England realized its mistake

Status
Not open for further replies.
That was pathetic, not even fox hunting could be saved. What a shame how far the empire has fallen over the last century. As the British gun collector said, "It's too bloody late now, once the guns are gone you're not going to get them back".

The pen is mightier than the sword; the gun is mightier than the pen.
 
I don't know how Anti's can still try and say, "registration doesn't lead to confiscation.":rolleyes:

/BTW, that video is several years old at least.
 
The hunters who think that the gun rights issues don't apply to them need to pay attention to England (and Australia).
 
For England to regain thier firearms would take a miracle now.
Click to expand...
Sadly, that's very true. Even if the bans were to be lifted or relaxed, the question is: how would folks get guns? Great Britain used to have a firearms industry, but no more.

The old NRA video broke my heart when I saw the shot of a welder sawing barrels on old Drilling rifles.
 
It won't happen again.....

In the modern era, with NATO and nukes (which we wouldn't be allowed to use, anyway), but wouldn't it be ironic if a "foreign power" again threatened England with invasion (or overthrow?) and they came crying to US, AGAIN, for guns, like they did in 1940?

If that happened, I'd be highly tempted to adopt a "you made your bed...." attitude.

What is slightly more plausible is what would be called "civil unrest" by the press, although there is nothing "civil" about it. If the violent underclass were to actually orgainze (perhaps led or aided by radical Islamists) large enough civil unrest could evolve into civil war. Woe to the honest law abiding if that happens.

But, that is also a highly unlikely situation. What is most likely is the current status quo will continue, with more and more people becoming victims, until a tipping point is finally reached and the English people finally realize their faith and trust in government to protect them, as individuals at home and on the street has been misplaced.

I would expect a virtual police state (but of course, a polite one, they are British, after all) before that happens. No weapons (of any conceivable kind) allowed, virtually complete video surveillance of the entire nation, 24/7, suspension of legal rights in criminal cases (to stream line the system), any and everything the politicians can think of to try to maintain law and order will be done. And done badly, if history is any guide.

I see things going from bad to worse, and unless the British people manage to do something serious about it, soon, I don't think their next "Lord Protector of the Realm" will be a very nice guy.
 
When a man goes and buys a table leg to replace a broken one and as he is waling home gets shot to death because he has a club concealed in a bag things won't get better. When a man who has been burglarized several times shoots his attackers with a shotgun and gets arrested and the state funds the surviving burglar with the means to sue the man in civil court for his damages it will not get better, When a man goes on a rampage with a 22 rifle and shotgun and kills 12, wounds 25 and the police can't find him and the law abiding citizens are not allowed the means to defend themselves it will not get better.

It will only get better when the anti's are voted out of office and are re[placed with true libertarians who believe the state has no business legislating morality or disarming their citizens will things change for the better. When rifle and pistol clubs reopen and shooting becomes a respected past time will things get better. If the flag went up and they need guns yesterday they are out of luck because our administration doesn't appear to believe a gun is the answer to a victim being bludgeoned to death. That's what the police are for. Take reports and maybe someday catch the criminal. You are crippled for life, you need help in getting a wheel chair and you cannot do your job anymore, well that isn[t their problem now is it.

Keeping society safe by disarming those dangerous law abiding people, now that is a priority.

Sounds like a few states, no names mentioned, here in the USA doesn't it. I tell you folks, the only difference between the U.K. and the USA is 1300 miles. That is the only difference.
 
"The pen is mightier than the sword; the gun is mightier than the pen."

Yes, and the howitzer it mightier than the gun; the nuke is mightier than the howitzer. What's your point?
Click to expand...
My point is, the history of the last century show that in a political struggle, the side that's better armed usually prevails. Letter writing and peaceful protest usually do not prevail (e.g. Tiananmen Square). Well functioning Democracies may be an exception, but these are rare.
 
While I am the strongest RKBA advocate, I'll disagree a tad about political history.

It is more the willingness of the armed branches of the state to turn against their own people that determine the outcome.

In Iran, the heavily armed state was overthrown without armed revolution. In the overthrow of the USSR, similarly, the armed forces wouldn't act.

In China, troops from outside the Beijing region were used as there was worry that local troops would not fight their own students and friends.

Even in the US, such things are considered. During the VietNam riots of yore, in Ohio, NG units from outside the local area were used. I know folks in the local units who told their LTs after Kent State, that if they were told to fire on college kids, the LT might take a round first.

Now if the armed forces will fight the populace or the police use force then an armed populace has a strong role. The attacks on the Iranian demonstrators by truncheon bearing religious fanatic police might not have happened with an armed populace.

My point is just some historical accuracy. If a mass movement infects the armed agents of the state, then that armed force is negated.
 
So what does it mean when a President says he wants a civilian security force,I don't remember the exact words,something about being as well trained and well equipt as the military?The number 250,000 seems like it might have been said..
It is sad,the clarity of my memory of these things is fading.These details are part of history,and they should be carefully preserved.
Our history will be recorded as what showed up in The New York Times,or Time Magazine,
Much of significance,is significantly ignored.
History is recorded to support agenda.
I would hope there would be an honest account .It might be great if the lessons learned buying liberty with sacrifice and blood were not comfortably forgotten by a juvenile,apathetic,parasitic gobs of tofu being seduced and led by corrupt narcissistic despots and the thieves around them.
 
Mao put it bluntly, "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." Stalin recognized the need for guns, as well as other totalitarian dictators and socialists. They HAVE to have the guns, and the subject population MUST be disarmed, to protect the ruling class.
I certainly hope that England recovers, and I also disagree with the statement that the US is the same as England. Some states are as restrictive as England is nationally, but I live in Free AZ, where we have Constitutional Carry, free public ranges, and we took even took down our highway speed cameras, i.e., the exact opposite of England. Cold beer and no blood pudding.:p
 
Britain may not have a firearms industry of any consequence (Purdey and Holland & Holland notwithstanding), but I'm sure they could easily import any number of firearms from US and Euro manufacturers should they decide to rejoin the Enlightened Age.
 
My point is just some historical accuracy. If a mass movement infects the armed agents of the state, then that armed force is negated.
Click to expand...
You make an excellent point.

Just a thought experiment: let's say we're there. The balloon has gone up. People are debarking their chihuahuas. Who do you think is going to be donning the knee-high boots and kicking down doors?

It's sure as heck not the sheriff's deputy living two doors down, nor is it the Kaperski's boy who just got back from Iraq. In fact, I'd be willing to lay odds that those guys would be the first to jump in my corner. That's the great thing about a voluntary military: they're us.

I suppose the government could dredge up, hire and outfit some truly dreadful people to carry out whatever kind of oppression they've got in mind, but those types of people are going to be in for a very unpleasant surprise when they try to pull the Kaperskis out of their house in the night. You can bet that just enough folks in the neighborhood won't be too keen on that, either.

We're not there. I doubt we'll ever see it. For one thing, an armed populace is a good psychological deterrent. The possibility of armed dissent, no matter how small, will occur to the people inclined to give such orders. Furthermore, they'll quickly find a military (composed of our neighbors, teachers, doctors and family) largely unwilling to act on such orders.

A republic, founded on armed revolution, infused with a tradition of independence, is far different than an aging hereditary monarchy.
 
Last edited:
Tom Servo said:
Just a thought experiment: let's say we're there. The balloon has gone up. People are debarking their chihuahuas. Who do you think is going to be donning the knee-high boots and kicking down doors?

It's sure as heck not the sheriff's deputy living two doors down, nor is it the Kaperski's boy who just got back from Iraq. In fact, I'd be willing to lay odds that those guys would be the first to jump in my corner. That's the great thing about a voluntary military: they're us.

I suppose the government could dredge up, hire and outfit some truly dreadful people to carry out whatever kind of oppression they've got in mind, but those types of people are going to be in for a very unpleasant surprise when they try to pull the Kaperskis out of their house in the night. You can bet that just enough folks in the neighborhood won't be too keen on that, either.

We're not there. I doubt we'll ever see it. For one thing, an armed populace is a good psychological deterrent. The possibility of armed dissent, no matter how small, will occur to the people inclined to give such orders. Furthermore, they'll quickly find a military (composed of our neighbors, teachers, doctors and family) largely unwilling to act on such orders.
Click to expand...

I agree with this to a point, but it's an easy thing to say while not under duress. I believe you forget the inclination of people to protect themselves and their loved ones.

For example:

As a loyal member of the "evil" government forces (not specific, just a hypothetical government), your family will receive protection and better rations, treatment, etc. than those opposed. If you refuse to round up civilians (or whatever) you and your family will be sent to the same detention camps.

Taking it one step further, if you refuse to fire on these people, we'll shoot you...

If you know your refusal to act will send your wife and kids to the Gulag, it becomes much easier to participate in whatever is going on...

"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" makes a good bumper sticker, but I wonder how many are willing to sacrifice their families to make that statement.

I'm not trying to start an argument, just saying that mass civil disobedience sounds like a great idea, until you actually have to make people put their lives, family, and property where their mouth is...
 
sounds like a great idea, until you actually have to make people put their lives, family, and property where their mouth is...
Click to expand...


Exactly right. You are on your own when it comes down to this. Too many will talk the talk, and nothing more.
 
sounds like a great idea, until you actually have to make people put their lives, family, and property where their mouth is...


Exactly right. You are on your own when it comes down to this. Too many will talk the talk, and nothing more
Click to expand...

In reality, it doesn't take many. Think about the 3% concept.

It only took 3% of the population to have our revolution. What are 3% of American Gun owners, 3 -4 Million, not to mention others who believe in freedom who don't own guns but would join in if the government turns on the people as happened during the revolutionary war.

Sorry, as idiotic as some of our politicians seem, none are that stupid.

I think Teddy Roosevelt understood the threat when he created the CMP, (Then DCM), to furnish military arms to the Citizens and Train them in their use. I also thought it was in back of Gen Ike's mind when he created an army unit (The AMU) to train not only the military, but civilians alike.

Congress continued since 1903 to Commission the DCM to fulfill its mission, And since 1996, Congress doesn't even fund the CMP. They lost the tool of cutting funds to stop a program.

Now I hate the term "it wont happen here" but I'm also a realist. This isn't England, this isn't Russia, Iran, China, etc. etc, etc.

Our government, with all the problems it has, provides us with the tools to keep something like this from happening. Sad part is too many of us fail to take advantage of those tools, but enough do, it only takes 3%.

This is not something I loose a lot of sleep over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top