Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

The Sorry Case of a Gunless Great Britain

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Gun Nuts
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

August 16, 2011

The Sorry Case of a Gunless Great Britain

By David E. Petzal

by David E. Petzal

One of the reasons I enjoy going through old copies of Field & Stream is that they bring back to life little bits of history that would otherwise be forgotten. One of these is the fact that in 1939-1940, Great Britain begged American shooters and hunters for rifles—any kind of rifles. Until England won the Battle of Britain in the fall of 1940, it looked very likely that Adolf was going to send his merry men in feldgrau across the Channel, and His Majesty’s Home Guard—a sad joke in and of itself—was practically gunless, the British having already gone a long way down the road to self-disarmament.

That trend has continued over the past 70 years, and in the past week we have been treated to nightly tapes of widespread rioting, looting and, even in gunless England, killing. The mobs could break into any store they choose, serene in the knowledge that the police couldn’t stop them and that the odds they would be shot by an irate store owner were virtually nil. And the laws in Great Britain being what they are, any merchant who did treat a looter to a dose of shot would almost surely go to prison.

Will the British learn from this? Not likely. Any more than the dimmer-witted Americans who insist that if only we didn’t have so many guns around, blah, blah, blah…

Comments (62)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Duckman1984 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Imagine that...I wonder what cockamamie BS the antis are going to dream up to defend their way of thinking in light of this. I can hear it now, "well, you see, um, what happened was, um, the people were feed up, and um, well, j-just think, you know, what would have happened if they would have had guns...yea. Think about it...We would have rampant murder of people trying to buy bread. And that would have led to class wars, followed by revolution, and an invasion of the neighboring countries, triggering WW3 and the zombie apocalypse. Utter destruction of mankind; all because they owned guns…"

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from MJC wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

And yet, ironically, it was a shooting that started the whole thing.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bellringer wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

There are non so blind as those who will not see.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from GregMc wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Good point Dave. You could also make a solid argument that private ownership of wildlife hurt the public's ability to hunt, and that loss of hunting further diminished the advocacy pool for gun ownership.
http://shotgunchronicle.com/2011/03/12/about-guns-in-england/

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from buriti wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

I traveled several times to the gun less paradizes of the United Kingdom and Australia, and people will clearly tell you that they have a big issue with violent crimes on the rise.

I remember that a taxi driver in Birmingham told me how scared he was about working on the outskirts of the city and during night shift, and that he was afraid all the time that he would be shot. I asked how that was possible, if handguns were outlawed in the UK. The answer was that criminal don't care about laws.

Also, we cannot forget that the British Crown does not recognize the right to self-defense by its subjects.

I guess that an unarmed person is a subject, but an armed one is a citizen.

+17 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntnow wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

My wife and I were watching the riots on the news the other night and she, not me, made the comment that such violence would have been ended much quicker if the people were armed. In the small town I live in the merchants are as likely to be armed as anyone, likely preventing the widespread looting. The fear of being shot by the person you are robbing or assaulting has been diminished in Europe to the point of a joke.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from focusfront wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

We have plenty of guns in America, yet LA was busted up by riots for days in the '90s. It is easy to stop a riot. Just shoot the first person in the mob who throws a brick. But that will never happen. No cop has ever lost his job for failing to stop a riot, but imagine what would happen to the cop who guns down an unarmed civilian whose only crime is protesting a police shooting? We don't protect our cops, so they have to protect themselves. So they stand with their hands in their pockets when the first brick is thrown. Hence, riots.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Buriti hit it on the head:

"I guess that an unarmed person is a subject, but an armed one is a citizen."

Well spoken.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

buriti hit it right out of the Ball Park!

Now some facts with references.

“At first glance, it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime: yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime generally are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon. The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls have had serious effect on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of this country (Britain) or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals, or in any way reduce crime.”
-Chief Inspector Colins Greenwood, West Yorkshire Constabulary, Police Review, Britain after six months of study of firearms control systems at Cambridge University

______________________________________________________

“This proposal will never prevent criminals from possessing firearms and we never said it would.”
-Daryl Smeaton, Attorney General's department, Director of Law Enforcement Co-ordination, on the new Australian gun bans, in The Weekend Australian, 20-21 September 1997, page 6

______________________________________________________

“This business about gun control is a joke really. I come from Switzerland where everyone is taught how to treat weapons sensibly and with care. In Switzerland everyone keeps a gun in their own home and we don't have any problems with them.”
-Mrs Emma Jay, 70, Northern New South Wales, Australia, Friend of Port Arthur mass shooting victim Jim Pollard, as reported in The Age 19/7/96 page A7

______________________________________________________

“Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime of murder, and a law enforcement officer committed that crime.”
-The History Channel, Modern Marvels, Weapons at War: The Machine Gun

______________________________________________________

“A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851.”
-Justice Harlan, Supreme Court of the United States, in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), recognizing a special and expansive immunity for felons from the National Firearms Act regulation of machine guns (and other assorted firearms and firearms-related devices), and by extension from any firearm registration regime

____________________________________________________

“When I began my research on guns in 1976, like most academics, I was a believer in the 'anti-gun' thesis. ... It seemed then like self-evident common sense which hardly needed to be empirically tested. ... [But] the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U.S. ... Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. ... The positive associations often found between aggregate levels of violence and gun ownership appear to be primarily due to violence increasing gun ownership, rather than the reverse.”
-Prof. Gary Kleck, Florida State University School of Criminology, from a speech given to the National Academy of Sciences in 1991, as reported by Don B. Kates, Jr. in "Shot Down", National Review, March 6, 1995, pages 49-54

__________________________________________________

Recent research that I have done, examining juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides for all the states in the United States from 1977 to 1996, found that safe-storage laws had no impact on either type of death. However, what did happen was that law-abiding citizens were less able to defend themselves against crime. The 15 states that adopted these laws during this period faced over 300 more murders and 3,860 more rapes per year. Burglaries also increased dramatically.”
-John R. Lott, senior research scholar at the Yale University Law School, author of the book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws

_____________________________________________________

So now we are back to what buriti said!

"I guess that an unarmed person is a subject, but an armed one is a citizen."

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Now for your viewing,

ENJOY!

Best Damn "Gun Control" Commercial! Please share!
http://www.facebook.com/#!/video/video.php?v=1407771441253

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago
from Beekeeper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

You are correct Dave. It is illegal for one to use a legal firearm in GB to repel and assailant. If one does one goes to jail, simple as that. It is your duty in a socialist country to provide for the health and welfare of your neighbor don't you know...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

In Australia being robbed at gun point, you will go to jail defending yourself with a stick!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tony Berg wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Buriti said it all when he posted "An unarmed person is a subject, and an armed person is a citizens." Bottom line, the right to to bear arms is a constitutional right. If the liberals find a way to take your guns away they also take away the means to protect yourself and you other rights. If they can take that right away, then who is to say your freedom of speech won't be next. A government should fear its people, the people should not fear their government.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

As of last month any Wyoming citizen can carry concealed, most places in the state, even without a license. The same citizens have been able to carry in view since the beginning of time again with the exception of the usual locales that apply to our CCW permits. Even in Yellowstone Park those of us who possess a CCW permit can pack heat. Proportionally to the few people who live in this state the crime rate is very low compared to most places in the world. Several other western states also have minimal incidences of crime. Why is this?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Oryx wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Quote from Buriti:

"Also, we cannot forget that the British Crown does not recognize the right to self-defense by its subjects."

This statement serves well to show what the 2nd Amendment is really about, as well as why it was deemed important at the time. I would say it also shows why this amendment and the right is illuminates is just as important today as it was when it was written, not to mention why the US citizens should resist the pressure from the UN to disarm us. It seems that maybe things haven't changed that much in the last 220+ years.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Crusty Ya done good with both of those!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from buriti wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Here we go again. I was born in Brazil and now hold dual US and Brazilian citizenship.

Over the last 30 years I witnessed progressively more "liberal" governments establish more and more oppressive gun laws until the point that Brazil has some of the most draconian gun laws in the world. You can actually be arrested by have an empty cartridge in your possession.

"Surprisingly" crime rate is inversely proportional to legal gun ownership, and people feel less safe today.

God bless the second amendment!

Read my blog at awildbeastatheart.blogspot.com

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The Brits are so keen on gun control they even forbid the English Olympic pistol shooters from practicing in England but have made special accommodation to allow the event to take place in London in 2012.

Quick facts from wiki. Gun homicides in GB are 4 times lower than that in the US and about equal to Canada but in Great Britain assaults and robberies are 6 times higher than the US. This stat says two things. 1) Guns lower violent crime 2) Great Britain is a target rich environment.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CHKILCHII wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Brits never were the brightest. You'd think they would learn from the country they were fighting in WWII that disarming the public will never end up all dance through the lillies and sing with the birds good. It will only end in disorder and those armed with bad intentions to overtake those who were denied that right by THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT, THE ONE WHOSE JOB IT IS TO PROTECT THEM!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Brits and Norwegians don't really have the sense to revolt.
Maybe that's why we revolted.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Very good point Jim, when does the next one start?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

I can't feel sorry for them, they (the "subjects") allowed these laws to come into being by the way they voted or did not vote. They do have a parliament and free elections, but liberalism/socialism/something for nothing set in and folks were able to overlook certain "rights" which they felt did not impact them directly.
We had better be carefull, if the U.N treaty gets signed and we allow it then that is where (subjects) we are heading.
As far as L.A riots go, the wrong people have guns in Kali.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from scratchgolf72 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

OI!! ill be damned if the bloody government thinks they be taken away my guns!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

History does repeat itself...GB is no exception to the rules of SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT. Discussing America, and our ravenous appetite for guns, is really not the issue here. We Americans need to focus on our traditions and to hell with those countries having issues with it. History seems to be the best teacher for there flawed thinking; Gun ownership included.
Disarming the public is not the answer for a peaceful society!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

and here I thought Norwegians revolted from Sweden?

anyway, it was only in the late 80's or early 90's that the London police were allowed to have firearms, and even then they still couldn't just use them. Initially it was in a locked box in the squad car, and the protocol for discharging was something like:
-must radio HQ before the locked box can be opened
-must radio HQ for permission to take the firearm out of the box
-must radio HQ for permission to load the firearm
-must radio HQ for permission to take it off SAFE
-must radio HQ for permission to fire

the string of radio calls and responses must sound like a submarine protocol for releasing a nuke (permission to place my finger on the tactical firing trigger, sir!)

it's also a lot easier to acquire British citizenship than say, American citizenship. Some foreign workers only need to stay there for 5 straight years, I think. Some are professionals (employees of British oil or mining companies, for example, who are well-paid and educated) and behave more or less properly, but some are radicals from the former colonies.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from AlaskanExile wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Ishawooa;
Armed "in-your-face" crime in Wyoming is almost non-existent because even if the person a criminal tries to mess with isn't armed, someone within rifle-range probably is. Wyoming is one of the most freedom-embracing places you could live on the face of the earth.
They run their budget in the black, too!
AKX

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from AlaskanExile wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

I've been fishing many times on the Russian River here in Alaska where hundreds of people lined the banks, shoulder-to-shoulder to compete for fish. Almost every single person is armed, yet I can't ever remember there being so much as a fist-fight breaking out down there!
If guns cause violence, then some surely should have broken out, but for some reason everyone is polite.
Kind of blows that "guns cause crime" theory right out of the water!
AKX

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ferber wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

In recent enough history--maybe a dozen or so years ago--the British government outlawed ownership of personal handguns for any reason and/or made it so impossible to acquire or shoot handguns that the British Olympic Team and shooting program went kaput.

In the very unlikely event that this current anti-gun administration somehow manages to disarm us...they won't disarm us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wingshooter54 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The riots in Britain were not about the shooting of a scum drug dealer;they were about looting and stealing. The shooting was an excuse, much like a hurricane in New Orleans was an excuse to loot and steal especially after the mayor ordered all firearms to be confiscated in the interests of safety. Notice from the videos that most all of the perpetrators wore hooded sweatshirts, the mark of the street gang. In my opinion, all drug dealers should be shot.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The only ones who want to disarm us are the ones who have the most to fear from an armed citizenry, i.e. the despots, progressives, and would be dictators and control freaks. Read that Obama and his ilk. However, the Capon in Chief and his band of thugs are not the first and surely will not be the last.

Without the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution and all the other Amendments are worthless.

Dave, maybe the title should have read "Gutless" instead of "Gunless".

WAM

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from thewormturns wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Sorry to interrupt the tidal wave of self-congratulation here but I am one of numerous Brits who has thrived and rejoiced in 'gunless Britain' for almost half-a-century. If our stance on gun ownership during that time amuses and bewilders Americans, be in no doubt the feeling is entirely mutual.

Society over here has not crumbled through absence of civilian firepower but through a cancer of liberalism that has, over the last two decades, neutered law and order to the point where criminals view its officers as they would a maiden aunt.

When wrongdoers no longer fear justice, anarchy beckons and we are now, I grant you, at the point where the right to bear arms would have to be seriously considered, were this country governed with common sense instead of bankrupt right-on idealism (as an example of the latter, already the bleeding heart brigade is starting to lament the fact that some of last week's London rioters are actually being - gasp - sent to prison...)

As for the past half-century, though, no regrets whatsoever.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

I've said this before and I'll say it again.
The "anti-gun" crowd will, in time, prevail.
Within MY lifetime? Nope, 'cause I'll die hanging onto mine.
Within my children's lifetime. Could be. I truly hope not.
They eat away at the Second Amendment like a recurring cancer. You can NEVER stop treatments, but must stay constantly (NRA, GOA) on guard. The ONLY thing that will stop them (gun grabbers) is "nothing"!
"Nothing" but sticks and clubs to defend youself!
Ready to join the NCA? National Club Association? How about Stick Owners of America?

At some point in time, they(gun grabbers) WILL prevail!
It's only a matter of time.
Hope I'm dead by then!

Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from kansasjeff wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

As an ESL teacher I’ve met many fellow teachers from Great Britain. As one explained to me growing up in London you are expect to be mugged at least once every five years. One of my coworkers described to me how he was sitting in a McDonalds and an older student than him just walked up and stuck a knife to his back and led him outside to relieve him of his wallet and cell phone. To me this is beyond belief, that criminals could walk around unafraid of any consequence sure CCTV may catch you but who cares as long as you can mug faster than they can zero in on your face. I’ve said before that I’m in favor of reasonable gun control. I’m ok with waiting a few days to make sure the guy in front of me in line isn’t the new Pablo Escobar and the guy behind me isn’t the new Charlie Manson. But British gun laws and self defense laws are insane.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tony C. wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Wasn't it Minutemen armed with their own guns who whupped the Redcoats way back when? They shoulda learned then.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from scratchgolf72 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

tony, i feel like the playing field was a bit more even back in 1776....to my knowledge, none of my neighbors own abrahams tanks or f-16 fighter jets or apache attack helicopters.

if our military comes after the guns, were screwed...last time i checked i didnt have any anti-tank ordnance lying around the house.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The bleeding heart position is the anti-firearms one. Any town would be a better place if rioters would be shot by home and business owners. I know some UK expats that left Britain because of the firearms restrictions and migrated to the USA. America is incrementally better for having them here.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

scratch'! LOL!!!!

You don't have anti-tank ordnance and anti-personnel mines lying about? Whatsa mattah U? Your local WalMart run out?

You make a VERY valid point!
About all one could hope for is that an "ex" military leader lived in the area and could amass enough "civies" to turn the "tide" somewhat!
Other than that, you're right, you may get one or two, but YOU will go down!

Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Plotner wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

when i went to townsend montana in there hardware store they had a .30-30 and 2 boxs of shells above the counter and evey truck had a gun. thats what i like about it out there

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from azduane wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

I read about the sales of aluminum baseball bats from Amazon UK in England going through the roof. It seems the store owners realized a whack to the knees was a pretty good deterrant. I belive there was even a comment on Amazon to that affect.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

We all admire the Brits in many ways; the air war over London, great bravery, distinguished African hunters, Jim Corbett, etc., etc,. I have had a few close English friends who I admired greatly. However, like most nations, they can frequently be seriously damn fools. The firearms stance is but one example. Their idiotic class system had a great deal to do with the loss of their empire. Even if economics after WW2 had not forced them to give it up, their attitude toward the people of their colonies as lowly inferiors guaranteed that they would eventually be thrown out, and deservedly so. The desire to disarm the populace may originate from the "upper classes" due to their distrust of what they probably still see as the vaguely threatening masses that might one day turn on them. It would seem that "1984" might be arriving there shortly, and lack of arms will hasten the day.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

To scratchgolf72: It has been proven over and over during our lifetimes that a motivated and armed populace fighting a guerrilla war against a vastly better equipped force can frequently win. Do you think that we are "winning" in Afghanistan? They have defeated every invader thrown against them and we will leave there the same way, just as we did in Viet Nam. Armed American citizens can probably defeat anyone.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

AE
to quote Jeff Cooper " An armed society is a POLITE society"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

tom warner,
I salute you and a plus. Good point.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from lyndonavery wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Amen Tom Warner. Strength in numbers and a unified effort. Good is supposed to triumph over evil.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Oryx wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Buckstopper, I think Cooper was quoting Heinlein. Still a good quote.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Oryx wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

WaM, While I agree with the rest of your post, I disagree on this point that:

"The only ones who want to disarm us are the ones who have the most to fear from an armed citizenry, i.e. the despots, progressives, and would be dictators and control freaks."

There exists a pretty good population of those uninformed souls that simply fear weapons for no rational reason whatsoever and would do away with them; regardless of the consequences.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Oryx

No argument from me. "those uninformed souls that simply fear weapons for no rational reason whatsoever" would generally fall into the "Idiot" category.

Remember that they vote and reproduce, as well.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from tneal1987 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The idiot category is never fun when they are a large crowd; and they can be very dangerous. Lets hope we always have a strong voice against them.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Clay's quotation of Inspector Greenwood's remarks on the subject seems to be the best assessment of the situation I have ever read.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from The Shot wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Gunless Britian, Australia too - and if the 'Reds' in Canada ever get into power again, that country as well. One can bet the farm on that, for sure.!

So Gunners, remember - those that melt their guns into plowshears, will be ruled by those that did not.!!!

STAND FAST, STAND FAST PATRIOTS - AND SHOULDER TO SHOULDER ALL YE MEN OF FREEDOM & VALOR..!!!!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The shot: The Canadian gun registration fiasco, although still on the books I believe, has been such a horrible failure in every way, that I doubt that they will flirt with further gun laws anytime soon. The cost of the program, initially predicted to be around a million dollars escalated to over one billion dollars, all of it wasted by the bureaucracy. It was hugely ignored by outraged citizens and still is, largely unenforced by law authorities and condemned by some of the provinces. Indian nations refused to comply. The stupidity of it is beyond belief, and just what you would have expected. If such laws are ever enacted here in the U.S., I expect that gun owners will tell the authorities to go straight to hell. I would certainly refuse to comply in any way, even under the threat of prison, and one would hope that the rest of you would do the same. The government, as always, is our real enemy.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from firedog11 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

If you think this not already happening here then people are sadly mistaken. Flash mobs are active in Philly where anti gun forces have control of the city, flash mobs of black teenagers are active in assaults,vandalism and robbery in the District of Columbia and in the Md. counties of Montgomery and Prince Georges. The Wisc. state fair had flash mobs again of black youths assaulting white people (police said they were not hate crimes). We have an a country in which the rule of law is rapidly being destroyed.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ableskeever wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Mao said that all political power comes through the barrel of a gun. Lately I saw a story on the news where the journalist went to China. In a school, the kids said that they would be afraid in America because many people have guns. Thats what indoctrination does to a willing society.

In all fairness to GB, they were on the receiving end of an armed populace and lost 13 colonies to citizens who were willing to stand up for their rights. Their problem is that they didn't learn that lesson and adjust accordingly.

My work lets me travel a lot and interact with other cultures. You'd be amazed at how many other people out there are amazed at the fact that you can own a firearm in America. It makes me more and more grateful of our rights as Americans every time I get back home.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

the British did not start losing colonies after the United States became independent. In fact, after losing the 13 original states, Britain actually started increasing its territories, consolidating its hold on Canada, acquiring Australia/New Zealand, "India" (modern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Burma), Malaya (today's Malaysia and Singapore), South Africa and gaining control of most of the Middle East and most of East Africa.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Montana wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Out of curiosity O Garcia, how many of these colonies do they still control?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Inick54 wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Buriti
Your comment about the distinction between a citizen and a subject being posession of a fire arm........
You mentioned that you had travelled to Australia but then only really commented on the UK.
Let me tell you that Australians do not have a right to carry arms.
Nor do they apparently feel that the absence of any such right in any way affects their sufferage.
Far from it.
In Australia people who carry hand guns are regarded as kind of weird and messed up in the head.
Why?
Well, there is just no need for hand guns in Australia.
The reason for this is because Australians have not proliferated their cuture with hand guns.
But thats not to say that the use of fire arms in sportiung and hunting activities is regarded as any for of social stigma, far from it.
Hunting is a very much pursued activity in Australia.
You also commented on the Brits having no right to self defence.
This statement is quite erroneous.
The laws of self defence are steeply entrenched in the common law of both Great Britain and Australia.
I have travelled extensivley in the US.
It is very clear that the citizens of the mant stated that form the union of the United States all zealously regard their right to carry arms as a fundamental right INSIDE the US.
However, comparisons with other nations and other cultures seem to me some what pointless.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Inick54 wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Buriti and Beekeeper
If you are going to quote the law of another jurisdiction DO IT with a greater degree of accuracy than what appears her.
The common law of GB says that you are not allowed to blast away at a person simply because they threatren to punch your lights out.
Bothe the British and Australian Law on self defense says, there must be proportionality in self defense, but, having said that, the Common Law also says that proportionality is not to be determined by an objective test, but rather, if there was a genuine and reasonable belief held by the person armed with a fire arm that the use of deadly force was appropriate, (not necessary that objectively after the fact it was in fact justified).
I have acted for clients in such cases and they have walked, have not even been charged.
I think you guys need to accept that both the Brits and Aussies are not as backward or disenfranchised as some might think from the comments posted.
However, it also has to be said that in Australia most deaths (charged as murder) usually arise in fist fights, believe it or not.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from JamesD wrote 2 years 15 weeks ago

I'm reminded of the immortal words of Clint Eastwood's character Blondie in The Good The Bad and The Ugly as he throws a shovel to Tuco Remirez while pointing a revolver at him; "There are two kinds of people in this world, those with loaded guns and those who dig". I think the lesson here is self explanatory.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nyflyangler wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

The only part of Britain that deserves guns is Northern Ireland. Up the RA!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Edslittleworld wrote 1 year 26 weeks ago

This worldwide disarming will continue because people REFUSE to address the core of the problem. It's not "liberals", "anti-gun nuts", etc. It's the same group of people that started the Soviet Union and the exact same are pushing for anti-gun legislation here (Boxer, Schumer, Emmanuel, Lautenberg, Feinstein, etc). Break out of your PC-zone and look at the facts.

Until we stop acting like the three monkeys (see, speak, hear no evil), it'll happen to us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from buriti wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

I traveled several times to the gun less paradizes of the United Kingdom and Australia, and people will clearly tell you that they have a big issue with violent crimes on the rise.

I remember that a taxi driver in Birmingham told me how scared he was about working on the outskirts of the city and during night shift, and that he was afraid all the time that he would be shot. I asked how that was possible, if handguns were outlawed in the UK. The answer was that criminal don't care about laws.

Also, we cannot forget that the British Crown does not recognize the right to self-defense by its subjects.

I guess that an unarmed person is a subject, but an armed one is a citizen.

+17 Good Comment? | | Report
from Duckman1984 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Imagine that...I wonder what cockamamie BS the antis are going to dream up to defend their way of thinking in light of this. I can hear it now, "well, you see, um, what happened was, um, the people were feed up, and um, well, j-just think, you know, what would have happened if they would have had guns...yea. Think about it...We would have rampant murder of people trying to buy bread. And that would have led to class wars, followed by revolution, and an invasion of the neighboring countries, triggering WW3 and the zombie apocalypse. Utter destruction of mankind; all because they owned guns…"

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from MJC wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

And yet, ironically, it was a shooting that started the whole thing.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

buriti hit it right out of the Ball Park!

Now some facts with references.

“At first glance, it may seem odd or even perverse to suggest that statutory controls on the private ownership of firearms are irrelevant to the problem of armed crime: yet that is precisely what the evidence shows. Armed crime and violent crime generally are products of ethnic and social factors unrelated to the availability of a particular type of weapon. The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted. Controls have had serious effect on legitimate users of firearms, but there is no case, either in the history of this country (Britain) or in the experience of other countries in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals, or in any way reduce crime.”
-Chief Inspector Colins Greenwood, West Yorkshire Constabulary, Police Review, Britain after six months of study of firearms control systems at Cambridge University

______________________________________________________

“This proposal will never prevent criminals from possessing firearms and we never said it would.”
-Daryl Smeaton, Attorney General's department, Director of Law Enforcement Co-ordination, on the new Australian gun bans, in The Weekend Australian, 20-21 September 1997, page 6

______________________________________________________

“This business about gun control is a joke really. I come from Switzerland where everyone is taught how to treat weapons sensibly and with care. In Switzerland everyone keeps a gun in their own home and we don't have any problems with them.”
-Mrs Emma Jay, 70, Northern New South Wales, Australia, Friend of Port Arthur mass shooting victim Jim Pollard, as reported in The Age 19/7/96 page A7

______________________________________________________

“Since 1934, only one legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime of murder, and a law enforcement officer committed that crime.”
-The History Channel, Modern Marvels, Weapons at War: The Machine Gun

______________________________________________________

“A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851.”
-Justice Harlan, Supreme Court of the United States, in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), recognizing a special and expansive immunity for felons from the National Firearms Act regulation of machine guns (and other assorted firearms and firearms-related devices), and by extension from any firearm registration regime

____________________________________________________

“When I began my research on guns in 1976, like most academics, I was a believer in the 'anti-gun' thesis. ... It seemed then like self-evident common sense which hardly needed to be empirically tested. ... [But] the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U.S. ... Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. ... The positive associations often found between aggregate levels of violence and gun ownership appear to be primarily due to violence increasing gun ownership, rather than the reverse.”
-Prof. Gary Kleck, Florida State University School of Criminology, from a speech given to the National Academy of Sciences in 1991, as reported by Don B. Kates, Jr. in "Shot Down", National Review, March 6, 1995, pages 49-54

__________________________________________________

Recent research that I have done, examining juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides for all the states in the United States from 1977 to 1996, found that safe-storage laws had no impact on either type of death. However, what did happen was that law-abiding citizens were less able to defend themselves against crime. The 15 states that adopted these laws during this period faced over 300 more murders and 3,860 more rapes per year. Burglaries also increased dramatically.”
-John R. Lott, senior research scholar at the Yale University Law School, author of the book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws

_____________________________________________________

So now we are back to what buriti said!

"I guess that an unarmed person is a subject, but an armed one is a citizen."

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from AlaskanExile wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Ishawooa;
Armed "in-your-face" crime in Wyoming is almost non-existent because even if the person a criminal tries to mess with isn't armed, someone within rifle-range probably is. Wyoming is one of the most freedom-embracing places you could live on the face of the earth.
They run their budget in the black, too!
AKX

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

To scratchgolf72: It has been proven over and over during our lifetimes that a motivated and armed populace fighting a guerrilla war against a vastly better equipped force can frequently win. Do you think that we are "winning" in Afghanistan? They have defeated every invader thrown against them and we will leave there the same way, just as we did in Viet Nam. Armed American citizens can probably defeat anyone.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from GregMc wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Good point Dave. You could also make a solid argument that private ownership of wildlife hurt the public's ability to hunt, and that loss of hunting further diminished the advocacy pool for gun ownership.
http://shotgunchronicle.com/2011/03/12/about-guns-in-england/

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Oryx wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Quote from Buriti:

"Also, we cannot forget that the British Crown does not recognize the right to self-defense by its subjects."

This statement serves well to show what the 2nd Amendment is really about, as well as why it was deemed important at the time. I would say it also shows why this amendment and the right is illuminates is just as important today as it was when it was written, not to mention why the US citizens should resist the pressure from the UN to disarm us. It seems that maybe things haven't changed that much in the last 220+ years.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Buriti hit it on the head:

"I guess that an unarmed person is a subject, but an armed one is a citizen."

Well spoken.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from focusfront wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

We have plenty of guns in America, yet LA was busted up by riots for days in the '90s. It is easy to stop a riot. Just shoot the first person in the mob who throws a brick. But that will never happen. No cop has ever lost his job for failing to stop a riot, but imagine what would happen to the cop who guns down an unarmed civilian whose only crime is protesting a police shooting? We don't protect our cops, so they have to protect themselves. So they stand with their hands in their pockets when the first brick is thrown. Hence, riots.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

History does repeat itself...GB is no exception to the rules of SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT. Discussing America, and our ravenous appetite for guns, is really not the issue here. We Americans need to focus on our traditions and to hell with those countries having issues with it. History seems to be the best teacher for there flawed thinking; Gun ownership included.
Disarming the public is not the answer for a peaceful society!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Inick54 wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Buriti and Beekeeper
If you are going to quote the law of another jurisdiction DO IT with a greater degree of accuracy than what appears her.
The common law of GB says that you are not allowed to blast away at a person simply because they threatren to punch your lights out.
Bothe the British and Australian Law on self defense says, there must be proportionality in self defense, but, having said that, the Common Law also says that proportionality is not to be determined by an objective test, but rather, if there was a genuine and reasonable belief held by the person armed with a fire arm that the use of deadly force was appropriate, (not necessary that objectively after the fact it was in fact justified).
I have acted for clients in such cases and they have walked, have not even been charged.
I think you guys need to accept that both the Brits and Aussies are not as backward or disenfranchised as some might think from the comments posted.
However, it also has to be said that in Australia most deaths (charged as murder) usually arise in fist fights, believe it or not.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Oryx

No argument from me. "those uninformed souls that simply fear weapons for no rational reason whatsoever" would generally fall into the "Idiot" category.

Remember that they vote and reproduce, as well.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ishawooa wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

As of last month any Wyoming citizen can carry concealed, most places in the state, even without a license. The same citizens have been able to carry in view since the beginning of time again with the exception of the usual locales that apply to our CCW permits. Even in Yellowstone Park those of us who possess a CCW permit can pack heat. Proportionally to the few people who live in this state the crime rate is very low compared to most places in the world. Several other western states also have minimal incidences of crime. Why is this?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The Brits are so keen on gun control they even forbid the English Olympic pistol shooters from practicing in England but have made special accommodation to allow the event to take place in London in 2012.

Quick facts from wiki. Gun homicides in GB are 4 times lower than that in the US and about equal to Canada but in Great Britain assaults and robberies are 6 times higher than the US. This stat says two things. 1) Guns lower violent crime 2) Great Britain is a target rich environment.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from AlaskanExile wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

I've been fishing many times on the Russian River here in Alaska where hundreds of people lined the banks, shoulder-to-shoulder to compete for fish. Almost every single person is armed, yet I can't ever remember there being so much as a fist-fight breaking out down there!
If guns cause violence, then some surely should have broken out, but for some reason everyone is polite.
Kind of blows that "guns cause crime" theory right out of the water!
AKX

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from buriti wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Here we go again. I was born in Brazil and now hold dual US and Brazilian citizenship.

Over the last 30 years I witnessed progressively more "liberal" governments establish more and more oppressive gun laws until the point that Brazil has some of the most draconian gun laws in the world. You can actually be arrested by have an empty cartridge in your possession.

"Surprisingly" crime rate is inversely proportional to legal gun ownership, and people feel less safe today.

God bless the second amendment!

Read my blog at awildbeastatheart.blogspot.com

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntnow wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

My wife and I were watching the riots on the news the other night and she, not me, made the comment that such violence would have been ended much quicker if the people were armed. In the small town I live in the merchants are as likely to be armed as anyone, likely preventing the widespread looting. The fear of being shot by the person you are robbing or assaulting has been diminished in Europe to the point of a joke.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bellringer wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

There are non so blind as those who will not see.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CHKILCHII wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Brits never were the brightest. You'd think they would learn from the country they were fighting in WWII that disarming the public will never end up all dance through the lillies and sing with the birds good. It will only end in disorder and those armed with bad intentions to overtake those who were denied that right by THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT, THE ONE WHOSE JOB IT IS TO PROTECT THEM!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from kansasjeff wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

As an ESL teacher I’ve met many fellow teachers from Great Britain. As one explained to me growing up in London you are expect to be mugged at least once every five years. One of my coworkers described to me how he was sitting in a McDonalds and an older student than him just walked up and stuck a knife to his back and led him outside to relieve him of his wallet and cell phone. To me this is beyond belief, that criminals could walk around unafraid of any consequence sure CCTV may catch you but who cares as long as you can mug faster than they can zero in on your face. I’ve said before that I’m in favor of reasonable gun control. I’m ok with waiting a few days to make sure the guy in front of me in line isn’t the new Pablo Escobar and the guy behind me isn’t the new Charlie Manson. But British gun laws and self defense laws are insane.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from The Shot wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Gunless Britian, Australia too - and if the 'Reds' in Canada ever get into power again, that country as well. One can bet the farm on that, for sure.!

So Gunners, remember - those that melt their guns into plowshears, will be ruled by those that did not.!!!

STAND FAST, STAND FAST PATRIOTS - AND SHOULDER TO SHOULDER ALL YE MEN OF FREEDOM & VALOR..!!!!!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The only ones who want to disarm us are the ones who have the most to fear from an armed citizenry, i.e. the despots, progressives, and would be dictators and control freaks. Read that Obama and his ilk. However, the Capon in Chief and his band of thugs are not the first and surely will not be the last.

Without the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution and all the other Amendments are worthless.

Dave, maybe the title should have read "Gutless" instead of "Gunless".

WAM

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

You are correct Dave. It is illegal for one to use a legal firearm in GB to repel and assailant. If one does one goes to jail, simple as that. It is your duty in a socialist country to provide for the health and welfare of your neighbor don't you know...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The bleeding heart position is the anti-firearms one. Any town would be a better place if rioters would be shot by home and business owners. I know some UK expats that left Britain because of the firearms restrictions and migrated to the USA. America is incrementally better for having them here.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Brits and Norwegians don't really have the sense to revolt.
Maybe that's why we revolted.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim in Mo wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

tom warner,
I salute you and a plus. Good point.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from azduane wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

I read about the sales of aluminum baseball bats from Amazon UK in England going through the roof. It seems the store owners realized a whack to the knees was a pretty good deterrant. I belive there was even a comment on Amazon to that affect.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wingshooter54 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The riots in Britain were not about the shooting of a scum drug dealer;they were about looting and stealing. The shooting was an excuse, much like a hurricane in New Orleans was an excuse to loot and steal especially after the mayor ordered all firearms to be confiscated in the interests of safety. Notice from the videos that most all of the perpetrators wore hooded sweatshirts, the mark of the street gang. In my opinion, all drug dealers should be shot.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckstopper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

AE
to quote Jeff Cooper " An armed society is a POLITE society"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

We all admire the Brits in many ways; the air war over London, great bravery, distinguished African hunters, Jim Corbett, etc., etc,. I have had a few close English friends who I admired greatly. However, like most nations, they can frequently be seriously damn fools. The firearms stance is but one example. Their idiotic class system had a great deal to do with the loss of their empire. Even if economics after WW2 had not forced them to give it up, their attitude toward the people of their colonies as lowly inferiors guaranteed that they would eventually be thrown out, and deservedly so. The desire to disarm the populace may originate from the "upper classes" due to their distrust of what they probably still see as the vaguely threatening masses that might one day turn on them. It would seem that "1984" might be arriving there shortly, and lack of arms will hasten the day.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tom warner wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The shot: The Canadian gun registration fiasco, although still on the books I believe, has been such a horrible failure in every way, that I doubt that they will flirt with further gun laws anytime soon. The cost of the program, initially predicted to be around a million dollars escalated to over one billion dollars, all of it wasted by the bureaucracy. It was hugely ignored by outraged citizens and still is, largely unenforced by law authorities and condemned by some of the provinces. Indian nations refused to comply. The stupidity of it is beyond belief, and just what you would have expected. If such laws are ever enacted here in the U.S., I expect that gun owners will tell the authorities to go straight to hell. I would certainly refuse to comply in any way, even under the threat of prison, and one would hope that the rest of you would do the same. The government, as always, is our real enemy.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Very good point Jim, when does the next one start?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hengst wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

I can't feel sorry for them, they (the "subjects") allowed these laws to come into being by the way they voted or did not vote. They do have a parliament and free elections, but liberalism/socialism/something for nothing set in and folks were able to overlook certain "rights" which they felt did not impact them directly.
We had better be carefull, if the U.N treaty gets signed and we allow it then that is where (subjects) we are heading.
As far as L.A riots go, the wrong people have guns in Kali.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

and here I thought Norwegians revolted from Sweden?

anyway, it was only in the late 80's or early 90's that the London police were allowed to have firearms, and even then they still couldn't just use them. Initially it was in a locked box in the squad car, and the protocol for discharging was something like:
-must radio HQ before the locked box can be opened
-must radio HQ for permission to take the firearm out of the box
-must radio HQ for permission to load the firearm
-must radio HQ for permission to take it off SAFE
-must radio HQ for permission to fire

the string of radio calls and responses must sound like a submarine protocol for releasing a nuke (permission to place my finger on the tactical firing trigger, sir!)

it's also a lot easier to acquire British citizenship than say, American citizenship. Some foreign workers only need to stay there for 5 straight years, I think. Some are professionals (employees of British oil or mining companies, for example, who are well-paid and educated) and behave more or less properly, but some are radicals from the former colonies.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Now for your viewing,

ENJOY!

Best Damn "Gun Control" Commercial! Please share!
http://www.facebook.com/#!/video/video.php?v=1407771441253

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

In Australia being robbed at gun point, you will go to jail defending yourself with a stick!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from scratchgolf72 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

tony, i feel like the playing field was a bit more even back in 1776....to my knowledge, none of my neighbors own abrahams tanks or f-16 fighter jets or apache attack helicopters.

if our military comes after the guns, were screwed...last time i checked i didnt have any anti-tank ordnance lying around the house.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tony Berg wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Buriti said it all when he posted "An unarmed person is a subject, and an armed person is a citizens." Bottom line, the right to to bear arms is a constitutional right. If the liberals find a way to take your guns away they also take away the means to protect yourself and you other rights. If they can take that right away, then who is to say your freedom of speech won't be next. A government should fear its people, the people should not fear their government.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nyflyangler wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

The only part of Britain that deserves guns is Northern Ireland. Up the RA!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Inick54 wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Buriti
Your comment about the distinction between a citizen and a subject being posession of a fire arm........
You mentioned that you had travelled to Australia but then only really commented on the UK.
Let me tell you that Australians do not have a right to carry arms.
Nor do they apparently feel that the absence of any such right in any way affects their sufferage.
Far from it.
In Australia people who carry hand guns are regarded as kind of weird and messed up in the head.
Why?
Well, there is just no need for hand guns in Australia.
The reason for this is because Australians have not proliferated their cuture with hand guns.
But thats not to say that the use of fire arms in sportiung and hunting activities is regarded as any for of social stigma, far from it.
Hunting is a very much pursued activity in Australia.
You also commented on the Brits having no right to self defence.
This statement is quite erroneous.
The laws of self defence are steeply entrenched in the common law of both Great Britain and Australia.
I have travelled extensivley in the US.
It is very clear that the citizens of the mant stated that form the union of the United States all zealously regard their right to carry arms as a fundamental right INSIDE the US.
However, comparisons with other nations and other cultures seem to me some what pointless.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from lyndonavery wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Amen Tom Warner. Strength in numbers and a unified effort. Good is supposed to triumph over evil.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Oryx wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Buckstopper, I think Cooper was quoting Heinlein. Still a good quote.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Oryx wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

WaM, While I agree with the rest of your post, I disagree on this point that:

"The only ones who want to disarm us are the ones who have the most to fear from an armed citizenry, i.e. the despots, progressives, and would be dictators and control freaks."

There exists a pretty good population of those uninformed souls that simply fear weapons for no rational reason whatsoever and would do away with them; regardless of the consequences.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tneal1987 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

The idiot category is never fun when they are a large crowd; and they can be very dangerous. Lets hope we always have a strong voice against them.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from firedog11 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

If you think this not already happening here then people are sadly mistaken. Flash mobs are active in Philly where anti gun forces have control of the city, flash mobs of black teenagers are active in assaults,vandalism and robbery in the District of Columbia and in the Md. counties of Montgomery and Prince Georges. The Wisc. state fair had flash mobs again of black youths assaulting white people (police said they were not hate crimes). We have an a country in which the rule of law is rapidly being destroyed.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ferber wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

In recent enough history--maybe a dozen or so years ago--the British government outlawed ownership of personal handguns for any reason and/or made it so impossible to acquire or shoot handguns that the British Olympic Team and shooting program went kaput.

In the very unlikely event that this current anti-gun administration somehow manages to disarm us...they won't disarm us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Crusty Ya done good with both of those!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

I've said this before and I'll say it again.
The "anti-gun" crowd will, in time, prevail.
Within MY lifetime? Nope, 'cause I'll die hanging onto mine.
Within my children's lifetime. Could be. I truly hope not.
They eat away at the Second Amendment like a recurring cancer. You can NEVER stop treatments, but must stay constantly (NRA, GOA) on guard. The ONLY thing that will stop them (gun grabbers) is "nothing"!
"Nothing" but sticks and clubs to defend youself!
Ready to join the NCA? National Club Association? How about Stick Owners of America?

At some point in time, they(gun grabbers) WILL prevail!
It's only a matter of time.
Hope I'm dead by then!

Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

scratch'! LOL!!!!

You don't have anti-tank ordnance and anti-personnel mines lying about? Whatsa mattah U? Your local WalMart run out?

You make a VERY valid point!
About all one could hope for is that an "ex" military leader lived in the area and could amass enough "civies" to turn the "tide" somewhat!
Other than that, you're right, you may get one or two, but YOU will go down!

Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from O Garcia wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

the British did not start losing colonies after the United States became independent. In fact, after losing the 13 original states, Britain actually started increasing its territories, consolidating its hold on Canada, acquiring Australia/New Zealand, "India" (modern India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Burma), Malaya (today's Malaysia and Singapore), South Africa and gaining control of most of the Middle East and most of East Africa.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 99explorer wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Clay's quotation of Inspector Greenwood's remarks on the subject seems to be the best assessment of the situation I have ever read.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ableskeever wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Mao said that all political power comes through the barrel of a gun. Lately I saw a story on the news where the journalist went to China. In a school, the kids said that they would be afraid in America because many people have guns. Thats what indoctrination does to a willing society.

In all fairness to GB, they were on the receiving end of an armed populace and lost 13 colonies to citizens who were willing to stand up for their rights. Their problem is that they didn't learn that lesson and adjust accordingly.

My work lets me travel a lot and interact with other cultures. You'd be amazed at how many other people out there are amazed at the fact that you can own a firearm in America. It makes me more and more grateful of our rights as Americans every time I get back home.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Plotner wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

when i went to townsend montana in there hardware store they had a .30-30 and 2 boxs of shells above the counter and evey truck had a gun. thats what i like about it out there

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from scratchgolf72 wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

OI!! ill be damned if the bloody government thinks they be taken away my guns!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Montana wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Out of curiosity O Garcia, how many of these colonies do they still control?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from thewormturns wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

Sorry to interrupt the tidal wave of self-congratulation here but I am one of numerous Brits who has thrived and rejoiced in 'gunless Britain' for almost half-a-century. If our stance on gun ownership during that time amuses and bewilders Americans, be in no doubt the feeling is entirely mutual.

Society over here has not crumbled through absence of civilian firepower but through a cancer of liberalism that has, over the last two decades, neutered law and order to the point where criminals view its officers as they would a maiden aunt.

When wrongdoers no longer fear justice, anarchy beckons and we are now, I grant you, at the point where the right to bear arms would have to be seriously considered, were this country governed with common sense instead of bankrupt right-on idealism (as an example of the latter, already the bleeding heart brigade is starting to lament the fact that some of last week's London rioters are actually being - gasp - sent to prison...)

As for the past half-century, though, no regrets whatsoever.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from JamesD wrote 2 years 15 weeks ago

I'm reminded of the immortal words of Clint Eastwood's character Blondie in The Good The Bad and The Ugly as he throws a shovel to Tuco Remirez while pointing a revolver at him; "There are two kinds of people in this world, those with loaded guns and those who dig". I think the lesson here is self explanatory.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Edslittleworld wrote 1 year 26 weeks ago

This worldwide disarming will continue because people REFUSE to address the core of the problem. It's not "liberals", "anti-gun nuts", etc. It's the same group of people that started the Soviet Union and the exact same are pushing for anti-gun legislation here (Boxer, Schumer, Emmanuel, Lautenberg, Feinstein, etc). Break out of your PC-zone and look at the facts.

Until we stop acting like the three monkeys (see, speak, hear no evil), it'll happen to us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tony C. wrote 2 years 34 weeks ago

They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Wasn't it Minutemen armed with their own guns who whupped the Redcoats way back when? They shoulda learned then.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs