The British want their handguns back

J

jimpeel

New member
According to THIS ARTICLE the Telegraph ran a (non-scientific) poll which pitted several things against each other on what the public would like to see introduced as a Private Member's Bill. Those were:

  • Term limits for Prime Ministers;
  • A flat tax;
  • A law to encourage the 'greening' of public spaces;
  • Close the child maintenance loophole;
  • Ban spitting;
  • The repealing of Britain's hand gun ban.

Overwhelmingly, 82% of the respondents voted for repealing the ban.

This is significant on the heels of the slaughter of a British soldier in broad daylight, on the street, in front of numerous witnesses. With all of the home invasions, hot burglaries, robberies, and assaults that happen there daily the populace is becoming fed up. They have seen no result as a consequence of the ban other than their becoming an increasingly victimized society.

We can dream that they would some day wake up; but that day has likely passed into history forever. They do, however, encourage Americans to stand fast and never give up their firearms.
 
They ain't gonna get them back. Britain's "democracy" is anything but, and all of the political parties detest the notion of private firearms ownership in the hands of the non-landed class.
 
Sadly I fear you are right csmsss.

I'm British but left. Now living in a much freer country, I dispair of a country that was the cradle of democracy.

The US must fight to retain its freedoms, I know what it is like to lose mine (I was in that march in the Youtube clip), don't let it happen to you.

Believe me, those who would restrict liberty will never go away, and the greatest enemy is from those who believe in "Reasonable measures to restrict... and prevent abuse" Convert as many people to loving freedom as you can. We need all the help we can get.

Scrummy
 
The British seem to be too fickle for liberty. Prior to WW2 they didn't have that many guns. When Hitler came to power they begged Americans to send guns which we did. When WW2 ended the Brits destroyed those loaned guns when they should have returned them. Then Dunblane hits and they scream about getting handguns banned. Now they have Islamo fascists killing a soldier right in broad daylight by hacking him to death with banned knives and the Brits want their handguns back. Make up your minds and stick with it. Do you want to be free men and free women, or wards of the State? Make up your minds.
 
"The British seem to be too fickle for liberty. Prior to WW2 they didn't have that many guns. When Hitler came to power they begged Americans to send guns which we did. When WW2 ended the Brits destroyed those loaned guns when they should have returned them. Then Dunblane hits and they scream about getting handguns banned. Now they have Islamo fascists killing a soldier right in broad daylight by hacking him to death with banned knives and the Brits want their handguns back. Make up your minds and stick with it. Do you want to be free men and free women, or wards of the State? Make up your minds."

Hang on, that is unfair and simply not correct.

1) The British Government destroyed those guns, hardly any made it into private hands

2) It was a nasty political trick that got our guns banned. And also, and I speak for myself and many others in this, we were lied to about what would happen to our guns and were below voting age when it happened...

There are those of us who have no desire to be wards of the State, just we got buried by the misled populous (Sound like the USA's AWB in 1994 per chance?)

Scrummy
 
I don't think making the blanket statement that [insert nationality here] are "too fickle for liberty;" I'm reasonably certain that had most brits known what would come of the governments' intentions, they would have done everything to stop it. This is the same issue we have here. The people who think reasonable measures are anything but tyrannical will severely regret their decision once bans start to occur.
 
USAFNoDak - "too fickle for liberty?" - absurd, ignorant thing to say.

The appeal for US material support was after Dunkirk, because of huge losses of weapons and equipment, not "when Hitler came to power". Until such time as it was judged to be in US interests, every sheaf of wheat, round of ammo and tin of bully beef was paid for in gold.

Where do you get the idea the knives used in Woolwich were banned?
 
Interesting.....
Flat Tax .....I presume to tax the middle class to the point that they could not afford guns.

Ban spitting...it is already banned in football, but they still struggle with that in the Premiership. Maybe they could just regulate it and make people who might spit register to get a SPOID(SPit Owners ID)

Legalize Handguns...WOW! Are we talking all out where they might carry them and kill these terrorists when they start to attack? How will the Bobbies know who to blow their whistle at?

Child Maintenance Loophole?? Is that the one where you can sell off unruly children with completing the proper paperwork?

Yes, possibly a bit "fickle for liberty!"
 
What would they do with them? From what I can tell it's nearly impossible to legally use a weapon in self-defense in the U.K.
 
From what I can tell it's nearly impossible to legally use a weapon in self-defense in the U.K.
Click to expand...
It is, and even if they reformed the Pistols Act, where would British citizens get guns?

It would take time to set up things like import rules, tariff agreements (which I can imagine would be steep), and somebody would have to have the initiative and approval to set up shop selling them.

Then there's the question of how hard it will be for citizens to qualify for permits or licensing.
 
Nathan, it was a multiple choice survey created by the researchers. The people did not pick those choices, they were given those to vote on and 82% chose restoration of handgun rights.

Do you think that lets a little air out of your theory? I doubt you'd get 82% of Americans to vote to keep our handgun rights. At least if our Congress is who we're counting. It would probably be closer to 75%
 
What would they do with them? From what I can tell it's nearly impossible to legally use a weapon in self-defense in the U.K.
Click to expand...

That depends on the situation.
Guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service says: “The more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence. If the intruder dies, you will still have acted lawfully
Click to expand...

In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "(honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment).

LAW ON TACKLING BURGLARS
In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others
Householders can claim they attacked in self-defence if they genuinely believed they were in peril - (even if in hindsight they were clearly wrong)

It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious.
Click to expand...

David Cameron Prime Minister, When that burglar crosses your threshold, invades your home, threatens your family, they give up their rights
Click to expand...

As for getting handguns back I can't see it happening. I don't know about American politicians but in the UK they won't do anything that there is no votes in it. And if there was a incident possibly losing votes. One correction handguns are not banned in all of the UK and can be got in all the UK for humane destruction when hunting.

It is, and even if they reformed the Pistols Act, where would British citizens get guns
Click to expand...
The same place as me. I have two made in America one Czech and one made in Canada it says FT. LAUDERDALE. FT. so I assume it was imported from America.
 
Last edited:
Carrying an umbrella in an "offensive manner" is against the law in Britain. Of course "offensive" is an objective term left to those who make those decisions based on their own prejudices.
 
Carrying an umbrella in an "offensive manner" is against the law in Britain. Of course "offensive" is an objective term left to those who make those decisions based on their own prejudices.
Click to expand...

So if I go to the States and adopt a boxing stance when walking up to someone, no one would raise the slightest protest?
If the answer is no, how is it any different to your comment?
 
Pond, the standard in the US would generally be that a reasonable person would have to believe that you actually intended to harm them, and had the ability to do so, as far as simple assault.

Acting like a jackass might qualify for disturbing the peace. Then again, it might not - depending on actions taken.

Our First Amendment has pretty sharp teeth, still. Though some politicians are proposing we follow the UK, and prosecute people who post unkind things about ethnic, religious, or sexual minorities... hopefully, those politicians will be - figuratively - tarred and feathered. Don't get me wrong, I dislike bigots, but I love the 1st Amendment as much as I love the 2nd.
 
What would they do with them? From what I can tell it's nearly impossible to legally use a weapon in self-defense in the U.K.
Click to expand...

This has been the case since 1937. The British have been successfully bred to NOT think of firearms as a legitimate defensive tool, nor anything else as a defensive tool.
 
Scrumbag that was a wonderful speech and one of the most American things I have ever heard in my life! I am assuming you live here in the U.S. now. In which case you are a truer patriot than a lot of the people born and raised here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top