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.

 

Britain calling, they want they're guns back!!

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by scoopyjon
 


Absolutely true... and he was diagnosed with mental problems, but for some reason was still allowed to keep a gun.

Masons eh?

Above the law...




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


This is a very interesting post and it goes right to the heart of American interest in the issues at hand.

Americans aren't really interested in whether or not Britons can own guns without onerous regulations or whether or not it is lawful to own a common boning knife.

What we are interested in is the process and the outcomes of creating a nanny state.

We don't need to have an intimate knowledge of British culture. What we want to know is if these measures which are in effect in some areas of the US are working elsewhere and how an expansion of those policies will affect our nation.

It stacks up like this. Wherever there are fewer guns, gun violence is highest. It doesn't matter if it's Washington, D.C., Detroit, NYC, LA, or Britain or Australia.

[edit on 2008/6/4 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The short sighted part of the gun ban is simply this.

Law abiding citizens will obey the gun bans, they will give their guns up to the authorities at hand. The criminal won't do this, the very nature of being a criminal means you'l happily break the law. so what you're left with is an unarmed citizenry and an armed criminal element.

For those who say that the rampages we sometimes see wouldn't happen if weapons were banned. Well quite simply, if weapons were regulated properly we would very rarely see such a thing. If someone wants to kill a lot of people they will find a way, it's like arguing that the suicide rate would go down if we banned guns. Someone will always find a way.

Guns i think need to be tightly controlled, however they don't need to be banned. The basic requirments would be simple.

No mental health problems, or history of mental health problems
No criminal record
No history of violent behavior
You must belong toa registered gun club

Checks would have to be conducted every two years, family doctors would be under the obligation to inform the police if someone becomes mentally unstable or is taking any mood altering drugs. This includes anti-depressants. Alcoholism and current drug use would also exclude someone from gun ownership.

If we instigated all of these things then the average citizen could continue a hobby they enjoy and have a good level of safety.

The only other arguement against this is that some people say there is no point to owning a gun, it's made only for killing afterall. Well you could say the same about archery in the UK. We are not allowed to hunt with bow and arrow, the only clubs that do archery aim at targets. So whats the difference between a bow and a handgun for target practice? Both are enjoyable hobbies, and that's justification for legalising them.

I sold my rifles and air rifles a few years back. After all this gun activity i honestly thought they'd be banning all weapons soon enough. I guess we'll see what happens.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 07:30 AM
link   
One can only hope that there is hope for the British people yet, and that they may wake up if the government tries to ban sharp, pointed knives. I would hope that people would sit up and question the government when they are forced to hand over kitchen utensils in order to prevent inner city gang violence... surely no populace is stupid enough to swallow that logic?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
One can only hope that there is hope for the British people yet, and that they may wake up if the government tries to ban sharp, pointed knives. I would hope that people would sit up and question the government when they are forced to hand over kitchen utensils in order to prevent inner city gang violence... surely no populace is stupid enough to swallow that logic?



Want a bet? The people of this country will swallow anything that's told to them as long as they're nicely scared. They'll give up anything as long as it makes them feel safer, freedoms, kitchen utensils, their first born, anything that gives them a hope of being safer.

It's like a comfort blanket.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I've never seen any evidence that gun control reduces crime, certainly not here in the US, where all the data points the other way.

The fact is, restricting the rights of law abiding gun owners is not going to reduce crime - prosecuting criminals is.

The UK has made it's own bed, now it gets to lie in it.
It's up to the people there to decide what their laws are going to be.

Here in the US, I'm glad the right is enshrined in our Constitution, and I predict (hope) the Supreme Court is about to issue a reminder of that fact.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

The fact is, restricting the rights of law abiding gun owners is not going to reduce crime - prosecuting criminals is.



Unfortunately I think this is right. The main reason we are suffering so much over here is more to do with our law enforcement and justice systems having had the balls lopped off them by misguided hardline liberal ideology. When you get twelve years for kicking someone to death, then leave to appeal against the sentence it's pretty much self explanatory.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cantwara

Originally posted by xmotex

The fact is, restricting the rights of law abiding gun owners is not going to reduce crime - prosecuting criminals is.



Unfortunately I think this is right. The main reason we are suffering so much over here is more to do with our law enforcement and justice systems having had the balls lopped off them by misguided hardline liberal ideology. When you get twelve years for kicking someone to death, then leave to appeal against the sentence it's pretty much self explanatory.


Evidence of a hardline liberal ideology from this government, which has gone to extreme lengths to ban everything and act in an illberal manner as possible?

And by evidence, I don't mean the Torygraph or Daily Mail.

I'm a liberal and I hated this government since about day one. Our inconsistent criminal policy is a consequence of having a leader who decided to take his ideas from the tabloids, resulting in a maxed out criminal population, leaving judges with little choice over sentencing due to prison crowding.

There is nothing "liberal" about this government whatsoever. Left wing, maybe (on certain policies), but certainly autocratic. There has always been an authoritarian rot at the centre of Blairism, which reverses pretty much everything liberals believe about the role of the state.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Rogue Element
 



The present government is merely an entity that exists to serve itself and its own interests exclusively. They’re beyond a political label. And yes they may react to a few tabloid headlines but only with sound-bites and show and tell initiatives that merely paper over the cracks, not address them.

As to the justice system, it’s soaked through with human rights legislation, and worn out social shibboleths that focus on rehabilitation and the needs of the perpetrator above everything else. Granted we’re starting to see a shift as things become untenable, but even now you still get the hardliners bleating that it’s society’s fault and the criminals are the true victims, while the judges, magistrates and police authorities that do retain some common sense are crushed between these champions of the underdog and an indifferent govt urging them not to hand out custodial sentences because the prisons are full and they don’t want to build many more. It’s a mixture of callous greed and ideological wordplay and these ‘hardline liberals’ have imposed as much of a tyranny upon the British public as any far right fascist could hope to.

I’ll make the distinction of ‘hard-line’ though, as they are not liberal in any true sense of the word. I class myself as a liberal too, it means live and let live, not live and screw anyone else’s rights into the bargain.

So back to the original question; we don’t need guns, we need common sense.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
the government is not an invincible shield. if we have to, YES we can overtake it. humans still die last time i checked.



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
[edit on 15-6-2008 by Illahee]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join