It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The United Kingdom, gun control, and what it really means

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

I'm sure there is a joke in there somewhere about being a stiff...

But that aside, I enjoy walking down the street in the knowledge that some chav idiot, or some drunk doesn't have easy access to firearms, end of.

I have a shotgun certificate, and there is no lawful reason that I cannot hold a firearms certificate, especially with the training I have with firearms....I simply have no need for them, but I also take comfort in knowing that should I want or need them, I can have them.




posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

Agreed lol...



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

Glad you got it along with Awareness10. Spot on with what you say.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

My family are all of British Decent. I personally fear for my family there, and how they've been brainwashed to think like other British commonwealth countries have. People need to wake up and smell something familiar, if not GMO roses then something familiar that isn't farked up.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   
There is plenty of guns should ISIS decide to get frisky, the local cadet force has a load of rifles/ammo about 10 mins away from me, they're old stock that don't use NATO sized ammo and basically the army gave them it all as its probably cheaper than paying to destroy the lot and thats before heading about 20-30 mins away to the local countrysports store that last time i looked had enough guns to keep even the mythical 'Bubba' happy

Would of been nice to have a section 5 licensed shop around here should the zombies rise up but theres no need around here



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
After many years of debating gun control with Americans, and getting nowhere, I have decided to put together a thread explaining our [UK] gun laws and why they have worked for us.
...
In 1689, there was a bill of rights, and part of that was the right to bear arms (sound familiar?), but we weren’t faced with native peoples trying to protect their land, or fierce creature trying to maul us, so it was a non-issue.
...
The whole system changed in 1920 when the firearms act was introduced, this gave the police powers to deny a firearm to anyone who was deemed unfit, and quite rightly so, the last thing they wanted was a bunch of loons, or people suffering PTSD from the war carrying these things about!

1937 saw another firearms act come in which prohibited fully automatic weapons.
...
The next amendment of the firearms act in 1997 saw the banning of handguns over .22 calibre, although when Labour got in at the next election, they further amended this to include .22’s.
...


An excellent summary. The pedant in me wants to address one or two points though.

The Bill of Rights did not give a "right to bear arms" in the way most people present it. I'm entirely favour of that and wish it did say it, but it doesn't. The right to hold arms was limited by law. Protestants, however, were subject to much greater restrictions. The Bill of Rights removed the additional restrictions from Protestants, so that everyone had an equal right to bear arms. It was still limited by law, but that law was to be applied equally to Catholics and Protestants.

The initial reason for the major shift towards gun control wasn't exactly post-war PTSD. The Russian Revolution in 1917 saw the unthinkable happen - a major "almost European" power had its government toppled by a populist revolt. The anti-government/anti-monarchy sentiment was spreading across Europe, with the UK seeing its own substantial growth in malcontents. The government decided it really didn't want to have a large armed population of war veterans who might be thinking that the Russians had the right idea. By placing the powers into the hands of the Police and making it a judgement call based on the individual, this made sure that only "the right kind of people" had weapons. In other words, pro-government.

Handguns can still be held by civilians (I'm not talking about the long-barreled versions, I mean normal handguns) but you have to satisfy a collection of odd criteria. I know people with a range of 1911s, Browning HiPowers, etc.

Other than that, good job, carry on!
edit on 5-7-2015 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Maxatoria

I'm sure they do, however, my worry is that ... seeing as they take their Orders from Psychopaths, who tell them to jump, they'll jump, sit, they'll sit.

The world is being contradicted, regardless of who has what. And all i can think to myself is, holy horse #e... These guys are being fed pills to keep them on top of the ball and will do anything for another hit. What if... they were deprived of their 'FILL'? They would literally act like drug addicts in heat, and do Anything they were told in order to get their next fix. Maybe it's my Virgoan nature but crap.. i analyze everything to the Death, and i don't trust any of it.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

Woogleuk...

First of all, gun control is a term which invalidates at least half of the potential arms one could use for defending ones home, or ones life and liberty external to the home. It is not just guns that the government here have an issue with.

Secondly, you are effectively saying is that the failure of a small number of people, to keep their crap in check, means that for all we have a notional right to bear arms, we do not actually have any such thing.

I am a Briton, and a proud one. I respect my community, both locally, and nationally, and everyone in it who affords me that same respect. There is no reason which I can work out, why I should not be allowed to carry a mere blade for my personal defence, and to deploy against threats to my community in dire situations which might call for it. And yet I may not carry any kind of blade which would be useful for the purpose.

The regulations and rules regarding the carriage of a blade, mean that the only types of blade one may carry on ones person, are functionally useless for self defence. It's folding, non-locking blades only, or you get jail time.

Gun control as an issue is not the main problem we have in this country. The main problem we are having in this country is that the law does not respect the fact that a human being must have the right to self defence, and whatever tools are necessary to achieve that self defence, and be allowed to defend themselves WHERE EVER THEY HAPPEN TO DAMNED WELL BE!

We have no such right worth a crap. If you defend yourself in your home, as of a couple of years ago, you may be upheld by the law, even if your defence of home and self results in death for your assailant. If you defend yourself rather than becoming a victim in ANY OTHER SCENARIO, then you may as well get on your knees, prepare for a cuffing, and get ready to go to jail for an extended period. If you defend yourself lethally, you might as well prepare to never live outside a jail cell again for the remainder of your life.

I spit in the eyes of these regulations. They insist that I become a victim if attacked, rather than be free and confident in my defence of self, knowing that if I am attacked, I will be upheld if I respond with the force I deem appropriate, which like any Briton worth a damn, is to utterly demolish my assailant to the point where they can offer no response to my counter attack.

I have no such confidence in the law, because it fails in every particular to back up an assaulted party, it fails to recognise victimhood correctly all the damned time, it fails to promote self defence by supporting those who engage with it to any degree worth a crap, and it makes villains of those who believe that they ought to be able to carry tools to better aid their retention of life and liberty.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Again in UK we have 2 laws. 1 for the poor people and 1 for the wealthy. A prominent business man and football club owner has recently admitted to carrying a handgun around with him due to threats from supporters of his club. He has so far not been charged, so this implies he has some sort of licence or permission to carry this firearm. Does anyone in UK know of such a law or if wealthy people can protect themselves with firearms whilst we, the public, cannot carry a walking stick without risk of arrest.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

lol yes thankyou for giving me hope for my English heritage. I know the English are strong and don't take #e for any reason. I just want to see that again in our era, in this time frame. I also believe people have nearly 'had enough' of the crap that's been spoon fed them by media. People, more or less, know right from wrong and have the instincts to know when to stand up for their race and country, i believe this is the beginning of one of those times. If people don't stand up now, they never will, however my grandparents did stand up, and that is what keeps me going, knowing that my lineage aren't complete numbnuts and that they Would stand up for their Heritage, Freedom and Country. this should be the same with all Countries and Peoples. Stand up for your rights and your heritage.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: woogleuk

I have no such confidence in the law, because it fails in every particular to back up an assaulted party, it fails to recognise victimhood correctly all the damned time, it fails to promote self defence by supporting those who engage with it to any degree worth a crap...


Do you have any examples you'd like to provide for that?

I agree that the laws on self defence are far from ideal, but in the vast majority of cases where someone is prosecuted for "defending themselves", what actually happened is that they finished "defending themselves" but carried on giving the attacker a damn good kicking.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
I partially agree with you, the knife laws are ridiculous, and knifes are a completely different kettle of proverbial fish when compared to guns.

Laws in some areas are too restrictive just because of one or two incidents.

Knifes on the other hand are also a useful tool for many scenarios, not just defense.......guns however have but one purpose, to extinguish life, animal (which to an extent I am ok with as long as it is pest control or food) or human.....oh and to start races.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
...guns however have but one purpose, to extinguish life, animal (which to an extent I am ok with as long as it is pest control or food) or human.....oh and to start races.


Really? I've got a safe full of guns that so far have failed to extinguish any life (human, animal, or alien) or start any races.

They must be faulty. I wish I'd kept the receipts


Target shooting is a thriving and enjoyable sport, you know



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I think actually a big difference especially lately with the US all the cops here are armed unlike there. You mates also trust your police much more than we do ours. In the US we like guns because the good guys have 2 sets of bad guys, the real bad guys and the real bad guys with badges.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: chewi

I'd imagine they'd need proof he actually had a gun to take it to court and anything is legal in the UK with the right paperwork so if he's got it signed off by the right people then yes he could have a handgun on him and a dozen full auto ak-47's in the boot.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: irishhaf

Your user name "irishalf" caused me to pause and wonder how the Scots and Irish feel about the gun laws in the UK and how such laws may have been more intended to be against them than society as a whole.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

Condolences over your friends. There are many ways to crack up. They don't all have such an impact.

This video says a lot.


Although I'm an obvious hippy type and could easily be taken for an 'anti', every time I've stumbled across legitimate sporting types deep in the countryside they've always been extremely polite and considerate. That is very much appreciated.

I haven't hunted for a few years, I find killing and butchering very distasteful, but if you or your family eat meat you should be capable of providing.

There is no shortage of firearms here. I often wonder what are the motives for misleading the US about our gun position. I was thinking about starting a similar thread a few days ago, must be time for it.

On Dunblane. I have communicated with Sandra and I find her to be reliable. I believe she deserves our support and protection. She only backed down because of the threats. Go figure, as they say. news.bbc.co.uk... stolenkids-dunblane.blogspot.co.uk... dunblanemurders.blogspot.co.uk... www.amazon.co.uk...

Dunblane exposed is not her site and contains misleading elements. Again. Go figure.

Here's a coincidence. A friend has just turned up who isn't safe with a butter knife, never mind a gun. Care must be taken. Over and out.
edit on 5 7 2015 by Kester because: another link



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: irishhaf

Your user name "irishalf" caused me to pause and wonder how the Scots and Irish feel about the gun laws in the UK and how such laws may have been more intended to be against them than society as a whole.


It's an interesting point. Norn Iron has significantly less restrictive firearms laws than the mainland, while Scotland seems desperate to head in the opposite direction with ridiculously restrictive laws.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   
There is no point restricting access to weapons. It just makes it easier for a government to control their population, by making sure the population can never be well armed.

Maniacs will always find a way to do their massacres. Even if all weapons were completely outlawed, they would still acquire them illegally, or make bombs instead.

The problem I think, is that people are essentially being punished for the crimes of the insane. People who defend these laws claims it is to prevent killings, but they will still happen anyway and you never sacrifice freedom for the sake of a false sense of security. Let people get their guns, unlicensed, everywhere. If some idiot goes off shooting people he'll get what he deserves: when he does shoot someone, not before.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

There have been many examples of homeowners and business persons being arrested for merely assaulting an intruder, let alone killing them outright.

And new laws which were supposed to be passed to balance the law in favour of homeowners and business persons in cases where intruders are injured, have been watered down to the point of total idiocy...

www.dailymail.co.uk... garden-chasing-outside.html

If you want specific examples, my advice would be to google Tony Martin, and then go on a googleventure of your own specifications to see more like it.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join