Thread: Gun Rights; the test of a free country.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

So is arming the state and removing the arms of citizens.

This is a problem. The citizens vote the government into power. If the government takes up arms against a citizen's revolt it means that the citizens have lost their representative power in the government. However, the government must use force against other groups too, for example, if a sub-group begins rioting, damaging property and endangering citizen's lives. When citizens notice that they need to be armed, not against criminals but against their own government, then you have a serious schism between citizens and government and a sign that negotiation between groups has broken down, sometimes irretrievably. This is the downside of "democracy" as we know it.

Originally Posted by Wessexman

Well you can screen those with mental health issues but I would not remove the liberties of all because of a few nuts.

I think that that is the problem. I really do not think that you can weed out those unbalanced people and therefore the laws in place are more draconian than need be. For example, if you lose your driving licence for speeding and then try and apply for a licence, there are many examples where you are refused. The police take the view that you are irresponsible which to me is utter rubbish. If you lose it for drink driving then you are going to face a tough time getting a licence.

While I do not condone drink driving in any sense, I cannot see that there is a connection between what you do in your car (esp with relation to speeding) and whether you are more likely to go and shoot someone with a legally held gun. I do think that the police and Home Office over-react to their failures to weed out those that should not be in possession of firearms once they have committed a crime.

Originally Posted by angelman

I think that that is the problem. I really do not think that you can weed out those unbalanced people and therefore the laws in place are more draconian than need be. For example, if you lose your driving licence for speeding and then try and apply for a licence, there are many examples where you are refused. The police take the view that you are irresponsible which to me is utter rubbish. If you lose it for drink driving then you are going to face a tough time getting a licence.

While I do not condone drink driving in any sense, I cannot see that there is a connection between what you do in your car (esp with relation to speeding) and whether you are more likely to go and shoot someone with a legally held gun. I do think that the police and Home Office over-react to their failures to weed out those that should not be in possession of firearms once they have committed a crime.

Yes, I agree, you really never know who is going to go on a shooting spree.

If the Airline Pilots on sept 11th were allowed guns the hijackers would have been shot, so the gun-control lobby must share some of the blame there.

The police also say that anybody harbouring 'hatreds likely to give rise to a criminal offence' are not allowed a lisacence.
Givinbg the police the power to resuse permits to known supporters of nationalist groups. (probarbly Nigel Farrage Approves)
Remember the PC lobby sets the terms of reference.

Angle-man:
The S&P 'isn't technically mine' I just use it an awful lot when my mate takes it shooting, and I am Shotgun-liscenced, and I shoot over my own land.

As for the Hitler thing, the Nazis gave the German Reich Citezens their guns back.
Previously the Wiemar Republic (acting on the orders of the Allies, and presumably assisted by an army of snitches like 'Charlamegne') helped disarm the German Nation.

Originally Posted by Lancashire HillBilly

Angle-man:
The S&P 'isn't technically mine' I just use it an awful lot when my mate takes it shooting, and I am Shotgun-liscenced, and I shoot over my own land.

Good (as long as he is with you at the time otherwise if the old Bill want to be petty they will do you both).


As for airline pilots, I think that it is the same as ship's captains. The problem comes when they land in countries where weapons are illegal. So you can have a pistol when you take off in USA but can't when you land in UK. Anyway, I thought that in aeroplanes you could knock out your passengers quite easily, by cutting out the O2 or gassing them.

The police know that to mess with me that I will make it more trouble than it's worth. It's part of my strategy of civil disobedience.
Complain about everything, don't co-operate any more than you have to, get it right and you can make a policeman regret ever arresting you.

The police rely on people's inability to stick together, are inherently lazy and cannot arrest anybody evidence-wise unless some ZOG snitch like Charlemegne does the spade-work for them.

That's the motive behind the governments community/immigration policy, dived the nation against itself!

Well now, that's quite a story.

marjem
From what you say it seems that anything which can kill should be banned from the streets, does this include cars and motor and pedal bikes, joggers who run into people, fireworks, dogs, boarders, roller skates and blades to name but a few. There is nothing wrong with any "weapon" if used as is intended. There should be no carrying of guns in the street -agreed, I used to carry a penknife on my person, not for the use of stabbing or anything like yhat -it was just there every boy carried one. Mind you, if I went to use a weapon to cause intentional injury, my life would have been H·"l. Clips around the ears from the police and then a hiding when I got home. I think that that is the trouble nowadays, there is no discipline and parents and schools and the police are too afraid or not allowed legally to discipline nowadays, hence to my mind the reason why there is so much ill discipline today. I live in Spain, but I do not witness the same troubles with guns and knives here, children seem to respect their parents and elders alike so it seems. To go back o the original argument, allow people to be sensible and not to be legislated against.