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.

 

A Brief History of Repressive Regimes and Their Gun Laws

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Brian4real

None of the guns and firearm in the video are forbidden. At least if it´s a semi remake and I can´t tell by the video. I guess some of those AK remakes are either from the czech market or collector modified (barrel plugged with a steel slug).

You can even get a converted Herstal P90 if you exchange the trigger group and the barrel to another calibre.

Everyone can walk into a gun range here, join the shooting club and after aprox. a year of training and a small exam, you can buy almost* any firearm but have to register it within 14 days.

*There are some exceptions though, no silencers, no laser sights, no full-auto, no 5,7 × 28 mm, no pistol grip repetier actions and some more detailed stuff..

Hunters can get silencers and nightvisions, though.

So contrary to what most in the US think, we do own guns, we are allowed to buy them, but there are exceptions what you can´t buy since you either have a collectors-card or sports-card.

Even inherited guns are allowed to some point. We just don´t have a gun culture like the US.

2 hours drive from here anyone could get grenades or heavier stuff from the czech republic, it´s an open secret. Never went there though.

That being said, there are probably a two digit amount of people who are allowed to carry and even then, there are exceptions.

Somewhere around 2013, the total amounts of fired bullets by the polizei was around 60-70 (excluding training shots) for whole germany.




posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

Thank you for clearing that up for me!!!
Im gonna have fun hitting a few friends with these facts this weekend!
Another question, are your laws divided by "misdeameanor" (not very serious)
And "Felony" (serious offense. Americans lose a few of their constitutional rights if convicted, as well as face prison time)?



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

There's a great big rumor here in the states that firearms are next to impossible to get in europe, especially Germany.
I know England has some pretty strict guidelines, not so sure about France...



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Brian4real




Another question, are your laws divided by "misdeameanor" (not very serious) And "Felony" (serious offense. Americans lose a few of their constitutional rights if convicted, as well as face prison time)?

Yes they are.

Felonies are punishable by prison sentences starting at one year+. Misdemeanours can be punished by shorter prison terms in combination with paying a fine.




There's a great big rumor here in the states that firearms are next to impossible to get in europe, especially Germany.

It´s quite easy. However if you own a gun-owners-card, you are expected to act as a good example. If you get fetched up drunk on a road (even on foot) or getting into fights (not self defense), you will loose the ability to own and operate guns legaly because: With great power comes great responsibility.

If you´re under 25 you might have to be evaluated about your maturity.

But in general, if you are not and idiot and behave on the range, you´ll own up to 3 guns and 2 long barrel firearms after 12 months. You do however have to train regulary, that means either 12 times a year regulary or 18 times unregulary.

This ensures no douchebags get their hands on guns legally. Looking at our gun crime statistic, it works.
However it´s different in germany than the US, where it has historical reasons.

Most people in Germany don´t see the need for a gun and some frown uppon you. They ask questions like, why isn´t an airrifle enough. Those questions always come from people who never had to do anything with shooters guilds.

My answer is because shooting an airrifle isn´t a challenge, there´s no kickback to control. In our local shooters guild (almost every small town has one) you would see 10-12 year old shooting 9s and 10s ("bulls-eye") and participating in contests.

It´s very traditional and the hunting sector is also very traditional. Here, a hunters job is to keep wildlife in check since we have no wolfes anymore. It isn´t shoot to kill, it´s shoot to regulate.

We do have a big problem with boars, that´s why we are now allowed to attach mil-type night visions scopes and silencers to our hunting rifles. Opinions are split on this one but you have to get a permission (it´s trivial)



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Brian4real
Go on our ebay for guns (egun.de) and look for:

Unique Alpine TPG-3 A4 .338 Lapua Magnum

That will convice them without much words

edit on 14-9-2018 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

"I wouldn't go so far as to say that none of the bad stuff would have happened in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany if firearms had been fully legal for everyone."

Are you kidding? So, all the children and women werent gased if they had weapons? Are you insane?



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Brian4real

a german rapper and criminal. never listen to his music until now - this is #ty!



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

I would say that your shooting club sounds a lot like most hunters in the states. If you are a serious hunter, then you own and maintain your guns in a responsible fashion as the tools they are.

A lot of what gets put out as "gun culture" in the states really isn't the reality for a lot of gun owners in the states.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: BrianFlanders

"I wouldn't go so far as to say that none of the bad stuff would have happened in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany if firearms had been fully legal for everyone."

Are you kidding? So, all the children and women werent gased if they had weapons? Are you insane?


You didn't read the sentence construction very well did you?

I wouldn't go so far as to say ...

Means basically that the person in question wouldn't say. In other words, this person wouldn't say none of the bad would have happened. He's saying that bad stuff still would have happened with an armed populace, but he's also saying that if the people had been able to defend themselves, they would have had a chance as opposed to being sheep to the slaughter like they were.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Texas chiming in

Country boys.....they get 12 inch pvc pipes.......for free....then go buy end caps for them.......

I noticed em laying around the boys places.....I had no idea

Then my buddy told me....laughing just a little....like a smirk, or like he wanted to clue innocent little ole me in

We're ready to put the guns oiled up in the pipe....glue the end caps and bury it with the backhoe if they come after the guns......hit me like a ton of lead.....I smiled....!!!



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: BrianFlanders

"I wouldn't go so far as to say that none of the bad stuff would have happened in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany if firearms had been fully legal for everyone."

Are you kidding? So, all the children and women werent gased if they had weapons? Are you insane?


No. I'm not insane. Not completely anyway. If a tyrannical government wants to murder a portion of it's citizens the way the Nazis did, it would happen anyway. It would just take a lot more effort. But it's not like the Nazis didn't already put a fairly huge amount of effort into the Holocaust. Realistically, they would have just gone after armed citizens with brute force if they had to. And a few scattered citizens armed with antique firearms would have been no match for the German military. That's for sure.

That wasn't my point, however. My point was that it actually would have taken significantly more effort for the Nazis to do this and so, it would have been at least SOMETHING. But of course the Jews didn't really know what was going to happen to them (apparently). Maybe some of them did but I get the impression they thought they were just going to be sent to work camps or something and they'd survive even if it did suck.

Unfortunately that is probably the reality of it. I don't know that for a fact though (maybe someone reading actually does and can fill us in?)

Anyway, THE POINT is that the idea of an armed citizenry (besides self defense against criminals (in theory at least)) is as a deterrent against tyranny. Basically, it is intended to serve the same function as a warning sign that says "BEWARE OF DOG!". Or, the fact that the would be criminal can actually see a large, mean looking dog on your property and decides not to try his luck (Even if the dog is actually a wuss).
edit on 14-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Don´t get me wrong, I used the term in a neutral way. I mean guns are more accepted in general.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: ketsuko

Don´t get me wrong, I used the term in a neutral way. I mean guns are more accepted in general.


Eh, generally the term gets used in a negative fashion as a slur when we see it over here is all. So it was hard to tell. No worries.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Do you honestly think that having guns will protect you from oppressive government? They out gun you and have a soldiery, weapons & delivery systems you could never counter. It would be hand guns vs heavy artillery and anti-personnel guided rockets.

It would be the Waco siege From Wikipedia, times one million.

An armed resistance to the government would, instead, mean that an opressive government is more likely to attack pre-emptively than to use diplomacy.

The second amendment might have worked in the 1800's now it is just an enabler of suicide and crime by firearm.

In the light of actual events, the OP's argument is invalid.

With arguments as bad as these, it is clear that the gun lobby are fearful, cowardly and unable to contribute peacefully to achieve a better, safer, life with wealth and liberty for all.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brian4real
I know England has some pretty strict guidelines, not so sure about France...


Yet there are legal 2 million firearms in circulation in the UK, and the police are unarmed.

Turn the OP on its head. All repressive regimes have armed police.


edit on 14/9/2018 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: 727Sky

And another youtube without any text. I do not like looking at random videos, mind if you could give a short summary?


Just Clinton saying the Australian gun by back approach is something we should consider in America along with a few other restrictions along with closing loop holes (that really do not exist) and the all important gun registration for everyone.

I posted this thread knowing only those on the opposite side of the world from America are up and awake so I kinda figured many who would respond believe the government and police are responsible for a citizen's safety. Years of government indoctrination and fast moving police shows where they always get the bad guy is not a reality in way to many circumstances...

As many have said before, "all it takes is one mugging or worse" and people change their minds and start taking personal responsibility for their own safety.

I actually know a girl whose home was broken into while she was there and threaten by a knife wielding idiot ....he just wanted some loving and all her money.. She shot him once with a .22 caliber hand gun. He screamed and ran out the front door he had busted to gain entry before he collapsed in the front yard dead.. shot in the heart, which under the circumstance, was one lucky shot for the girl and a bad day for Mr. Lonely.


And in a society where everyone can legally acquire and carry guns, the criminals are armed with bananas?

If, say, a thief intends to break in and steal stuff from your home, and knows that you might be armed, wouldn't it be likely that they bring along a gun for their personal defense while they commit their crimes?

And because they may encounter you when they break into your home, they'd be likely to have their gun up and safety off just like on all the cop shows. But you, on the other hand wouldn't be likely to have your gun out ready to shoot because you don't even know that they are there yet. So legally arming everybody CANNOT, in the majority of cases, be protective of life and property. Instead it asymmetrically favors the criminal.

Nor does disarming the general public disarm the police. Removing general public access to guns means that fewer criminals will carry a gun and therefore it tilts the advantage toward law enforcement.

It makes sense for responsible government to reduce the numbers of publicly owned guns. However, the US government has several laws that seem to be there for reducing population numbers by killing its citizens. Its insane (un)health system that puts profit before life, its massive and obscene overfunding for the military (and really, what are the threats?), its gun laws and several other laws that allow officers and citizens to kill and then walk away with a slap on the wrist.

Perhaps they are 'making America great again' for the survivors because they are unable to actually balance the books as responsible government and they have an agenda as per the Georgia Guide Stones population control?



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Brian4real
I know England has some pretty strict guidelines, not so sure about France...


Yet there are legal 2 million firearms in circulation in the UK, and the police are unarmed.

Turn the OP on its head. All repressive regimes have armed police.


Yes, but that is because in the US they haven't understood that lots of guns = lots of crime and lots of suicide.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



And in a society where everyone can legally acquire and carry guns, the criminals are armed with bananas?


Disarm the law abiding citizens and all you have are the crooks and criminals who are armed.

As far as the population standing up to a blood thirsty government you are correct. You want to go toe to toe then prepare to die. Only gorilla type warfare which makes it almost impossible for the gestapo to move freely would have any chance of success as It basically comes down to a number game then. Ten million die to stop the one million but even that is not necessary if you can take out the planners and bosses who want the genocide to start .

But by all means everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If I had been a Chinese, a Pole, a Jew, a Russian, an Indian, a Cambodian, a Kurd, an Armenian, or anyone else you can name I would prefer to fight back rather than be on my knees waiting for the blow to the head. But there are and have been others who dutifully kneel waiting for the bullet because they were unarmed and felt there was no way to fight back. youtu.be...

youtu.be...



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

In the US, you would have to be in a situation where the volunteer military 100% agrees with the government in question.

Right now, that's highly unlikely to occur in a widespread, systematic attempt at government oppression.

While we can agree that WACO shows the dangers, it was also always going to be highly unlikely that there would be widespread sympathy for the Branch Davidians.

Cliven Bundy was a better idea of what can happen with an armed populace pushing back.



posted on Sep, 14 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: chr0naut



And in a society where everyone can legally acquire and carry guns, the criminals are armed with bananas?


Disarm the law abiding citizens and all you have are the crooks and criminals who are armed.


No, the police are still armed, and at their current levels.

Meanwhile, only those crooks who obtain their guns illegally remain armed. The rest of them aren't armed. Plus, if the possession of a gun without a license is an offense, they'll go to jail just for having a gun, without even having used one in commission of a crime. This means fewer criminals in circulation as well as fewer armed ones.


As far as the population standing up to a blood thirsty government you are correct. You want to go toe to toe then prepare to die. Only gorilla type warfare which makes it almost impossible for the gestapo to move freely would have any chance of success as It basically comes down to a number game then. Ten million die to stop the one million but even that is not necessary if you can take out the planners and bosses who want the genocide to start .

But by all means everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If I had been a Chinese, a Pole, a Jew, a Russian, an Indian, a Cambodian, a Kurd, an Armenian, or anyone else you can name I would prefer to fight back rather than be on my knees waiting for the blow to the head. But there are and have been others who dutifully kneel waiting for the bullet because they were unarmed and felt there was no way to fight back. youtu.be...

youtu.be...



Yeah but it is your government that you are arming yourself against.

You' should realize that a government that the people don't control, one that instead controls the people, is an oppressive government, and it is the one you have now, despite your guns.

They are using your guns against you as a tool of fear, attrition and oppression.

edit on 14/9/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join