laws were further tightened. Following the example of and
amplifying on our 1934 Gun Control Act, the British outlawed
fully-automatic weapons and short-barreled shotguns. If you had
registered your war-trophy from W.W.I., or if you had purchased a
perfectly legal Tommy-gun with your firearms permit, you had to turn
it in. England didn't outlaw alcohol as the U.S. had done, so they
didn't have a problem with machine-gun toting gangsters. There were a
total of 361 homicides in England in 1936.
The "next step" (and isn't there always a next step?) came with the
1953 Prevention of Crime Act. This made it illegal to carry an
"offensive weapon" without being able to demonstrate a need for it.
Offensive weapons included knives, pointed objects, and tear gas along
with firearms. Ownership of a handgun for self-defense was no longer
considered a reasonable need. After all, you were prohibited by law
from carrying it. There were 327 reported homicides in England in
1953.
Next came "sporting" shotguns. After a heinous murder in which three
police officers were killed with unregistered handguns, the Parliament
took action! The Criminal Justice Act of 1967 (later consolidated into
the Firearms Act of 1968) required owners to register their formerly
innocuous shotguns, and gave the police the power to refuse
registration if they felt that possession of a shotgun by the
registrant would "endanger public safety". How this action could have
possibly had any effect on the murders of three policemen with
handguns was not addressed in the debate. Now all firearms were
subject to licensing and registration, and two types had been banned.
In 1967 the total number of reported homicides in England was 412.
There were a few other less sweeping laws passed in the interim, but
in 1987 Michael Ryan, a licensed firearms owner, took a semiautomatic
pistol, an AK-47 type rifle and an M1 carbine and went on a killing
spree in Hungerford, England. He murdered 16 people before committing
suicide. A few days later, a double murder was committed with a
shotgun. The press, those stalwart defenders of the public, of course
went crazy. There were a total of 159,000 firearms certificates held
by English citizens at that time, and only a small percentage of the
permit holders owned semi-automatic rifles. There were 861,300 shotgun
certificates on file. The law shoved through Parliament and enacted in
1988 banned all semi-automatic rifles and all pump-action rifles as
well. Owners of shotguns that could hold more than two shells were now
required to get the more stringent Firearms certificate.
British Home Secretary Douglas Hurd reportedly told an audience that
most the provisions in the 1988 Firearm Act had been (not
surprisingly) prepared long before Hungerford, and the government had
been waiting for the right moment to implement them. In 1987 there
were 621 murders reported in England. Firearms were used to commit 78
of them. The Hungerford Massacre represented over 20% of those 78
murders.
Surely the British were safe now? No. In 1996 Thomas Hamilton, another
licensed firearm owner took four handguns and several hundred rounds
of ammunition and went to a school in Dunblane Scotland where he
proceeded to kill sixteen children and a teacher. He was a suspected
child molester. He had been refused membership at several gun clubs
(membership being a requirement for holding a firearms license). He
had lied on his application form. People had filed complaints with the
police asking that they pull his license. Nothing was done. Hamilton,
with all the restrictive laws already passed by the British
government, was free to kill with impunity. He could just have easily
done it with illegal firearms.
The predictable result - more banning. From a British Home Office
report (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb2698.pdf ):
"Following the shooting incident in Dunblane, Scotland, in March 1996,
changes to the existing firearms legislation were introduced to
increase public safety (my emphasis). The resulting Firearms
(Amendment) Act 1997 banned all handguns over .22 calibre with effect
from 1 October 1997. A hand-in exercise took place between 1 July and
30 September 1997 which resulted in 110,382 of these larger calibre
handguns being surrendered in England and Wales, while 24,620 smaller
calibre handguns were handed in voluntarily in anticipation of further
legislation (my emphasis). The remaining large calibre handguns held
on certificate include muzzle-loading guns, signaling apparatus,
firearms used for the humane killing of animals, war trophies etc. All
handguns were subsequently prohibited from 1 February 1998)." All
handguns including the .22 caliber handguns that had not been outlawed
in the earlier ban. I doubt seriously that Americans would turn in
guns in anticipation of further legislation.
Alan Michael of the British Home Office announced after passage of the
Act: "Britain now has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. We
recognize that only the strictest control of firearms will protect the
public." As of today British citizens are allowed to own only antique
muzzle-loading firearms, shotguns capable of holding no more than two
shells, and some rifles. Most are required to store their firearms in
secure cabinets separate from the ammunition. The instructions
provided by the government concerning what constitutes "safe storage"
covers 15 pages. Firearms must be stored in a secure locker that is
tamper proof and physically attached to the building. What constitutes
"tamper proof" is up to local law-enforcement to define.
Ammunition must be stored separately in another secured safe. No one
but the licensed firearms owner is allowed to have access to his
firearms. (A retired lawyer lost his shotgun license because he told
his mother where the key to the gun safe was stored!) The police must
be provided with a map of the premises, and must be allowed to inspect
the premises without advanced notice to ensure compliance. If the
registrant refuses, his license is taken and he must give up his
registered guns.
In 1996 there were 670 murders in England, 49 of them committed with
firearms (this does not include the Scottish statistics that would
reflect the Dunblane massacre.) In 1997 there were 726 murders
reported in England, 59 committed with firearms. In 1998 there were
745 murders; in 1999, 679; and in 2000, 739 - 42 committed with
handguns! According to news reports, crime committed with handguns
(all of them are banned, remember) is higher now than it has been in
the last ten years.
From http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,416546,00.html:
"Guns were once carried only to commit the most serious offences, but
police now say they are increasingly used by small-time crooks such as
burglars and low-level drug dealers.
"Nationally, one murder in 20 is now carried out with a firearm. The
number of illegally held guns is estimated at three million, a third
more than at the time of the 1996 Dunblane massacre." (Emphasis mine)
According to other news reports, handguns are available for a mere
£200 (about $300), but fully-automatic Eastern-bloc weapons are also
available, and are becoming the "weapon of choice" among the gangs
dealing in drugs.
The total homicide rate (deaths per 100,000 population) in England has
averaged about 1/8th that of the United States every year since 1920,
though with the recent U.S. homicide rate trending down and the UK
rate trending up, this ratio no longer holds true. In addition,
homicide with a firearm has always been comparatively rare in England
- usually about 5% of the total number of homicides - regardless of
the firearms laws in place.
If anything, the restrictive firearms laws in England may have made
other crimes worse. Violent crime in England has been on the increase
since the 1950's. There were 69 recorded violent crimes per 100,000
people in the English population in 1958. This figure rose to reach
674 in 1997. According to British newspaper reports, things have
gotten worse still. Government statistics revealed that while the
total level of crime fell 0.2% between October of 1999 and September
of 2000, there was an increase in assaults and muggings. Violent crime
went up 8% and robbery 21%. Violent crime in England has increased in
nine of the last ten years, but last year's hike was only half of the
previous year's increase.
In June of last year, Dan Rather (of all people) reported on the CBS
Evening News: "This summer thousands of Americans will travel to
Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. And
in many ways it is that. But now, like the U.S., the UK has a crime
problem. And believe it or not, except for murder, theirs is worse
than ours." In that same segment CBS correspondent Tom Fenton
reported: "This year there have already been hundreds of shootings in
British cities, dozens in London alone, three of them in one evening."
The figures Mr. Rather quoted came from a 1998 U.S. Bureau of Justice
Statistics report (available at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cjusew96.pdf - take the time to
download and read through it - very enlightening) that was based on
figures from 1995. This data was backed up by a 1998 British Home
Office report that showed England and Wales as having the second
highest victimization rate for all crimes (the Netherlands leads the
list, the U.S. came in seventh) and the highest rate of "contact
crime" - defined as "robbery, sexual, and other assaults". The U.S.
came in second.
The British have effectively disarmed their law-abiding citizens. The
government has made carrying any sort of weapon for self defense
punishable by up to ten years in prison. The government has promised
the people that each and every additional infringement on their rights
will make them safer, and they have lied to them every single time.
The English don't kill each other with firearms (or with much of
anything else) because, apparently, killing isn't cricket in jolly old
England - not because of any gun laws that have been foisted on the
public in the name of safety. Instead, the laws that have been passed
have made the British public less safe, unprotected victims just
waiting to be preyed on by the growing class of those willing to break
the law. What is the response of Parliament? Now they want to restrict
air rifles!
Since 1920 England has enacted more and more draconian gun
legislation, one step at a time, with the advertised purpose of making
its citizens safer. Remember the words of Alan Michael: "Britain now
has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. We recognize that only
the strictest control of firearms will protect the public." If that
has been their true aim, they have failed. While still low, England
now has a overall homicide rate nearly double what it had when it
began enacting gun control legislation. They have a higher
firearm-related homicide rate, even though it has "some of the
toughest gun laws in the world". They have achieved a violent crime
rate higher than even the United States.
What a sterling example of gun control for the U.S. to study! England
proves what gun-rights activists have said all along: Disarming the
law-abiding is worse than useless, it's counterproductive. "
http://www.capital.demon.co.uk/LA/political/gunconuk.htm
http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/guns2.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm
By Joyce L Malcolm
Author and academic
As gun crime leaps by 35% in a year, plans are afoot for a further
crack down on firearms. Yet what we need is more guns, not fewer, says
a US academic.
"If guns are outlawed," an American bumper sticker warns, "only
outlaws will have guns." With gun crime in Britain soaring in the face
of the strictest gun control laws of any democracy, the UK seems about
to prove that warning prophetic.
For 80 years the safety of the British people has been staked on the
premise that fewer private guns means less crime, indeed that any
weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a
danger.
Government assured Britons they needed no weapons, society would
protect them. If that were so in 1920 when the first firearms
restrictions were passed, or in 1953 when Britons were forbidden to
carry any article for their protection, it no longer is.
The failure of this general disarmament to stem, or even slow, armed
and violent crime could not be more blatant. According to a recent UN
study, England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record
for "very serious" offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed.
But would allowing law-abiding people to "have arms for their
defence", as the 1689 English Bill of Rights promised, increase
violence? Would Britain be following America's bad example?
The 'wild west' image is out of date
Old stereotypes die hard and the vision of Britain as a peaceable
kingdom, America as "the wild west culture on the other side of the
Atlantic" is out of date. It is true that in contrast to Britain's
tight gun restrictions, half of American households have firearms, and
33 states now permit law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.
But despite, or because, of this, violent crime in America has been
plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been
rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher
than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New
York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed
individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but
criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A
study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the
police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when
people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.
Concealed weapon can be carried in 33 states
Much is made of the higher American rate for murder. That is true and
has been for some time. But as the Office of Health Economics in
London found, not weapons availability, but "particular cultural
factors" are to blame.
A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New
York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although
for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted
access to firearms.
When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A
government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun
homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for
both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7
times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and
by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as "in
startling free-fall" and British rates as of October 2002 the highest
for 100 years the two are on a path to converge.
Gun crime rates between UK and US are narrowing
The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force
comes at a high social cost.
First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect
everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent
monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets.
And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at
the mercy of thugs.
According to Glanville Williams in his Textbook of Criminal Law,
self-defence is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt
on whether it still forms part of the law".
Nearly a century before that American bumper sticker was slapped on
the first bumper, the great English jurist, AV Dicey cautioned:
"Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of
ruffians." He knew public safety is not enhanced by depriving people
of their right to personal safety.
Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor of history, is author of Guns and
Violence: The English Experience, published in June 2002.
############
The death of the English Bill of Rights
http://www.downunderwebsites.com/selfdefencebritishcons1.htm#3
Btw... are you aware., that before 1920, (later banned completely in
1936) it was completely legal for a Brit to walk into a gun store and
purchase a fully automatic machine gun and carry it out?
Oh the carnage. Not.
Gunner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...and biotechnology is a worry. What if they take genetic material from wet noodles and blowfish and splice it into politician chromosomes and create a Clinton administration?" -- P.J. Rourke, All the trouble in the world. The lighter side of famine, pestilence, destruction and death.
Colin Wilson
> larger minority than in England, and we have the Second Amendment
> to point to
I wonder if the founding fathers ever expected such powerful weapons to
be available to the public though. Certainly not automatic weapons I
would have thought.
Perhaps the right to bear arms should be restricted to the sort of
crude weapons readily available when the 2nd amendment was made, and not
the super-efficient killing machines they have become.
What use is an automatic weapon to a housewife ? hunter ? the public ?
Why should automatic weapons be of any use at all to the general public
if not to kill people in large numbers.
The right to bear arms was probably envisaged to allow people to protect
themselves, not wipe out half the neighbourhood in a matter of seconds.
AlanG
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"AlanG" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:igapfvos397p8db5f...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:07:49 +0100, Shaun
>> <shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
>> ><ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >>If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
>> >>still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
>> >>below)
>> >>
>> >Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
>> >they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
>>
>> You aren't allowed to have a gun if the police decide you can't have
>> one.
>
>Not true.
>
>To refuse a certificate the police must have a reason as laid down in law or
>as directed by the Secretary of State.
That's correct. The police can decide you are not a fit and proper
person. As I said "The police can stop you owning a gun"
>
>And you can appeal against their decision, and if you're a member of any
>one of several shooting organisations they'll pay your legal bills.
And if you are not a member of any organisation and don't fulfill any
of the conditions laid down as good reason to own a gun then you can't
have one.
>
>Anything else you want to know, oh, I forgot, you know everything about
>UK firearms legislation...
Possibly as much as you do matey.
AlanG
wrote:
> Jesus H. f---ing Christ are there no
>depths of despicability to which the British Government will not stoop?
>
any student of history will tell you no
Ignoramus32229
> > While gun owners are a minority in this country, we are a much
> > larger minority than in England, and we have the Second Amendment
> > to point to
>
> I wonder if the founding fathers ever expected such powerful weapons to
> be available to the public though. Certainly not automatic weapons I
> would have thought.
Why do you suppose that the founding fathers were so stupid as to
expect no progress in development of firearms? They have improved
dramatically in years before the bill of rights was adopted, and there
is no reason to suppose that they would nto expect further progress.
> Perhaps the right to bear arms should be restricted to the sort of
> crude weapons readily available when the 2nd amendment was made, and not
> the super-efficient killing machines they have become.
The right to keep and bear arms was put in for the preservation of
free state. To accomplish that, armed civilians should be generally on
par with the standing armies as far as their war fighting capability
is concerned.
As we can see now in Iraq, armed Iraqi citizens are inflicting serious
losses in the "coalition" occupiers, and severely restricting their
ability to maneuver. So the founding fathers idea that armed citizens
could oppose a real army, is working great in Iraq.
As Iraqi resistance picks up, there is a real chance that Iraqis will
kick the oil thieving occupiers out of their country.
> What use is an automatic weapon to a housewife ? hunter ? the public ?
Ask any Iraqi...
> Why should automatic weapons be of any use at all to the general public
> if not to kill people in large numbers.
In the right circumstances, such as what exist now in Iraq, killing
enemies in large numbers is precisely what they need.
Having said that, I personally believe that the automatic fire
capability is largely not very useful, and that semiautomatic rifles
are not much worse than automatics as far as their military usefulness
is concerned.
> The right to bear arms was probably envisaged to allow people to protect
> themselves, not wipe out half the neighbourhood in a matter of seconds.
Yes, but they may need to protect themselves from more than a mere
burglar.
My street number sign was recently vandalised. My consolation to that
was that my firearms protected me inside my house.
i
Shaun
wrote:
Snipped but in summary:
UK gun control hasn't worked because people still set shot at a 500th
of US levels
Crime has gone up because criminals no longer fear being shot from the
50,000 handgun owners who didnt own them for self defence and can buy
other guns anyway
.
Joseph Finlay
Ignoramus32229 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> writes
and bear arms" The reason is so simple even for you. WE HAVE NO WISH TO
BECOME LIKE YOU!!!
--
Joe Finlay
Colin Wilson
> losses in the "coalition" occupiers, and severely restricting their
> ability to maneuver. So the founding fathers idea that armed citizens
> could oppose a real army, is working great in Iraq.
I wasn`t referring to gun control outside of the US, as the 2nd amendment
should not be enforced outside of US soil.
> As Iraqi resistance picks up, there is a real chance that Iraqis will
> kick the oil thieving occupiers out of their country.
And to that, I couldn`t possibly comment, except to say we shouldn`t be
there in the first place.
I believe Iraq should have the right to defend itself against an armed
incursion by enemy forces. That includes the downing of places in "no-
fly" zones imposed by an enemy state over their own airspace.
Colin Wilson
Except the public are not at war. At least - they SHOULDN'T be.
> >Why should automatic weapons be of any use at all to the general public
> >if not to kill people in large numbers.
> If it's you v. a rampaging horde, or an invading army, or whatever,
> killing people in large numbers might be just what you need to do.
What are the odds of (much as i`d like to see it) the US being invaded ?
There is no justification for these weapons to be available to the
public.
Would you also applaud the rights of a (possibly pissed) citizen to own a
nuclear or chemical weapon ? (they`d only be applying their right to bear
arms after all)
Herb Martin
> and bear arms" The reason is so simple even for you. WE HAVE NO WISH TO
> BECOME LIKE YOU!!!
Hey, once you grow up as second class citizens
to your royalty, why should you wish to change?
Melissa
>> While gun owners are a minority in this country, we are a much
>> larger minority than in England, and we have the Second Amendment
>> to point to
>
> I wonder if the founding fathers ever expected such powerful weapons to
> be available to the public though.
At the time of the founding of the U.S., the 2nd Amendment even covered
warships and cannons.
> Certainly not automatic weapons I
> would have thought.
A warship with guns firing as fast as they could be reloaded, was as close
to an automatic weapon as they could muster at that time, but the
principles remain the same. It's a human right to keep and bear the means
to defend life and liberty.
> Perhaps the right to bear arms should be restricted to the sort of
> crude weapons readily available when the 2nd amendment was made, and not
> the super-efficient killing machines they have become.
Why? They are safe in the hands of good people, either way.
> What use is an automatic weapon to a housewife ? hunter ? the public ?
It's not a bill of needs, it's a Bill of Rights.
> Why should automatic weapons be of any use at all to the general public
> if not to kill people in large numbers.
It's like saying that someone shouldn't be allowed to own a Porsche because
what good are they on the city streets in 30 MPH traffic?
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within
the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and
always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas
Jefferson
You just sound like the usual tyrant.
> The right to bear arms was probably envisaged to allow people to protect
> themselves, not wipe out half the neighbourhood in a matter of seconds.
Straw man hyperbole.
--
Yours In Liberty, Melissa - Colorado, U.S.A.
West Denver area -> Shaolin-based Martial arts, Rock music, Sci-Fi, Chess,
Libertarian, Objectivist, Chess, RKBA & Shooting.
Guns PROTECT life and liberty, plus they're a LOT of fun to shoot!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fans_of_Melissa/
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/readinglist.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GunsSaveLives
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Women_To_Arms/
Spread the American Revolution: http://www.UPAlliance.org/
Herb Martin
> be available to the public though. Certainly not automatic weapons I
> would have thought.
>
better.
> Perhaps the right to bear arms should be restricted to the sort of
> crude weapons readily available when the 2nd amendment was made, and not
> the super-efficient killing machines they have become.
No, they intended AT LEAST the personal arms of the infantryman
soldier or marine.
Automatic weapons should actually be included since that is the normal
infrantry firearm.
> The right to bear arms was probably envisaged to allow people to protect
> themselves, not wipe out half the neighbourhood in a matter of seconds.
Shows how little you know about firearms and overlooks that for such
projects as you envision above, bombs and arson would have a better
chance.
The best thing about Columbine is the two idiots fooled around with
firearms instead of getting their BOMBS to work -- with a bit of attention
or even a bit of luck, they would have blown up the entire school.
Melissa
...
> 98 per cent of the British population do not want "the freedom to keep
> and bear arms"
When were they asked? If true, it only means they're willing serviles.
"Two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over
one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural
rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them
is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether
committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name
indicating his true character), or by millions calling themselves a
government." - Lysander Spooner
> The reason is so simple even for you. WE HAVE NO WISH TO
> BECOME LIKE YOU!!!
Lying shitbag.
Gunner
99% Not 99.012%?
Not 75%, or 35%?
Got some cites to produce or are you, as usual, simply talking out
your ass?
Hint Joe...your violent crime rate passed ours two years ago..Id think
that becoming a bit more like us, would be a desireable thing. Your
crime rate is skyrocketing..ours is falling.
Gunner
Colin Wilson
> > should not be enforced outside of US soil.
Is that the same human rights the US blatantly flaunts by holding
kidnapped citizens of another country in Cuba ?
Colin Wilson
> test and see. I dare you.
The populace of the UK is not armed to start with, therefore it is
impossible to take you up on that "dare"
> > There is no justification for these weapons to be available to the
> > public.
> Not in the minds of tyrants like you, anyway. All the more reason why we
> should have them.
Why am I a tyrant for pointing out that guns cost lives, and that there
is no reason for them in a CIVILISED society.
Unless of course, you still think you live in the wild west.
> > Would you also applaud the rights of a (possibly pissed) citizen to own a
> > nuclear or chemical weapon ? (they`d only be applying their right to bear
> > arms after all)
> Tired ol straw man.
Too hard to answer this one was it ?
Herb Martin
> kidnapped citizens of another country in Cuba ?
Once you try to kill me or my countrymen you forfeit your
rights.
Gunner
<btiru...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> While gun owners are a minority in this country, we are a much
>> larger minority than in England, and we have the Second Amendment
>> to point to
>
>I wonder if the founding fathers ever expected such powerful weapons to
>be available to the public though. Certainly not automatic weapons I
>would have thought.
>
Given that private citizens had their own warships armed to the
gunwales with cannon, shrapnel, chain shot etc..and landlubbers had
their own cannon, loaded the same way..I suspect the Founders would
have approved. They were quite willing to employ those nasty rifled
guns that the British called so unsporting.....
>Perhaps the right to bear arms should be restricted to the sort of
>crude weapons readily available when the 2nd amendment was made, and not
>the super-efficient killing machines they have become.
Hummm so that means then..that we remove all highspeed printing
presses, telephones, tv, internet, movies etc..after all..they were
not around when the First Amendment was put to paper either. Think you
are going to enjoy getting your broadside delivered to you by a boy on
horseback and town meetings will be conducted from a keg in the common
greens?
>
>What use is an automatic weapon to a housewife ? hunter ? the public ?
What use? A heck of a lot of fun, and a really nifty check and balance
against a government run amok.
>
>Why should automatic weapons be of any use at all to the general public
>if not to kill people in large numbers.
>
Hey..what use is your penis, except to rape women and children with?
>The right to bear arms was probably envisaged to allow people to protect
>themselves, not wipe out half the neighbourhood in a matter of seconds.
Probably? You post dreck and you dont know? Read the Federalist
Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers..and get back to us when you are
done, ok?
Probably..sigh...sounds like you are hoping for your world view to not
be rocked. Sorry pal...denial is not a river in Egypt.
I suggest you do a google search on the reasons for the firefight at
Concord.
Here..let me help you:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lexington_and_Concord
And unfortunately..they still havent learned, as witnessed by the 6
dead Tommys in the last few days while attempting to confiscate Iraqi
small arms.
Gunner
Colin Wilson
> > themselves, not wipe out half the neighbourhood in a matter of seconds.
> Shows how little you know about firearms and overlooks that for such
> projects as you envision above, bombs and arson would have a better
> chance.
You are happy then that they had the right to bear arms against innocent
civillians ? If the weapons were not readily available, it couldn`t have
happened. Perhaps then, they would have tried the bomb method you point
out, so they could have killed even more effectively.
Why should kids be able to have access to something like an M16, which
pumps out 650-800 rounds per minute (depending on model) ?
Can they effectively target 800 people per minute to defend themselves ?
Gunner
<btiru...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >What use is an automatic weapon to a housewife ? hunter ? the public ?
>> The same as to the soldier.
>
>Except the public are not at war. At least - they SHOULDN'T be.
Shit happens. Need me to post a listing of the 750 million dead by
democide in the last 100 yrs?
>
>> >Why should automatic weapons be of any use at all to the general public
>> >if not to kill people in large numbers.
>> If it's you v. a rampaging horde, or an invading army, or whatever,
>> killing people in large numbers might be just what you need to do.
>
>What are the odds of (much as i`d like to see it) the US being invaded ?
>
>There is no justification for these weapons to be available to the
>public.
>
Hint..why do you think the odds of the US being invaded is so low?
I strongly suggest you remember what Kruchev had to say about the
heavily armed American peoples
>Would you also applaud the rights of a (possibly pissed) citizen to own a
>nuclear or chemical weapon ? (they`d only be applying their right to bear
>arms after all)
So you equate a FN FAL with a WMD. Correct?
Gunner
Colin Wilson
> one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural
> rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them
> is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether
> committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name
> indicating his true character), or by millions calling themselves a
> government." - Lysander Spooner
Put this into the context of an invasion force moving into somewhere like
Iraq or Afghanistan.
Herb Martin
> civillians ?
No, they were minors not legally allowed to bear arms -- they obtained
them illegally, but I am happy they didn't devote more time and skill to
the BOMBS they build.
> If the weapons were not readily available, it couldn`t have
> happened. Perhaps then, they would have tried the bomb method you point
> out, so they could have killed even more effectively.
Yes -- Probably have killed more so I am happy their bombs failed for
whatever
reason that happened even if it was the position of the stars and the moon.
> Why should kids be able to have access to something like an M16, which
> pumps out 650-800 rounds per minute (depending on model) ?
Well, first, no hand-held firearm "pumps out 650 rounds per minute" -- you
have confused cyclic rate of fire with actual throughput.
Second, kids aren't legally allowed to own these.
Gunner
<shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
Interesting summery. One Id have expected from a retarded youth of
perhaps 9, but interesting nontheless.
You did notice, while reading the cites (you did read them, being an
intelligent person with fairness and common sense, right?), that
British gun control is not only not working at reducing crime, but is
having the opposite effect.
Can you please explain to all of the readers, why many of your cops
now wear bullet resistant vests, have a machine gun locked in their
cars, and carry machine guns at the airports?
Why is your violent crime rate higher than that of the US, in nearly
every violent crime (except murder..and its gaining)? Why is your
burglary to an occupied dwelling twice that of the US?
Why are your ganstaz now carrying fully automatic machine pistols and
one can purchase a handgun at nearly any pub?
A sterling example indeed...chortle
Gunner
Colin Wilson
> >nuclear or chemical weapon ? (they`d only be applying their right to bear
> >arms after all)
> So you equate a FN FAL with a WMD. Correct?
FN FAL ? (not sure what you mean here)
Otherwise, correct. A weapon capable of killing 800 people per minute is
a weapon of mass destruction in my opinion. An M16 is such a weapon, and
is freely available.
Given the insistance that citizens have the right to bear arms, and a
nuclear weapon is, by definition, a weapon - should a citizen have the
right to own them ?
Colin Wilson
> > kidnapped citizens of another country in Cuba ?
> Once you try to kill me or my countrymen you forfeit your rights.
They have had no trial.
You do not know whether they are guilty of the charge you are making
against them.
If your government had any evidence against them, why have they not been
put on trial in a neutral country ?
What gives the US the right to invade another country, kidnap people who
may just be innocent, civillians and hold them indefinitely without
trial ?
When will they be released ? Will they be released ?
Would you uphold the same rights for another country, lets say a middle
eastern country, where the US might have taken unlawful military action.
You would obviously acknowlege their right to kidnap the invaders, yes ?
Herb Martin
> a weapon of mass destruction in my opinion. An M16 is such a weapon, and
> is freely available.
No, and M-16 is NOT such a weapon, even a SAW is not.
You obviously know little about firearms but have somewhere picked
up the "cyclic rate of fire" data -- you sound like a fool every time you
repeat that "800 rpm" crap.
An M-16 is not likely to fire more than 30-60 rounds per minute if
ANY of them are aimed.
An M-16 is also not a firearm that is easily obtained legally -- and those
that are legal have NEVER been used in any criminal acts, i.e., NFS
firearms.
Not one in the US.
Colin Wilson
> >crude weapons readily available when the 2nd amendment was made, and not
> >the super-efficient killing machines they have become.
> Hummm so that means then..that we remove all highspeed printing
> presses, telephones, tv, internet, movies etc..after all..they were
> not around when the First Amendment was put to paper either.
But these other things you mention are not weapons.
> >What use is an automatic weapon to a housewife ? hunter ? the public ?
> What use? A heck of a lot of fun, and a really nifty check and balance
> against a government run amok.
Perhaps you should take down the government then...
> >Why should automatic weapons be of any use at all to the general public
> >if not to kill people in large numbers.
> Hey..what use is your penis, except to rape women and children with?
If you have nothing more creative to add, please keep these fantasies of
yours to yourself.
> >The right to bear arms was probably envisaged to allow people to protect
> >themselves, not wipe out half the neighbourhood in a matter of seconds.
> Probably? You post dreck and you dont know? Read the Federalist
> Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers..and get back to us when you are
> done, ok?
I`ll pass thanks, as I don`t give a damn what it says.
> Probably..sigh...sounds like you are hoping for your world view to not
> be rocked. Sorry pal...denial is not a river in Egypt.
And the US of A is not the only way.
Melissa
>> > I wasn`t referring to gun control outside of the US, as the 2nd
Too bad you defend international terrorists, but your friends are being
held because they were illegal combatants in Afghanistan. In short, war
criminals.
Melissa
What a coincidence, 70% of our states now have will-issue concealed carry.
Melissa
>> >Perhaps the right to bear arms should be restricted to the sort of
>> >crude weapons readily available when the 2nd amendment was made, and
not
>> >the super-efficient killing machines they have become.
>> Hummm so that means then..that we remove all highspeed printing
>> presses, telephones, tv, internet, movies etc..after all..they were
>> not around when the First Amendment was put to paper either.
>
> But these other things you mention are not weapons.
They're all human rights, stupid! If you were here right now, I'd like to
put you across my knee and spank you until you cried like a little girl.
gruhn
appealed to you and then forgot to read the follow ups? At least we know you
haven't done any research. It's good to have that info up front.
Gunner
Which ones are those?
Gunner
Gunner
<btiru...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > What are the odds of (much as i`d like to see it) the US being invaded ?
>> Pretty low, as long as we remain armed. Why not disarm the entire UK as a
>> test and see. I dare you.
>
>The populace of the UK is not armed to start with, therefore it is
>impossible to take you up on that "dare"
>
At one time it was. Every man and bow was armed. How far you have
fallen...sigh
>> > There is no justification for these weapons to be available to the
>> > public.
>> Not in the minds of tyrants like you, anyway. All the more reason why we
>> should have them.
>
>Why am I a tyrant for pointing out that guns cost lives, and that there
>is no reason for them in a CIVILISED society.
>
>Unless of course, you still think you live in the wild west.
>
Now you are venting your opinion, based on your ignorance, bias and
bigotry.
>> > Would you also applaud the rights of a (possibly pissed) citizen to own a
>> > nuclear or chemical weapon ? (they`d only be applying their right to bear
>> > arms after all)
>> Tired ol straw man.
>
>Too hard to answer this one was it ?
Why? It was a strawman afterall.
Gunner
>>> Pretty low, as long as we remain armed. Why not disarm the entire UK as
>>> a test and see. I dare you.
>>
>> The populace of the UK is not armed to start with, therefore it is
>> impossible to take you up on that "dare"
>
>Oh no, I meant the military too. Go ahead, I dare you. If the populace
>shouldn't be armed, neither should the military. What are you afraid of?
>Who would invade the UK?
One simply couldnt disarm the Brits..they may have to go kill some
Argentinians again over the Malvin.....Faulkland islands in an mad
orgy of senseless bloodshed. The Brits are rather good at it, given
their long history of butchery and blood spilling.
Gunner
<btiru...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >Would you also applaud the rights of a (possibly pissed) citizen to own a
>> >nuclear or chemical weapon ? (they`d only be applying their right to bear
>> >arms after all)
>> So you equate a FN FAL with a WMD. Correct?
>
>FN FAL ? (not sure what you mean here)
>
>Otherwise, correct. A weapon capable of killing 800 people per minute is
>a weapon of mass destruction in my opinion. An M16 is such a weapon, and
>is freely available.
800 people per minute? Gosharoony. Now lesseee here. I killed a lot of
people with a Mzipteen, and I generally killed them one at a time.
>
>Given the insistance that citizens have the right to bear arms, and a
>nuclear weapon is, by definition, a weapon - should a citizen have the
>right to own them ?
By definition, a Militia weapon is a personal small arm (such as a FN
FAL) one can even state that grenades, mortors, and cannon are militia
weapons. A weapon of mass distruction is not by definition a militia
weapon, neither in historical context or application.
Now..if one has the money to own one, safely store it and maintain it,
Id have no problems with a private party owning one.
Gunner
<btiru...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> > The right to bear arms was probably envisaged to allow people to protect
>> > themselves, not wipe out half the neighbourhood in a matter of seconds.
>> Shows how little you know about firearms and overlooks that for such
>> projects as you envision above, bombs and arson would have a better
>> chance.
>
>You are happy then that they had the right to bear arms against innocent
>civillians ? If the weapons were not readily available, it couldn`t have
>happened. Perhaps then, they would have tried the bomb method you point
>out, so they could have killed even more effectively.
No one has the right to bear arms against innocent civilians. Thats
quite a legal matter both civil law and military law.
>
>Why should kids be able to have access to something like an M16, which
>pumps out 650-800 rounds per minute (depending on model) ?
Why not? Of course you will have to define kids. By the time I was 17,
Id already been given great powers of life and death and had used them
in the perscribed manner.
>
>Can they effectively target 800 people per minute to defend themselves ?
I dont think a computer could target 800 people per minute. You are
indeed talking out your ass again, and not only appearing foolish, but
harming your own argument.
Gunner
<btiru...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >Perhaps the right to bear arms should be restricted to the sort of
>> >crude weapons readily available when the 2nd amendment was made, and not
>> >the super-efficient killing machines they have become.
>> Hummm so that means then..that we remove all highspeed printing
>> presses, telephones, tv, internet, movies etc..after all..they were
>> not around when the First Amendment was put to paper either.
>
>But these other things you mention are not weapons.
What does that have to do with anything? If you wish to fiddle with
the Constitution, its null and void, unless you get a Constitutional
Amendment. Once you have violated the contract between the citizen
and the government, the contract is null and void.
>> >What use is an automatic weapon to a housewife ? hunter ? the public ?
>> What use? A heck of a lot of fun, and a really nifty check and balance
>> against a government run amok.
>
>Perhaps you should take down the government then...
Why? We are doing a fair job of keeping the bastards moderately
honest. As an armed citizenry was intended to do. Read the Magna Carta
and the English Bill of Rights recently?
>
>> >Why should automatic weapons be of any use at all to the general public
>> >if not to kill people in large numbers.
>> Hey..what use is your penis, except to rape women and children with?
>
>If you have nothing more creative to add, please keep these fantasies of
>yours to yourself.
Simply because my example countered yours ..is there some reason you
must deny its validity?
>
>> >The right to bear arms was probably envisaged to allow people to protect
>> >themselves, not wipe out half the neighbourhood in a matter of seconds.
>> Probably? You post dreck and you dont know? Read the Federalist
>> Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers..and get back to us when you are
>> done, ok?
>
>I`ll pass thanks, as I don`t give a damn what it says.
So you DON't care what the Founders intended, nor why they laid out
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the way they did hey? They why
are you suggesting they be changed? Never fuck with things you dont
have the ability to understand.
>
>> Probably..sigh...sounds like you are hoping for your world view to not
>> be rocked. Sorry pal...denial is not a river in Egypt.
>
>And the US of A is not the only way.
And at last you run out of argument. With emotional useful idiots like
you, it doesnt take long.
Herb Martin
"Colin Wilson" <btiru...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.196831c1...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > Is that the same human rights the US blatantly flaunts by holding
> > > kidnapped citizens of another country in Cuba ?
> > Once you try to kill me or my countrymen you forfeit your rights.
>
> They have had no trial.
So what? They were taken on a BATTLEFIELD.
Herb Martin
> > presses, telephones, tv, internet, movies etc..after all..they were
> > not around when the First Amendment was put to paper either.
>
> But these other things you mention are not weapons.
And they are protected precisely for the same reason that modern
arms are protected even though the Framers never knew precisely
what would follow.
In fact, you can safely assume they had a better idea of what
infantry weapons would be available than they did TV, radio,
and the Internet, yet they protected ALL OF THESE.
Pretty smart those Framers and they said that The Right to Keep
and Bear Arms was essential to the safety of a free state.
Louis Boyd
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:21:11 +0100, Colin Wilson
> <btiru...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Perhaps the right to bear arms should be restricted to the sort of
>>>>crude weapons readily available when the 2nd amendment was made, and not
>>>>the super-efficient killing machines they have become.
>>>
>>>Hummm so that means then..that we remove all highspeed printing
>>>presses, telephones, tv, internet, movies etc..after all..they were
>>>not around when the First Amendment was put to paper either.
>>
>>But these other things you mention are not weapons.
>
>
> What does that have to do with anything? If you wish to fiddle with
> the Constitution, its null and void, unless you get a Constitutional
> Amendment. Once you have violated the contract between the citizen
> and the government, the contract is null and void.
Uh Gunner. If you haven't notice it already has been violated by every
Congress and President since (and including) G. Washington.
The only reason it works at all is because citizens still have guns.
--
Lou Boyd
Ignoramus32229
> > As we can see now in Iraq, armed Iraqi citizens are inflicting serious
> > losses in the "coalition" occupiers, and severely restricting their
> > ability to maneuver. So the founding fathers idea that armed citizens
> > could oppose a real army, is working great in Iraq.
>
> I wasn`t referring to gun control outside of the US, as the 2nd amendment
> should not be enforced outside of US soil.
Iraq was an example as to why an armed population can resist invaders
with overwhelming force. I agree that Iraqis should decide on gun
control themselves.
> > As Iraqi resistance picks up, there is a real chance that Iraqis will
> > kick the oil thieving occupiers out of their country.
>
> And to that, I couldn`t possibly comment, except to say we shouldn`t be
> there in the first place.
Glad we agree Colin.
> I believe Iraq should have the right to defend itself against an armed
> incursion by enemy forces. That includes the downing of places in "no-
> fly" zones imposed by an enemy state over their own airspace.
Agreed again.
i
Ignoramus32229
> > > Is that the same human rights the US blatantly flaunts by holding
> > > kidnapped citizens of another country in Cuba ?
> > Once you try to kill me or my countrymen you forfeit your rights.
>
> They have had no trial.
And most of them are not guilty of any recognized crime either. That's
why they are held in Guantanamo and not given any trial. If they were
convictable, they would be convicted. It is so obvious that I wonder
why it is not understood.
> You do not know whether they are guilty of the charge you are making
> against them.
I pretty much know that they are not guilty, most of them anyway.
> If your government had any evidence against them, why have they not been
> put on trial in a neutral country ?
Sure.
> What gives the US the right to invade another country, kidnap people who
> may just be innocent, civillians and hold them indefinitely without
> trial ?
Right is not the issue here, I believe.
> You would obviously acknowlege their right to kidnap the invaders, yes ?
Any invaded country has the right, and in fact obligation, to kill
invaders by all means possible. Quite unfortunate now that my
countrymen are invaders who are occupying a country unlawfully and for
immoral purposes and under false pretenses. I am hoping that the US
withdraws its troops from Iraq and apologizes.
i
Ignoramus32229
> Colin Wilson <btiru...@btinternet.com> said, and I quoteth:
>
> >> > kidnapped citizens of another country in Cuba ?
> >> Once you try to kill me or my countrymen you forfeit your rights.
> >
> > They have had no trial.
>
> trial by a U.S. court, though they will likely get a military tribunal
> eventually.
>
> > You do not know whether they are guilty of the charge you are making
> > against them.
>
I am lost. What is illegal for, say, an Afghani killing a US soldier
in defense of his country?
i
> > If your government had any evidence against them, why have they not been
> > put on trial in a neutral country ?
>
> Oh yeah, we could turn them over to the UN, which would promptly release
> them, no matter what they'd done.
>
> > What gives the US the right to invade another country, kidnap people who
> > may just be innocent, civillians and hold them indefinitely without
> > trial ?
>
> What gave them the right to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S.?
>
> > When will they be released ? Will they be released ?
>
> Hopefully never.
>
>
Ignoramus32229
> In message <slrnbfp60c.bse...@manifold.algebra.com>,
> Ignoramus32229 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> writes
> >In article <r65pfvkrudfca1tnh...@4ax.com>, Shaun wrote:
> >> On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
> >> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
> >> >still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
> >> >below)
> >> >
> >> Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
> >> they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
> >
> >They may stil have some antiquated pieces locked up at gun clubs. But
> >Brits do not, "enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms". And now they
> >want to disarm Iraqis. How disgusting. By The Way, I am adamantly
> >against the aggression against Iraq.
> >
> >i
> 98 per cent of the British population do not want "the freedom to keep
> and bear arms" The reason is so simple even for you. WE HAVE NO WISH TO
> BECOME LIKE YOU!!!
How sad that Brits are this way now...
i
Paul Hyett
>>
>> I wasn`t referring to gun control outside of the US, as the 2nd amendment
>> should not be enforced outside of US soil.
>
>
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Gunner
<bo...@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> What does that have to do with anything? If you wish to fiddle with
>> the Constitution, its null and void, unless you get a Constitutional
>> Amendment. Once you have violated the contract between the citizen
>> and the government, the contract is null and void.
>
>Uh Gunner. If you haven't notice it already has been violated by every
>Congress and President since (and including) G. Washington.
>The only reason it works at all is because citizens still have guns.
>--
>Lou Boyd
Which I addressed in the next sentence.
"
>> >What use is an automatic weapon to a housewife ? hunter ? the public ?
>> What use? A heck of a lot of fun, and a really nifty check and balance
>> against a government run amok.
>
>Perhaps you should take down the government then...
Why? We are doing a fair job of keeping the bastards moderately
honest. As an armed citizenry was intended to do. Read the Magna Carta
and the English Bill of Rights recently?"
Gunner
wrote:
>> > Hummm so that means then..that we remove all highspeed printing
>> > presses, telephones, tv, internet, movies etc..after all..they were
>> > not around when the First Amendment was put to paper either.
>>
>> But these other things you mention are not weapons.
>
>And they are protected precisely for the same reason that modern
>arms are protected even though the Framers never knew precisely
>what would follow.
>
A sage once remarked that "the pen is mightier than the Sword"
>In fact, you can safely assume they had a better idea of what
>infantry weapons would be available than they did TV, radio,
>and the Internet, yet they protected ALL OF THESE.
>
>Pretty smart those Framers and they said that The Right to Keep
>and Bear Arms was essential to the safety of a free state.
Without the powers of the Second Amendment..there would be NO First
Amendment.
Gunner
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> They made war illegally against our troops. War criminals.
>
>I am lost. What is illegal for, say, an Afghani killing a US soldier
>in defense of his country?
>
Hint..most of them are NOT Afghani, though they were captured in
battle in Afghanistan.
strabo
<btiru...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> As we can see now in Iraq, armed Iraqi citizens are inflicting serious
>> losses in the "coalition" occupiers, and severely restricting their
>> ability to maneuver. So the founding fathers idea that armed citizens
>> could oppose a real army, is working great in Iraq.
>
>I wasn`t referring to gun control outside of the US, as the 2nd amendment
>should not be enforced outside of US soil.
On the contrary, an armed and organized citizenry not tolerate
the ordinary thugs or the real criminals of contmporary society,
those that control government.
The only reason the Middle East is in such turmoil is the
constant interference and and dictatorships established there
by Western interests. The Arabs were always a rowdy bunch but the
scale of conflict since the Balfour Agreement increases
with each generation.
Governments are used daily to suppress, torture and kill,
both citizens and to wage war on other governments. The history
of modern governments is a tale of horrific murder.
The killings of the occasional psycho or more frequent drug
seller is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of
millions killed by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and a hundred other
nuts that that invariably take over these governments.
It is amazing that some people are so ignorant or so scared
that they can ignore the obvious.
>> As Iraqi resistance picks up, there is a real chance that Iraqis will
>> kick the oil thieving occupiers out of their country.
>
>And to that, I couldn`t possibly comment, except to say we shouldn`t be
>there in the first place.
>
strabo
<bo...@apt0.sao.arizona.edu> wrote:
I think so, and the relative stability in the US is the glue that
is holding all modern states together.
Colin Wilson
> >Is that the same human rights the US blatantly flaunts by holding
> >kidnapped citizens of another country in Cuba ?
> Which ones are those?
Guantanamo Bay ring any bells ?
If they are "illegal combatants" (a previously unknown concept), then by
definition, they are alleged to have committed a crime (the use of the
word illegal).
As such, they should be permitted the normal course of justice.
I am withdrawing from this thread, as I hadn`t noticed how many groups it
was cross-posted to initially, and I see no point in trying to reason
with gun-totin` hicks who can`t reason for themselves.
Parting shot: It`s people like you who are the cause of "friendly fire"
Bob Brenchley.
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
How sad that so many Merkins have to come to the UK to live in order
to escape the fear of gun crime in the USA.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:07:49 +0100, Shaun
><shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
>>>still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
>>>below)
>>>
>>Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
>>they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
>
>Yup..all the pump shotguns, the semiautomatic 22s and the FN-FALs are
>simply a drop in the bucket, compared to the vast numbers of handguns
>in British hands. Correct?
>
There are very few handguns in the UK, most that do exist are illegal.
William Black
"Ignoramus32229" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnbfrsde.a9b...@manifold.algebra.com...
> Why do you suppose that the founding fathers were so stupid as to
> expect no progress in development of firearms? They have improved
> dramatically in years before the bill of rights was adopted, and there
> is no reason to suppose that they would nto expect further progress.
And why do you think that.
The primary military musket hadn't progressed for a hundred years at the
time of the Revolution, and wouldn't for the next generation. The long
rifle design was almost sixty years old and the major technical innovation
of the past few years was the patch box, the engraving of which happens to
be the only true none native US folk art.
Forsyth didn't demonstrate the fulminating 'scent bottle lock' until 1799 at
the earliest, by which time the government of the USA was running on rails,
the 'Bill of Rights' being passed in 1791.
There were essentially no major innovations in land based firearms available
to US militias for many years before and after the various laws were passed.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
Joseph Finlay
<ne...@LearnQuick.com> writes
>> 98 per cent of the British population do not want "the freedom to keep
>> and bear arms" The reason is so simple even for you. WE HAVE NO WISH TO
>> BECOME LIKE YOU!!!
>
>to your royalty, why should you wish to change?
You as a Yank should know all about being a second class citizen. Fed on
bullshit and propaganda from the cradle to the grave. Just do as the man
in the big white house and his greedy rich cronies tell you. Sheeple
like you only exist to make them richer.
--
Joe Finlay
Joseph Finlay
<Mel...@pagan.nket> writes
>Joseph Finlay <jos...@jfinl.demon.co.uk> said, and I quoteth:
>...
>> 98 per cent of the British population do not want "the freedom to keep
>> and bear arms"
>
>
>"Two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over
>one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural
>rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them
>is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether
>committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name
>indicating his true character), or by millions calling themselves a
>government." - Lysander Spooner
>
>> The reason is so simple even for you. WE HAVE NO WISH TO
>> BECOME LIKE YOU!!!
>
Melissa, your just a fucking virus. Do mankind a favour, stick a gun in
one of your slack orifices and give yourself the ultimate orgasm.
--
Joe Finlay
Joseph Finlay
<gun...@lightspeed.net> writes
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:01:57 +0100, Joseph Finlay
><jos...@jfinl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <slrnbfp60c.bse...@manifold.algebra.com>,
>>Ignoramus32229 <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> writes
>>>> On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
>>>> <ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
>>>> >still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
>>>> >below)
>>>> >
>>>> Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
>>>> they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
>>>
>>>Brits do not, "enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms". And now they
>>>want to disarm Iraqis. How disgusting. By The Way, I am adamantly
>>>against the aggression against Iraq.
>>>
>>>i
>>BECOME LIKE YOU!!!
>
>99% Not 99.012%?
>
>Not 75%, or 35%?
>
>
>Got some cites to produce or are you, as usual, simply talking out
>your ass?
I don't need any cites, it is common knowledge to any one with half a
brain.
>Hint Joe...your violent crime rate passed ours two years ago..Id think
>that becoming a bit more like us, would be a desireable thing. Your
>crime rate is skyrocketing..ours is falling.
You THINK your crime crime rate is falling because that's what your rich
masters who control your country want you to believe. Fed on bullshit
and propaganda from birth the average American hasn't got a clue how to
separate fact from fiction. A ruling elite who can tamper with your
election results and get away with it, is capable of anything.
Here's an example of how corrupt your crime stats really are.
August 9, 1998
By Alan W. Bock, Senior Editorial Writer
(Ed. note: Alan Bock is one of my favorite writers. First, he is so
smart that he usually agrees with me. Second, he is a really good
journalist, who actually checks facts. Imagine that!
Here he demonstrates that while the US crime rate may be heading
down, it is almost certainly much worse than it appears. It may be
three or more times higher than the reported rates.
This really is scandalous. The police are accepted as authorities on
crime, but there is really no good data on the US rate.
Every society needs honest police. It is inevitable that some police,
like some in every calling, will be dishonest. That is human nature.
However, the problem in DEAland -- and much of the world -- is an
institutional corruption that undermines the work of honest cops and
leaves us all less safe and less free.
LAW ENFORCEMENT: THERE ARE REASONS TO MISTRUST CRIME
STATISTICS
Politicians of both major parties point with pride to declining crime
rates, as shown by official statistics, as evidence that their
enlightened policies are working. There are reasons, however, to
doubt that those statistics really reflect reality.
By the time they are compiled, the statistics are older than is usually
acknowledged. The data in California's 1997 crime report, for
example, were compiled by local agencies and reported in 1995.
Yet they are sometimes used to tout the wisdom of policies put in
place after their compilation.
Nobody forces police agencies to get their reports in to the state, so
there is no consistency from year to year in the number of police
agencies reporting.
Criminologists believe an average of 30 percent of cities in
California never report. In California, Oakland hasn't reported for
several years. Has there been no crime in Oakland? The upshot is
that it is virtually impossible to compare crime statistics from year to
year with any reliability.
A fingerprint card is supposed to accompany felony arrest
information sent to the state. When those fingerprint cards do not
accompany the records, those crimes are not included in the report.
Some criminologists estimate this variable to be as high as 40
percent to 60 percent of the records without fingerprint cards.
The criteria for the seven serious crimes included in the national FBI
report have changed over the years. Arson has been dropped and
added again, the minimums for serious property crimes changed
from $200 to $400. It makes it even more difficult to discern valid
year-to-year trends.
The FBI does not maintain a uniform Uniform Crime Report, which is
based on reports from state governments, most of which are at least
2 years old by the time the FBI gets them, and all of which have
approximately as many anomalies as are found in the California
reports.
The crime reports do not take into account demographic factors like
the number of males aged 18-25 (the most crime-prone sector) as a
percentage of the general population.
The California report uses sampling to create its estimates
-analyzing 45 percent of reportable crimes in 1997, a larger amount
than the previous year. Sampling can be sophisticated and might be
necessary, but it reduces the reliability factor.
According to an FBI Victimization Survey released in September
1997, based on door-to-door surveys in sampled
neighborhoods, only three of 10 crimes are ever reported
to the police. Perhaps most of those unreported crimes are
considered too minor to report, but nobody really knows.
Political pressure to show success at reducing crime may be leading
to fudging. So far this year, as New York Times writer Fox Butterfield
recently reported, there have been charges of falsely reporting
crime statistics in New York, Atlanta and Boca Raton, Fla., resulting
in the resignations of high-ranking police commanders. "In Boca
Raton, for example," Butterfield wrote, "a police captain ...
systematically downgraded property crimes like burglaries to
vandalism, trespassing or missing property, reducing the city's
felony rate by almost 11 percent." Philadelphia has withdrawn its
crime figures for 1996, 1997 and the first half of 1998 because of
sloppiness, downgrading and under-reporting.
Most of the criminologists I talked to are aware of most of these
shortcomings, but believe that murder is a fairly reliable indicator
(since there is usually a body and the victim usually has relatives)
and murder rates are down. So perhaps crime really is down.
(Ed. note: Remember that the Drug Czar said that the Dutch murder
rate is twice ours when it is less than one fourth ours.)
On the other hand, it is possible that since 40 percent to
60 percent of felony reports to the state do not include a
fingerprint card, some of those felonies might be
murders, so the murder rate might be somewhat higher
than state reports suggest.
And the fact the Oakland hasn't reported to the state in three years
means at least some murders don't show up in the state reports.
I would love to believe that serious crime is finally declining. For
reasons I outlined a few weeks ago, I doubt if the Three Strikes law
has had much of an impact on crime rates, but it is just possible that
various factors - a reduction in the percentage of young males, the
peaking of the crack cocaine epidemic, economic growth finally
having an impact on the propensity to do crime rather than go to
work - have led to a reduction in crime.
But it is an illusion to place to much credence in the details of the
official reports. They may be dead wrong.
--
Joe Finlay
William Black
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:mdjsfv89uf9rl3dhc...@4ax.com...
> >The populace of the UK is not armed to start with, therefore it is
> >impossible to take you up on that "dare"
> >
> At one time it was. Every man and bow was armed. How far you have
> fallen...sigh
Actually it wasn't.
The ownership of bows had a property qualification, a pretty low one to be
sure, but it's there.
David Dempster
"Melissa" <Mel...@pagan.nket> wrote in message
> Too bad you defend international terrorists, but your friends are being
> held because they were illegal combatants in Afghanistan. In short, war
> criminals.
Bit of a nerve, speaking from a country that supported terrorism in Northern
Ireland
for so many years!
What if the IRA had planned the 9/11 attacks, would Bush have sent thousands
of US
troops into Northern Ireland and taken British subjects back to Cuba and
held them
without a trail?
Typical, Americans think they are so right in everything! Free to judge the
world how
they see fit!
Shaun
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:53:08 +0100, Shaun
><shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:11:39 GMT, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:40:21 +0100, Shaun
>>><shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 09:37:15 GMT, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:07:49 +0100, Shaun
>>>>><shaun....@ntlworldxxxxnospamxxx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 27 Jun 2003 13:33:10 GMT, Ignoramus32229
>>>>>><ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If British gun owners were as brave as Iraqi gun owners, Brits would
>>>>>>>still enjoy the freedom to keep and bear arms! (see article quoted
>>>>>>>below)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Apparently no one's told the one and a half million Brtish gun owners
>>>>>>they aren't allowed to have them. Thanks for pointing this out.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yup..all the pump shotguns, the semiautomatic 22s and the FN-FALs are
>>>>>simply a drop in the bucket, compared to the vast numbers of handguns
>>>>>in British hands. Correct?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, only 1 in a thousand people now own a handgun now they are
>>>>illegal. Thats how much British citizens have been disarmed
>>>>
>>>>whoops, that shoud read:
>>>>
>>>>Only 1 in a thousand people owned a handgun when they were legal.
>>>>Thats how little British citizens have been disarmed
>>>
>>>http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/fl26bots.htm
>>>http://reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
>>>http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/It_Isn't_About_Duck_Hunting.htm
>>>
>>>
>>Snipped but in summary:
>>
>>UK gun control hasn't worked because people still set shot at a 500th
>>of US levels
>>
>>Crime has gone up because criminals no longer fear being shot from the
>>50,000 handgun owners who didnt own them for self defence and can buy
>>other guns anyway
>>.
>
>Interesting summery. One Id have expected from a retarded youth of
>perhaps 9, but interesting nontheless.
>
>You did notice, while reading the cites (you did read them, being an
>intelligent person with fairness and common sense, right?), that
>British gun control is not only not working at reducing crime, but is
>having the opposite effect.
There you go again, assuming everyone in the UK owned gun, were
disarmed, and criminals took advantage of the fact.
Wrong on all three counts. However it doesn't stop so called American
experts claiming the very same without ever producing figures to back
it up
>
>Can you please explain to all of the readers, why many of your cops
>now wear bullet resistant vests, have a machine gun locked in their
>cars, and carry machine guns at the airports?
International terrorism. Now why do US traffic cops need sidearms ?
>
>Why is your violent crime rate higher than that of the US, in nearly
>every violent crime (except murder..and its gaining)?
Why is the rate for serious violence such as murder, rape and serious
assault far greater in the US despite owning guns ?
>Why is your
>burglary to an occupied dwelling twice that of the US?
Why is the prospect of a British burglar using a gun in commision of a
crime unheard of ?
>
>Why are your ganstaz now carrying fully automatic machine pistols
Why does this fail to protect them from being murdered ?
>and
>one can purchase a handgun at nearly any pub?
>
Have you been to a British pub, or Britain, or can even point to it on
a map ?
Like must gun nuts you are far more likely to believe gun nut
propagada than people actually in a postion to give a first hand
account.
Shaun
>Colin Wilson <btiru...@btinternet.com> said, and I quoteth:
>
>>> > I wasn`t referring to gun control outside of the US, as the 2nd
>>> > amendment should not be enforced outside of US soil.
>
>>> The human right it recognizes is universal.
>>
>> Is that the same human rights the US blatantly flaunts by holding
>> kidnapped citizens of another country in Cuba ?
>
>Too bad you defend international terrorists, but your friends are being
>held because they were illegal combatants in Afghanistan.
>In short, war criminals.
Waging an aggressive, unprovoked war against Iraq is a war crime.
Fighting in a civil war isn't
Shaun
wrote:
>
And hence subject to the Geneva Convention
(the proper one, not the bits the US government make up)
Herb Martin
> >to your royalty, why should you wish to change?
>
> You as a Yank should know all about being a second class citizen. Fed on
Hey, it's YOUR LAW - their are some rights and privileges reserved
from you.
Herb Martin
news:PSRvpgEMLr$+E...@jfinl.demon.co.uk...
> Melissa, your just a fucking virus. Do mankind a favour, stick a gun in
> one of your slack orifices and give yourself the ultimate orgasm.
Isn't it funny how those who oppose the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
are so ready to suggest USING arms to harm others?
We may not like you Joseph, but we would never consider doing you
harm because of your OPINION.
Shaun
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.32229.invalid> wrote:
>In article <MPG.1967fe732...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Colin Wilson wrote:
>> > While gun owners are a minority in this country, we are a much
>> > larger minority than in England, and we have the Second Amendment
>> > to point to
>>
>> I wonder if the founding fathers ever expected such powerful weapons to
>> be available to the public though. Certainly not automatic weapons I
>> would have thought.
>
>Why do you suppose that the founding fathers were so stupid as to
>expect no progress in development of firearms? They have improved
>dramatically in years before the bill of rights was adopted, and there
>is no reason to suppose that they would nto expect further progress.
>
Did these infallible Founding Fathers also enshrine the right to free
speech so that in the future it could be used to spread pornography ?
Shaun
>Colin Wilson <btiru...@btinternet.com> said, and I quoteth:
>
>>> > Is that the same human rights the US blatantly flaunts by holding
>>> > kidnapped citizens of another country in Cuba ?
>>> Once you try to kill me or my countrymen you forfeit your rights.
>>
>> They have had no trial.
>
>They're illegal combatants, war criminals, and they aren't entitled to a
>trial by a U.S. court, though they will likely get a military tribunal
>eventually.
>
>> You do not know whether they are guilty of the charge you are making
>> against them.
>
>They made war illegally against our troops. War criminals.
>
Go on, give us a jolly good laugh by explaining how fighting for the
legitimate government of Afghanistan against an invading army makes
you a war criminal ?
Shaun
>Colin Wilson <btiru...@btinternet.com> said, and I quoteth:
>
>>> >What use is an automatic weapon to a housewife ? hunter ? the public ?
>>> The same as to the soldier.
>>
>> Except the public are not at war. At least - they SHOULDN'T be.
>
>You just never know when they might need to be. The militia of all the
>people is the best guarantee for defending a country
Now which opponent would you consider a greater deterrent:
a modern army with tanks, missles, nuclear bombs and jet fighters, or
a bunch of rednecks in a pickup ?
Shaun
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 23:50:17 +0100, Colin Wilson
><btiru...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>> > What are the odds of (much as i`d like to see it) the US being invaded ?
>>> Pretty low, as long as we remain armed. Why not disarm the entire UK as a
>>> test and see. I dare you.
>>
>>The populace of the UK is not armed to start with, therefore it is
>>impossible to take you up on that "dare"
>>
>At one time it was. Every man and bow was armed. How far you have
>fallen...sigh
>
and yet the were still told what to do by tyrannical governments.
So much for that theory
Herb Martin
> masters who control your country want you to believe. Fed on bullshit
> and propaganda from birth the average American hasn't got a clue how to
> separate fact from fiction. A ruling elite who can tamper with your
> election results and get away with it, is capable of anything.
Actually we are quite willing to believe this and it just futher makes the
case that no one here should have to PROVE they are not a criminal
before obtaining a firearm -- the criminals are seldom arrested for
violating the "Brady" law and if the fingerprint cards and records are
not collected then they are even going to be NOTICED.
Herb Martin
"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:km8tfv0m6d0lol1ng...@4ax.com...
> How sad that so many Merkins have to come to the UK to live in order
> to escape the fear of gun crime in the USA.
A better question would be, what is the NET emigration/immigration
numbers between the UK and the US?
Herb Martin
> in defense of his country?
First, he isn't "defending his country" and the US is the legitimat
government right now -- you may not like this, but it is the way
that Internnation law works (and related to why Sodamn Insane
could not be removed under such law, from outside, due solely to
his tortures and murders of his own people.)
Herb Martin
news:vqrtfvghkeibjtjnf...@4ax.com...
> >So what? They were taken on a BATTLEFIELD.
> >
> And hence subject to the Geneva Convention
No, they were not legitimate combatants from any of the
States involved -- they were foreigners with no standing
to be on the battlefield.
I know it sounds odd but this IS INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Now, they reciever protections only through the good graces
of the US governnment or the intervention (with the US) of their
own governments'.
Chances are, many of them are in deep doo-doo if they go 'home'
and that is NOT Afghanistan.
Herb Martin
Northern
> Ireland for so many years!
Who specifically did this? The Kennedy's perhaps?
I didn't and I opposed anyone who did support the IRA.
Terrorism, IRA or Protestant, is evil.
Herb Martin
Normal under whose law? They are being treated according to
LAW.
Herb Martin
> >arms are protected even though the Framers never knew precisely
> >what would follow.
> >
>
> A sage once remarked that "the pen is mightier than the Sword"
Yes, precisely because the pen can change opinions or even call
out a thousand with swords.
> >Pretty smart those Framers and they said that The Right to Keep
> >and Bear Arms was essential to the safety of a free state.
>
> Without the powers of the Second Amendment..there would be NO First
> Amendment.
That IS what the Constitution proclaims.
That is why that (non-scientific) poll among History fans had 90% listing
the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as THE MOST IMPORTANT -- above
ALL of the others combined.
Sid Viscous
wrote:
>
That's an easy question to answer.
http://www.immigration.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/IMM2001.pdf
From UK to US - 2001 - 18,436
2000 - 13,385
1999 - 7,690
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D3975.xls
From US to UK - 2001 - 4,385
2000 - 4,580
1999 - 3,760
While the number of frightened Brits escaping the crime-ridden,
socialist maw of the UK has more than doubled from 1999 to 2001, US
citizens emigrating to the UK has held steady at relatively
insignificant and almost unnoticeable levels. Taking into account the
population difference between the two countries further underscores
the unbalance.
Clearly, more Brits find the USA desirable than vice versa. And who
can blame them?
Herb Martin
Or is the "UK" in question comparable to the US in size?
"Sid Viscous" <viscous@fifty_weight.com> wrote in message
news:e9cea0935e587d6e...@free.teranews.com...
Alan Connor
Terrorism by Americans is just as evil, and they do quite a bit more of
it than anyone else.
No terrorist calls THEIR terrorism by its real name.
I hear that around 6 Americans a day are being killed or wounded in Iraq.
That's what happens when you invade someone else's country and commit acts
of violence and try to force them to live like YOU want them to.
It's going to get a lot worse. They are going to make you suffer for your
arrogance and immorality and hypocrisy.
You deserve it.
Americans need to learn to mind their own business, run their own lives,
live off of their own labor and resources.
They can do that or vanish into history.
alanc
David Dempster
"Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message
> Who specifically did this? The Kennedy's perhaps?
>
> I didn't and I opposed anyone who did support the IRA.
Well welcome to the real world that Melissa doesn't understand!
She gobs off cross posting to so many groups without evening think about her
own country's actions that have supported such acts like terrorism!
Pot and kettle black is all I can say.
But that won't stop the stupid self righteous cow. All she thinks about is
how right the US is and wants the whole frigging world to know it.
Cheers
Davey
Sid Viscous
wrote:
>Does it get worse if you use percentage of populations?
Much much worse.
>Or is the "UK" in question comparable to the US in size?
As I said, Taking into account the population difference between the
two countries further underscores the unbalance.
Clinical proof- it sucks more to live in the UK than the US.
Louis Boyd
so from the 2001 data below 16 Americans per million imigrated to the UK
while 307 per million imigrated to the US from the UK. A ratio of 19.5
to 1.
It would be interesting to know the reasons those people might give for
moving in either direction. It's hardly a great exodus either way.
--
Lou Boyd
Herb Martin wrote:
> Does it get worse if you use percentage of populations?
> Or is the "UK" in question comparable to the US in size?
>
> "Sid Viscous" <viscous@fifty_weight.com> wrote in message
> news:e9cea0935e587d6e...@free.teranews.com...
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:08:48 GMT, "Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com>
>>wrote:
Herb Martin
> moving in either direction. It's hardly a great exodus either way.
20 to 1 is pretty convincing even before you fact the 4 1/2 times greater
population, giving about 90 to 1 propotionately.
An American is 90 times less likely to become a Brit as a Brit is to
emigrate to America....
Wonder what the "naturalization" stats are -- people who obviously have
NO INTENTION of going "home."
Herb Martin
news:JeELa.70731$Io.66...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
So you think that American soldiers "deserve" to be killed or injured
for removing Sodamn the Dictator (torturer, rapist, murderer) which
makes YOU DESPICABLE and DISGUSTING.
You may go away now and be ashamed -- be very ashamred of yourself.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
"Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message
news:i0FLa.26233$XV.16...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> "Alan Connor" <xxx...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:JeELa.70731$Io.66...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
> So you think that American soldiers "deserve" to be killed or injured
> for removing Sodamn the Dictator (torturer, rapist, murderer) which
> makes YOU DESPICABLE and DISGUSTING.
Now rephrase the statement:
'So you think that American soldiers "deserve" to be killed or injured for
invading and occupying a sovereign nation'
Sounds rather different.
The US has not merely removed Saddam has it?
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org