Duckman on gun control

[ginnyfizz]

Sadly, all too true. We are Mother Of The Free no longer when we have spychips in our wheelie bins, all the better for local government jobsworths to arrest elderly confused householders for putting wrong trash in wrong bin. (Seriously, we have to prevent my Mum, who has Alzheimers, from taking out the rubbish in case she puts it in the wrong one and we fall foul of the bin Stasi). And don't even start me on the de facto abolishing of Habeas Corpus and the rule against double jeopardy.

 

But at least it seems I am not the sole British voice crying in the wilderness, jim_uk seems to be there too.

 

The French have that line "aux armes, citoyens!" in La Marseillaise - would that we had the means to do that if it became necessary. In the USA, you do.

[DaedalusMachina]

Vindekkar - Your statement on feeling safer in an area with no guns, as opposed to having one yourself borders on utopian standards. After all, it's the unknown you have to defend against, the chaotic element.

 

"it is necessary to whoever arranges to found a Republic and establish laws in it, to presuppose that all men are bad and that they will use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity" ~ Niccolo Macchiavelli

[Maharg67]

I have had a change of mind on this debate and now think that if people belong to some kind of regulated local group, have training to get licensed as people need to do with driving, then any household should be able to have at least one non military style weapon.

 

That is

*moderate powered revolver pistol

*moderate powered bolt-action rifle

*12g break-open style double or single barreled shotgun

 

Perhaps

*moderate powered lever-action rifle

*12g pump-action or lever-action shotgun

 

A household should also be able to have at least one tazer (electric stun weapon) but again only with licensing and training as part of a local organization. These organizations would be a kind of a 'militia' and would need to be protected by law, even by constitution, from too much government interference.

 

This maybe a far from perfect solution but is a fair compromise as far as I can see.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Maharg67

[Moveing]

@ Maharg67

Do you mean your own nanny talk seriosly?

Realy, i can't stand that when people even make lists about what others could/should have and what not. What the hell are you talking about revolvers and stuff? First of you have no idea about homedefence, secound this is non of your business.

A bolt rifle for homedefence... Give me a break kid.

 

but again only with licensing and training as part of a local organization.

Yeah these weapons are to complex for stupid citizens to use them but easy enough that every mentaly ill loon could do a massacre with them... *vomits*

 

 

jim_uk

A functional democracy should offer the people a choice, when that choice is between one group of self serving whores and another group of self serving whores then that democracy becomes a sham.

What the... Choice about what?? Democracy isn't self determination, its the voting process about the collektive, other peoples lifes. And guess what. Everyone of us is a self servin prostitute. Why you get up in the morning and go to work? For your boss? For your neighboring? No, for yourself. F*** that democracy s***. I'am sick of all this "greater good" talk.

[HeyYou]

In the US, you CAN hunt with semi-auto weapons, but, we restrict magazine size to around five rounds. A fair few hunting rifles are semi-autos, but, a fair percentage of hunters prefer non-auto weapons, as they tend to be more accurate. What you can hunt with is also restricted by seasons. You can't just wander out with your M-16, and shoot wildlife whenever you feel like it...... (well, like... never...) It opens with bow season, proceeds to black powder season (muzzle loaders) and then gun/shotgun season. Contrary to what some folks seem to believe, you can NOT take your assault weapon as a hunting rifle.

 

Sure, in the US, we get the opportunity to go and vote.... but, the trouble is, who chooses whom we get to vote for? Ever watch a political campaign in the US? it isn't who the PEOPLE want that get to run, it's who has the most financial backing. Money decides elections. The whole voting thing is just a placebo at this point, to give the people the illusion that they have a voice in government. And it's only getting worse.

 

I don't expect american citizens to 'rise up, and throw off the chains of (the current) tyranny", we have grown to fat, dumb, and lazy for such an exercise. From my observations, there are a rational few out there, who are shouted down by the rabid "my partyists". (both sides of the fence) We have become a nation divided right down political lines, and our government cultivates that divide, to keep themselves in the cat bird seat.

 

I also don't expect folks that grew up in an environment were firearm ownership has been highly restricted, and also stigmatized, to agree with anything I have to say........ The whole mindset is different. I grew up with guns. There were always guns in the house. Some were even kept loaded. I was educated from a young age on gun safety, and use. I was given my first rifle ( a .22) when I was 10...... had bb guns before that... I was a cop in the US Air Force. (law enforcement for a bit, then, worked security. in my job, if I saw someone that did not belong in my area of responsibility, I was authorized to use deadly force to stop them, without having to ask for it. (should the need arise to act quickly) We even had signs posted that said as much. I have been working on my arms collection for quite some time, yet, I haven't gone on a shooting rampage. Nor am I ever likely to.

 

What I DO expect for our future, is another collapse, that makes the recession of 2008 look like a garden party. Followed by a severe power vacuum... which will be filled by those I would LEAST want to see in power..... Do I expect that tomorrow? No, not really.... but, more than likely in the next five to ten years, unless something else changes DRAMATICALLY. We are on the road to ruin, and we have the pedal to the metal. When that comes about, I want to actually be able to defend myself, and my family, from those that are less scrupulous......

 

And no, I really don't expect anyone to change their views. I would be quite surprised if someone did switch sides on the issue. I really don't ever see that happening. Of course, that could be said for any topic here. This forum is more for mental exercise than anything else.

[ginnyfizz]

Maharg67 is quite probably postulating about the kind of guns that the average person at home could reasonably expect to handle, load, fire in a home defence situation. If you can drop a deer (our red deer over here are certainly large as opposed to wee beasties)with a bolt action rifle at a distance of 100 yards or more (and yes, I have lain in the heather and done it)you could certainly hit a person at probably considerably less distance. Or for that matter with a 12 bore (some smaller females prefer a 20 bore) shotgun, if you can fire both barrels you could conceivably pepper more than one of the beggars at once.

 

All depends what sort of and size of a mob you are up against. If you were talking the average burglar, rioter or looter, they would be more than likely to have it away on their toes as soon as you shot the first one. Now the armed might of a tyrannical government, then you would need automatics. And a whole lot of mates also with them.

 

@HeyYou looks like you were typing at the same time as me. As you have gathered I have done some shooting, but in the restricted circumstances that pertain here in the UK. I do know also know about the restrictions the US places on the way in which semi autos can be used in hunting. My earlier comments were meant to compare that we do not use them at all that way here (even before they were made totally illegal)and were then jumped upon well...not by you. It may surprise you to hear that despite coming from the more restrictive environment, I do agree with you. My country too is going to hell in a handcart, and I am loathe to think about ever having to do my Dirty Harriet bit, never been on the rampage and never going to, but like yourself can see the day coming when I might have to defend myself...if only I was allowed to.

[Moveing]

Bloomberg: Police Should Go On Strike To Push For Gun Control

 

First off, Bloomberg is a criminal, a traitor, anti-american and should go to prison in the blink of an eye.

Secound off, Yeah the police should go on strike. What do they do anyway than wrote tickets, bully people around and shooting suspects.

[Ferodaktyl]

i find it funny how some of you bring as an argument for (automatic) weapon possession the eventuality of using them against the government if this kind of situation arises. Why funny? Just look what happens when rebels are armed - Syria for example, opposed to the anti-communist revolutions in East Europe , where army was reluctant to open fire against unarmed civilians. Even in Romania where the number of fatalities was higher, the army did not fire on revolutionaries, and my guess is they would have done it if firearms were present on both sides.

Going back to OP, i wonder why this issue, and many others, are not solved by public vote? After all, no one expects someone who bought an automatic (for whatever reason) to agree to give it up, unless forced by law. And then, how many buy automatics anyway?

[Syco21]

Our government is already evil. Right now Congress is comptemplating charging New York Times journalists under the espionage act for revealing their illegal activities.

 

https://www.eff.org/...secute-new-york

 

Fast & Furious was used by Congress as reasons why we should have stricter gun control. Op. F&F was an ATF operation that illegally armed drug gangs in Mexico and cost many people their lives, including some American border patrol agents. To this day, the Obama administration is still trying to cover it up.

 

http://thehill.com/b...ricter-gun-laws

 

You think our governments aren't evil? You think we get to pick who we want to run for president? Try telling that to Ron Paul.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_LWRc5dRM8

 

America might be stable at the moment, but things are very tense and the tension is only rising. To say that there is never going to be an armed rebellion in America is simply to wave your ignorance of American politics around. You think people are happy with the current political structure of the nation? We're not. There's a lot of people that are fed up with the two party system and are starting to see that the Democrats aren't any different than the Republicans and vice versa. They're wanting third party candidates. But they have been denied this election. From the rampant fraud in the GOP conventions to the fraud of last year's election.

 

If there is an armed rebellion in America, and I honestly hope there isn't, it will definitely happen within my lifetime. It wont start as an armed rebellion, it'll start out as widespread turmoil and progress from there.

[Kendo 2]

Going back to OP, i wonder why this issue, and many others, are not solved by public vote?

 

Oh, I don't know...Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, Anthony Weiner, Bloomberg, Schumacher, etc. Prime reasons right there.

 

Syria is just a bad example anyway. You can't compare a fundy Islamofascist country to a free Western society. The ideals just don't jive. That area of the world went from a combination to Ottoman Turk caliphates and European colonialism to Swiss style Parliments after WW1, to hardcore 'we hate the people in the next village because OUR religious beliefs don't mesh with theirs' after WW2. They have been churning and burning since the Roman Byzantines left, fyi.

 

And persoanlly I have no use for a hand gun or an automatic weapon. I've handled and shot both and they are a waste of ammo. I'm from the old school of open sights, bolt action, one shot one kill. That auto-fire 'spray and pray' BS is for gangstas and the military. Reasonable marksmen don't subscribe to that.