You know one way or another the gun grabbers are determined to take away our rights and I am not so sure that the insurance companies aren't lobbying for this bill also.
This is pathetic.....But then again Illinois law makers seem to keep putting themselves in the headlines these days.
This amazes me. If you own a gun you have to carry $1,000,000 liability insurance, but if you own a car and drive it up and down the road 70 mph you have to have $20,000 liability insurance. Someone please explain that one to me
Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance
430 ILCS 65/4.5 new430 ILCS 65/8from Ch. 38, par. 83-8
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.
Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
This is ONLY one of the reasons I have never registered my guns
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
Is that the right link? I'm not seeing the insurance part there..
long day though....lol
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillSta ... D=76&GA=96
long day though....lol
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillSta ... D=76&GA=96
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
It will probably be just another test case on the 2nd Amendment. People will get all riled up, but nothing will change, I hope.
See below for a brief history I found on the Net.
"The meaning of the Second Amendment depends upon who you talk to. The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. Advocates of gun control contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias. For almost seventy years following its cryptic decision of U. S. vs. Miller in 1939, the Court ducked the issue, finally to resolve the question in its much anticipated 2008 decision, District of Coluumbia v Heller.
Miller was subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second--broader--view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all, and the defendants lost the case as soon as it was obvious that they were not members of a state militia.
There is also a second open question concerning the Second Amendment: If it does create a right of individuals to own firearms, is the right enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation? In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it existed--was enforceable only against the federal government, but there's been a wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then, and it's not clear that the Court would come to the same conclusion today. In Quilici vs Morton Grove, a case involving a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the possession of handguns, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the right was not enforceable against the states. The U. S. Supreme Court is likely to finally decide the issue, and most commentators are betting the Court will reach a different conclusion than did the Seventh Circuit.
In 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes. Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right consistent with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias. Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause. The Court easily found the D. C. law to violate the 2nd Amendment's command, but refused to announce a standard of review to apply in future challenges to gun regulations. The Court did say that its decision should not "cast doubt" on laws restricting gun ownership of felons or the mentally ill, and that bands on especially dangerous or unusual weapons would most likely also be upheld. In the 2008 presidential campaign, both major candidates said that they approved of the Court's decision."
See below for a brief history I found on the Net.
"The meaning of the Second Amendment depends upon who you talk to. The National Rifle Association, which has the Second Amendment (minus the militia clause) engraved on its headquarters building in Washington, insists that the Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. Advocates of gun control contend that the Amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias. For almost seventy years following its cryptic decision of U. S. vs. Miller in 1939, the Court ducked the issue, finally to resolve the question in its much anticipated 2008 decision, District of Coluumbia v Heller.
Miller was subject to two possible interpretations. One, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but that the right only extends to weapons commonly used in militias (the defendants in Miller were transporting sawed-off shotguns). The second--broader--view of Miller is that the Amendment guarantees no rights to individuals at all, and the defendants lost the case as soon as it was obvious that they were not members of a state militia.
There is also a second open question concerning the Second Amendment: If it does create a right of individuals to own firearms, is the right enforceable against state regulation as well as against federal regulation? In 1876, the Supreme Court said the right--if it existed--was enforceable only against the federal government, but there's been a wholesale incorporation of Bill of Rights provisions into the 14th Amendment since then, and it's not clear that the Court would come to the same conclusion today. In Quilici vs Morton Grove, a case involving a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the possession of handguns, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the right was not enforceable against the states. The U. S. Supreme Court is likely to finally decide the issue, and most commentators are betting the Court will reach a different conclusion than did the Seventh Circuit.
In 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, struck down a Washington, D.C. ban on individuals having handguns in their homes. Writing for a 5 to 4 majority, Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right consistent with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias. Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause. The Court easily found the D. C. law to violate the 2nd Amendment's command, but refused to announce a standard of review to apply in future challenges to gun regulations. The Court did say that its decision should not "cast doubt" on laws restricting gun ownership of felons or the mentally ill, and that bands on especially dangerous or unusual weapons would most likely also be upheld. In the 2008 presidential campaign, both major candidates said that they approved of the Court's decision."
"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"
- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
flopstock;1140310 wrote: Is that the right link? I'm not seeing the insurance part there..
long day though....lol
Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB0687
Nice Avatar:)
Try this Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB0687
long day though....lol
Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB0687
Nice Avatar:)
Try this Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB0687
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
BTS;1140330 wrote: Nice Avatar:)
Try this Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB0687
I found it and I've got to say that my state politicians make me proud...
that I never went into politics...:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
Try this Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB0687
I found it and I've got to say that my state politicians make me proud...
that I never went into politics...:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
To coin a phrase to show my total agreement ,
'nuf said.
BTS said
This is ONLY one of the reasons I have never registered my guns
Jester2 said,
Let them try to remove my guns. 'nuf said.
The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison
It seems to me we could 'learn from others experences ...
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
~ Noah Webster
Noah Webster was born on October 16, 1758, in the West Division of Hartford.
Noah Webster Writings and Biography
and
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC re
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.
ported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.
'nuf said.
BTS said
This is ONLY one of the reasons I have never registered my guns
Jester2 said,
Let them try to remove my guns. 'nuf said.
The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison
It seems to me we could 'learn from others experences ...
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
~ Noah Webster
Noah Webster was born on October 16, 1758, in the West Division of Hartford.
Noah Webster Writings and Biography
and
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC re
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.
ported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1181839 wrote: To coin a phrase to show my total agreement ,
'nuf said.
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison
and
So where have ya been all my life?:driving::driving:
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison
'nuf said.
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison
and
So where have ya been all my life?:driving::driving:
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1181839 wrote: To coin a phrase to show my total agreement ,
'nuf said.
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison
and
The gun problem in the states is a peculiarly american one. Stop making the comparisons with the UK as the cultures are so different it's completely meaningless and the comparisons are usually cobbler anyway. . But if you want to follow our example we have a small standing army and our police-right from the outset-were unarmed so they would not be seen as just another means of state oppression.
'nuf said.
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison
and
The gun problem in the states is a peculiarly american one. Stop making the comparisons with the UK as the cultures are so different it's completely meaningless and the comparisons are usually cobbler anyway. . But if you want to follow our example we have a small standing army and our police-right from the outset-were unarmed so they would not be seen as just another means of state oppression.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
BTS;1140292 wrote: This amazes me. If you own a gun you have to carry $1,000,000 liability insurance, but if you own a car and drive it up and down the road 70 mph you have to have $20,000 liability insurance. Someone please explain that one to me
It seems to me that the car insurance limit is quite ludicrously small - is that really the correct figure? The gun insurance is figure also seems rather low.
Both these comments from a UK perspective - it's quite possible, and has happened, that people's injuries result in chaims much higher than a mere $1,000,000. This is not unique:
12 year old car accident victim receives £2.3 million compensation
It seems to me that the car insurance limit is quite ludicrously small - is that really the correct figure? The gun insurance is figure also seems rather low.
Both these comments from a UK perspective - it's quite possible, and has happened, that people's injuries result in chaims much higher than a mere $1,000,000. This is not unique:
12 year old car accident victim receives £2.3 million compensation
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
gmc;1182206 wrote: The gun problem in the states is a peculiarly american one. Stop making the comparisons with the UK as the cultures are so different it's completely meaningless and the comparisons are usually cobbler anyway. . But if you want to follow our example we have a small standing army and our police-right from the outset-were unarmed so they would not be seen as just another means of state oppression.
I said nothing about 'following' Englands examples.
I said we should learn from Englands experences.
I said nothing about 'following' Englands examples.
I said we should learn from Englands experences.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1182573 wrote: I said nothing about 'following' Englands examples.
I said we should learn from Englands experences.
You can't. The cultures and history are very different. The gun lobby in the states like to twist the statistics and ignore anything that contradicts what they not to believe, and portray us all as helpless victims of a repressive government. If you want to learn from our experience how about you reduce your standing army to a size that would make subjugating the populating very difficult and disarm the police. People who advocate gun ownership are right wing nutters and pariahs to most people with any sense.
The reality is the hand gun ban was on the back of tremendous public demand that it be introduced. In Dunblane-that was the incident that finally prompted the ban the individual-in the local by- election shortly after the event the candidate standing as as a pro gun campaigner needed police protection. Far from being disarmed any party that didn't support a ban or wanted to overturn it would be in serious trouble come election time.
I said we should learn from Englands experences.
You can't. The cultures and history are very different. The gun lobby in the states like to twist the statistics and ignore anything that contradicts what they not to believe, and portray us all as helpless victims of a repressive government. If you want to learn from our experience how about you reduce your standing army to a size that would make subjugating the populating very difficult and disarm the police. People who advocate gun ownership are right wing nutters and pariahs to most people with any sense.
The reality is the hand gun ban was on the back of tremendous public demand that it be introduced. In Dunblane-that was the incident that finally prompted the ban the individual-in the local by- election shortly after the event the candidate standing as as a pro gun campaigner needed police protection. Far from being disarmed any party that didn't support a ban or wanted to overturn it would be in serious trouble come election time.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
gmc;1182694 wrote: You can't. The cultures and history are very different. The gun lobby in the states like to twist the statistics and ignore anything that contradicts what they not to believe, and portray us all as helpless victims of a repressive government. If you want to learn from our experience how about you reduce your standing army to a size that would make subjugating the populating very difficult and disarm the police. People who advocate gun ownership are right wing nutters and pariahs to most people with any sense.
The reality is the hand gun ban was on the back of tremendous public demand that it be introduced. In Dunblane-that was the incident that finally prompted the ban the individual-in the local by- election shortly after the event the candidate standing as as a pro gun campaigner needed police protection. Far from being disarmed any party that didn't support a ban or wanted to overturn it would be in serious trouble come election time.
I did the Bold text
I completely agree with your statement in the first bold text.
And agree up to a point I agree with the second bold text.
Nowhere is it said anyone is helpless victims of a repressive government in anything I posted.
what it does say about the firearms being restricted across the pond is
because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted.
nothing about helpless victims .
What I meant when I said we could 'learn from others experiences
was this part of the report
England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns.
The reality is the hand gun ban was on the back of tremendous public demand that it be introduced. In Dunblane-that was the incident that finally prompted the ban the individual-in the local by- election shortly after the event the candidate standing as as a pro gun campaigner needed police protection. Far from being disarmed any party that didn't support a ban or wanted to overturn it would be in serious trouble come election time.
I did the Bold text
I completely agree with your statement in the first bold text.
And agree up to a point I agree with the second bold text.
Nowhere is it said anyone is helpless victims of a repressive government in anything I posted.
what it does say about the firearms being restricted across the pond is
because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted.
nothing about helpless victims .
What I meant when I said we could 'learn from others experiences
was this part of the report
England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
I think they should have this against all gun owners. I detest the things.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1182772 wrote: I did the Bold text
I completely agree with your statement in the first bold text.
And agree up to a point I agree with the second bold text.
Nowhere is it said anyone is in anything I posted.
what it does say about the firearms being restricted across the pond is
nothing about helpless victims .
What I meant when I said
was this part of the report
I can't distinguish what you are saying as you do not make clear which bits are your own words and which are quotations from James Madison or noah webster..
However, you have been selective in the bits you do use. Your reference about firearms being restricted across the pond for instance-you missed out the relevant part.
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted.
Referring to the English government is inaccurate and mildly irritating but it does show an ignorance on the part of the author. The English haven't been independent since 1707. :sneaky:
We were not disarmed by a government in which the populace had no say which is the way the gun lobby in the US seems to like it portrayed with them taking the guns from our very grasp so they could leave us helpless and oppressed. The reality was actually very different.
The hand gun ban in 1997 was not a repressive government disarming the populace it was a government it was a government responding to public demand and shitting itself because it could cost them the next election if they didn't. That's how strong the demand was.
Two world wars does result in a lot more guns being around which is one of the main reasons gun crime starts to rise. While it was true that post ww1 they were terrified of a Bolshevik uprising they never got to the point of using the army to shoot strikers-it would have probably sparked the very thing the establishment feared. Post ww2 there were several amnesties when old ww2 weapons were handed in people had had enough of war and there was no reason to want to be armed. The socialist uprising had happened and it was bloodless.
If you want to be free keep your government frightened of the electorate voting them out of office and every now and then remind them who is boss. Don't let a few companies control your media and assume the bastards are lying to you.
You can't learn from our experiences they are so different, even less so when you refuse to accept that they are different. Why persist in bring the UK in to the debate about gun control in the US? It's a red herring and completely irrelevant. It's very annoying being constantly told by Americans we have been disarmed by our nasty government and are oppressed. How shall I put this
It's utter Bollocks
Our police have been unarmed since their inception so that they could not be in a position to abuse their authority and their being unarmed was thought more likely that they would gain public support. It's hardly an experience of policing that compares with the American one is it? The Gun culture in the states is unique stop kidding yourselves it's everybody else that is odd.
Ever since the civil war the UK has tended to keep a small standing army at home-to paraphrase the Duke of Wellington having it dispersed round the world was the only way the British would tolerate a large army. Army generals can end up running the place in the right circumstances. An armed populace can't defend themselves against a modern army with tanks and aeroplanes willing to use them. We might conceivably end up with a police state but it will sneak up on us and not at the point of a gun- the army is just not big enough to do it.
I completely agree with your statement in the first bold text.
And agree up to a point I agree with the second bold text.
Nowhere is it said anyone is in anything I posted.
what it does say about the firearms being restricted across the pond is
nothing about helpless victims .
What I meant when I said
was this part of the report
I can't distinguish what you are saying as you do not make clear which bits are your own words and which are quotations from James Madison or noah webster..
However, you have been selective in the bits you do use. Your reference about firearms being restricted across the pond for instance-you missed out the relevant part.
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted.
Referring to the English government is inaccurate and mildly irritating but it does show an ignorance on the part of the author. The English haven't been independent since 1707. :sneaky:
We were not disarmed by a government in which the populace had no say which is the way the gun lobby in the US seems to like it portrayed with them taking the guns from our very grasp so they could leave us helpless and oppressed. The reality was actually very different.
The hand gun ban in 1997 was not a repressive government disarming the populace it was a government it was a government responding to public demand and shitting itself because it could cost them the next election if they didn't. That's how strong the demand was.
Two world wars does result in a lot more guns being around which is one of the main reasons gun crime starts to rise. While it was true that post ww1 they were terrified of a Bolshevik uprising they never got to the point of using the army to shoot strikers-it would have probably sparked the very thing the establishment feared. Post ww2 there were several amnesties when old ww2 weapons were handed in people had had enough of war and there was no reason to want to be armed. The socialist uprising had happened and it was bloodless.
If you want to be free keep your government frightened of the electorate voting them out of office and every now and then remind them who is boss. Don't let a few companies control your media and assume the bastards are lying to you.
You can't learn from our experiences they are so different, even less so when you refuse to accept that they are different. Why persist in bring the UK in to the debate about gun control in the US? It's a red herring and completely irrelevant. It's very annoying being constantly told by Americans we have been disarmed by our nasty government and are oppressed. How shall I put this
It's utter Bollocks
Our police have been unarmed since their inception so that they could not be in a position to abuse their authority and their being unarmed was thought more likely that they would gain public support. It's hardly an experience of policing that compares with the American one is it? The Gun culture in the states is unique stop kidding yourselves it's everybody else that is odd.
Ever since the civil war the UK has tended to keep a small standing army at home-to paraphrase the Duke of Wellington having it dispersed round the world was the only way the British would tolerate a large army. Army generals can end up running the place in the right circumstances. An armed populace can't defend themselves against a modern army with tanks and aeroplanes willing to use them. We might conceivably end up with a police state but it will sneak up on us and not at the point of a gun- the army is just not big enough to do it.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
gmc;1182914 wrote: I can't distinguish what you are saying as you do not make clear which bits are your own words and which are quotations from James Madison or noah webster..
However, you have been selective in the bits you do use. Your reference about firearms being restricted across the pond for instance-you missed out the relevant part.
Referring to the English government is inaccurate and mildly irritating but it does show an ignorance on the part of the author. The English haven't been independent since 1707. :sneaky:
We were not disarmed by a government in which the populace had no say which is the way the gun lobby in the US seems to like it portrayed with them taking the guns from our very grasp so they could leave us helpless and oppressed. The reality was actually very different.
The hand gun ban in 1997 was not a repressive government disarming the populace it was a government it was a government responding to public demand and shitting itself because it could cost them the next election if they didn't. That's how strong the demand was.
Two world wars does result in a lot more guns being around which is one of the main reasons gun crime starts to rise. While it was true that post ww1 they were terrified of a Bolshevik uprising they never got to the point of using the army to shoot strikers-it would have probably sparked the very thing the establishment feared. Post ww2 there were several amnesties when old ww2 weapons were handed in people had had enough of war and there was no reason to want to be armed. The socialist uprising had happened and it was bloodless.
If you want to be free keep your government frightened of the electorate voting them out of office and every now and then remind them who is boss. Don't let a few companies control your media and assume the bastards are lying to you.
You can't learn from our experiences they are so different, even less so when you refuse to accept that they are different. Why persist in bring the UK in to the debate about gun control in the US? It's a red herring and completely irrelevant. It's very annoying being constantly told by Americans we have been disarmed by our nasty government and are oppressed. How shall I put this
It's utter Bollocks
Our police have been unarmed since their inception so that they could not be in a position to abuse their authority and their being unarmed was thought more likely that they would gain public support. It's hardly an experience of policing that compares with the American one is it? The Gun culture in the states is unique stop kidding yourselves it's everybody else that is odd.
Ever since the civil war the UK has tended to keep a small standing army at home-to paraphrase the Duke of Wellington having it dispersed round the world was the only way the British would tolerate a large army. Army generals can end up running the place in the right circumstances. An armed populace can't defend themselves against a modern army with tanks and aeroplanes willing to use them. We might conceivably end up with a police state but it will sneak up on us and not at the point of a gun- the army is just not big enough to do it.
Please accept my humble apology for mentioning England in a thread about American gun control.
And thank you for giving me the inclination to research the info in your post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_( ... )_Act_1997
However, you have been selective in the bits you do use. Your reference about firearms being restricted across the pond for instance-you missed out the relevant part.
Referring to the English government is inaccurate and mildly irritating but it does show an ignorance on the part of the author. The English haven't been independent since 1707. :sneaky:
We were not disarmed by a government in which the populace had no say which is the way the gun lobby in the US seems to like it portrayed with them taking the guns from our very grasp so they could leave us helpless and oppressed. The reality was actually very different.
The hand gun ban in 1997 was not a repressive government disarming the populace it was a government it was a government responding to public demand and shitting itself because it could cost them the next election if they didn't. That's how strong the demand was.
Two world wars does result in a lot more guns being around which is one of the main reasons gun crime starts to rise. While it was true that post ww1 they were terrified of a Bolshevik uprising they never got to the point of using the army to shoot strikers-it would have probably sparked the very thing the establishment feared. Post ww2 there were several amnesties when old ww2 weapons were handed in people had had enough of war and there was no reason to want to be armed. The socialist uprising had happened and it was bloodless.
If you want to be free keep your government frightened of the electorate voting them out of office and every now and then remind them who is boss. Don't let a few companies control your media and assume the bastards are lying to you.
You can't learn from our experiences they are so different, even less so when you refuse to accept that they are different. Why persist in bring the UK in to the debate about gun control in the US? It's a red herring and completely irrelevant. It's very annoying being constantly told by Americans we have been disarmed by our nasty government and are oppressed. How shall I put this
It's utter Bollocks
Our police have been unarmed since their inception so that they could not be in a position to abuse their authority and their being unarmed was thought more likely that they would gain public support. It's hardly an experience of policing that compares with the American one is it? The Gun culture in the states is unique stop kidding yourselves it's everybody else that is odd.
Ever since the civil war the UK has tended to keep a small standing army at home-to paraphrase the Duke of Wellington having it dispersed round the world was the only way the British would tolerate a large army. Army generals can end up running the place in the right circumstances. An armed populace can't defend themselves against a modern army with tanks and aeroplanes willing to use them. We might conceivably end up with a police state but it will sneak up on us and not at the point of a gun- the army is just not big enough to do it.
Please accept my humble apology for mentioning England in a thread about American gun control.
And thank you for giving me the inclination to research the info in your post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_( ... )_Act_1997
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides.
Isn't this the way it already works ? If a firearm is registered to a person and is stolen if it is used in a crime and hasn't been reported stolen then the person it's registered is in some deep doo doo , right?
Sometimes it seems that our politicians go to work thinking up ways to repeat whats already been said and try to get us to swallow it as new and improved , except of course when it comes to the constitution then they seem to want us to think they know whats best so we just need to go out shopping while they 'take' care of things for us. ( just my personal opinion)
I wonder if them silly politiancns have ever seen the numbers ? You know the ones , # of deaths caised by cars compared to # of deaths caused by firearms .
Maybe someone should remind the american voters about a few things ,,,
Our tenet ever was . . . that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.
Tomas Jefferson
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1182935 wrote: Please accept my humble apology for mentioning England in a thread about American gun control.
And thank you for giving me the inclination to research the info in your post.
Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:D It's just it's completely irrelevant to what you do in the states with gun control I can never understand why it's always brought up as an example.
And thank you for giving me the inclination to research the info in your post.
Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
:D It's just it's completely irrelevant to what you do in the states with gun control I can never understand why it's always brought up as an example.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
gmc;1183129 wrote: 
It's just it's completely irrelevant to what you do in the states with gun control I can never understand why it's always brought up as an example.
I will say I disagree with you , and you have made it clear you disagree with me . so i will agree that we don't agree .how does that go ?
lets agree to disagree . and go on about our own bees wax.
It's just it's completely irrelevant to what you do in the states with gun control I can never understand why it's always brought up as an example.I will say I disagree with you , and you have made it clear you disagree with me . so i will agree that we don't agree .how does that go ?
lets agree to disagree . and go on about our own bees wax.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1183284 wrote: I will say I disagree with you , and you have made it clear you disagree with me . so i will agree that we don't agree .how does that go ?
lets agree to disagree . and go on about our own bees wax.
Fine we can agree to disagree. I have tried to politely point out how irrelevant it is and how different the cultures are on this issue but clearly it is a waste of time. Had you actually read your own research you might have realised it was just one of the issues that cost the tories the 1997 election. One of the first acts of the new govt was to bring in the ban.
You quite clearly cannot accept the notion that the overwhelming attitude to the UK to gun ownership in private hands is an intensely hostile one. That reason alone makes the comparisons irrelevant. Those who advocate private gun ownership in the UK are invariably on the loony right of the political spectrum.
lets agree to disagree . and go on about our own bees wax.
Fine we can agree to disagree. I have tried to politely point out how irrelevant it is and how different the cultures are on this issue but clearly it is a waste of time. Had you actually read your own research you might have realised it was just one of the issues that cost the tories the 1997 election. One of the first acts of the new govt was to bring in the ban.
You quite clearly cannot accept the notion that the overwhelming attitude to the UK to gun ownership in private hands is an intensely hostile one. That reason alone makes the comparisons irrelevant. Those who advocate private gun ownership in the UK are invariably on the loony right of the political spectrum.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
[quote=gmc;1183338]Fine we can agree to disagree. I have tried to politely point out how irrelevant it is and how different the cultures are on this issue but clearly it is a waste of time. Had you actually read your own research you might have realised it was just one of the issues that cost the tories the 1997 election. One of the first acts of the new govt was to bring in the ban.
You quite clearly cannot accept the notion that the overwhelming attitude to the UK to gun ownership in private hands is an intensely hostile one. That reason alone makes the comparisons irrelevant. Those who advocate private gun ownership in the UK are invariably on the loony right of the political spectrum.
Oh yes I can accept and truly believe that [QUOTE]the overwhelming attitude to the UK to gun ownership in private hands is an intensely hostile one. I have been in many debates turned ugly on other sites about that very topic.
on the other hand I could say the same about you You quite clearly cannot accept the notion that the overwhelming attitude to the US of A to gun ownership in private hands is a strongly held belief that it's our right as Americans to keep and bare arms and anyone that thinks they can make me give up my right can just come on and give it a try!! See this is what I'm talking when I said we should just agree to dis agree and go on about our own bees wax. I totally and completely 110% buy into the " You can have my Gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers " theory.
You quite clearly cannot accept the notion that the overwhelming attitude to the UK to gun ownership in private hands is an intensely hostile one. That reason alone makes the comparisons irrelevant. Those who advocate private gun ownership in the UK are invariably on the loony right of the political spectrum.
Oh yes I can accept and truly believe that [QUOTE]the overwhelming attitude to the UK to gun ownership in private hands is an intensely hostile one. I have been in many debates turned ugly on other sites about that very topic.
on the other hand I could say the same about you You quite clearly cannot accept the notion that the overwhelming attitude to the US of A to gun ownership in private hands is a strongly held belief that it's our right as Americans to keep and bare arms and anyone that thinks they can make me give up my right can just come on and give it a try!! See this is what I'm talking when I said we should just agree to dis agree and go on about our own bees wax. I totally and completely 110% buy into the " You can have my Gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers " theory.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
[QUOTE=scholle-kid;1183378][quote=gmc;1183338]Fine we can agree to disagree. I have tried to politely point out how irrelevant it is and how different the cultures are on this issue but clearly it is a waste of time. Had you actually read your own research you might have realised it was just one of the issues that cost the tories the 1997 election. One of the first acts of the new govt was to bring in the ban.
You quite clearly cannot accept the notion that the overwhelming attitude to the UK to gun ownership in private hands is an intensely hostile one. That reason alone makes the comparisons irrelevant. Those who advocate private gun ownership in the UK are invariably on the loony right of the political spectrum.
Oh yes I can accept and truly believe that I have been in many debates turned ugly on other sites about that very topic.
on the other hand I could say the same about you See this is what I'm talking when I said we should just agree to dis agree and go on about our own bees wax. I totally and completely 110% buy into the " You can have my Gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers " theory.
Actually I do get it. But my life experience and culture is very different from yours and I don't want to see us go the same way as the states. But I suspect if I was american and living there I would probably feel the same way as you since I value my freedoms. The context is vastly different though. I must admit I do find it intensely irritating when some American commentator tells us we have been disarmed against our will and are therefore not a free people and it's quoted by someone that goes on gleefully to tell me how and gun crime has soared since the ban and I must be living in fear of being attacked by a gun toting robber and am unable to defend myself cos I was daft enough to give up my gun and then thinks bollocks is a really rude word and their sensibilities are hurt-which is bit like I thought you were doing so my apologies
You're right we can agree to disagree. I too have seen such debates turn a bit personal but not so much on this forum. There are a lot of conflicting opinions that get aired and talked about without it getting personal-it is after all rather the point of a forum to discuss things with people you don't agree with. There is the odd one or two that seem to think disagreeing with someone is the same as attacking them personally and passionate argument is something to be avoided-the logic of which I never understand. Our media does rather give the impression you are all running around shooting each other at the least provocation.
You quite clearly cannot accept the notion that the overwhelming attitude to the UK to gun ownership in private hands is an intensely hostile one. That reason alone makes the comparisons irrelevant. Those who advocate private gun ownership in the UK are invariably on the loony right of the political spectrum.
Oh yes I can accept and truly believe that I have been in many debates turned ugly on other sites about that very topic.
on the other hand I could say the same about you See this is what I'm talking when I said we should just agree to dis agree and go on about our own bees wax. I totally and completely 110% buy into the " You can have my Gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers " theory.
Actually I do get it. But my life experience and culture is very different from yours and I don't want to see us go the same way as the states. But I suspect if I was american and living there I would probably feel the same way as you since I value my freedoms. The context is vastly different though. I must admit I do find it intensely irritating when some American commentator tells us we have been disarmed against our will and are therefore not a free people and it's quoted by someone that goes on gleefully to tell me how and gun crime has soared since the ban and I must be living in fear of being attacked by a gun toting robber and am unable to defend myself cos I was daft enough to give up my gun and then thinks bollocks is a really rude word and their sensibilities are hurt-which is bit like I thought you were doing so my apologies
You're right we can agree to disagree. I too have seen such debates turn a bit personal but not so much on this forum. There are a lot of conflicting opinions that get aired and talked about without it getting personal-it is after all rather the point of a forum to discuss things with people you don't agree with. There is the odd one or two that seem to think disagreeing with someone is the same as attacking them personally and passionate argument is something to be avoided-the logic of which I never understand. Our media does rather give the impression you are all running around shooting each other at the least provocation.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
gmc;1183414 wrote: [quote=scholle-kid;1183378][quote=gmc;1183338]Fine we can agree to disagree. I have tried to politely point out how irrelevant it is and how different the cultures are on this issue but clearly it is a waste of time. Had you actually read your own research you might have realised it was just one of the issues that cost the tories the 1997 election. One of the first acts of the new govt was to bring in the ban.
You quite clearly cannot accept the notion that the overwhelming attitude to the UK to gun ownership in private hands is an intensely hostile one. That reason alone makes the comparisons irrelevant. Those who advocate private gun ownership in the UK are invariably on the loony right of the political spectrum.
Actually I do get it. But my life experience and culture is very different from yours and I don't want to see us go the same way as the states. But I suspect if I was american and living there I would probably feel the same way as you since I value my freedoms. The context is vastly different though. I must admit I do find it intensely irritating when some American commentator tells us we have been disarmed against our will and are therefore not a free people and it's quoted by someone that goes on gleefully to tell me how and gun crime has soared since the ban and I must be living in fear of being attacked by a gun toting robber and am unable to defend myself cos I was daft enough to give up my gun and then thinks bollocks is a really rude word and their sensibilities are hurt-which is bit like I thought you were doing so my apologies
You're right we can agree to disagree. I too have seen such debates turn a bit personal but not so much on this forum. There are a lot of conflicting opinions that get aired and talked about without it getting personal-it is after all rather the point of a forum to discuss things with people you don't agree with. There is the odd one or two that seem to think disagreeing with someone is the same as attacking them personally and passionate argument is something to be avoided-the logic of which I never understand. Our media does rather give the impression you are all running around shooting each other at the least provocation.
because of the difference , there is no reason for people in the UK to be thinking or worrying about this
[quote=gmc;1183338]I don't want to see us go the same way as the states. is there ?
To a certain extent this is happening "you are all running around shooting each other"
but it's the gang bangers and druggies that are doing it, yes every once in a while an innocent by stander catches a stray round and that's what our media and government jumps on like 'ugly on ape' when they start running off at the mouth on gun control. IMHO we need to block off a piece of each town and city , herd all the gang bangers and thier off spring into that blocked off area and feed them the rounds. wait for a few hours after the last shots have been fired and go see what there is to see. Notice if you will I said IMHO , I am not speaking for all Americans, some have the same thoughts and opinions , but some don't. It isn't that I am cold blooded or don't have compassion for my fellow human beings. but them bangers are gonna shoot each other and stab and rob and fight each other because one lives in a neighborhood where every body wears a yellow bandanna and the other lives where they all wear a purple one so that makes them angry and they have to fight. does it sound like some silly Holly wood s cartoon ? maybe, but it the way them bangers are. so by herding all the yellows into the same area where all the purples are and giving them all the rounds the ole ladies and kids can carry in thier pockets . Is just speeding things up a bit . I am 50 years ago soon and have never shot a fellow human being no matter what color they are wearing. and have never been shot at. After 50 years of continuous exposure to and access of fire arms . if we were all trigger happy gun packing running around shooting each other at the least provocation kind of people , I couldn't say that.
You quite clearly cannot accept the notion that the overwhelming attitude to the UK to gun ownership in private hands is an intensely hostile one. That reason alone makes the comparisons irrelevant. Those who advocate private gun ownership in the UK are invariably on the loony right of the political spectrum.
Actually I do get it. But my life experience and culture is very different from yours and I don't want to see us go the same way as the states. But I suspect if I was american and living there I would probably feel the same way as you since I value my freedoms. The context is vastly different though. I must admit I do find it intensely irritating when some American commentator tells us we have been disarmed against our will and are therefore not a free people and it's quoted by someone that goes on gleefully to tell me how and gun crime has soared since the ban and I must be living in fear of being attacked by a gun toting robber and am unable to defend myself cos I was daft enough to give up my gun and then thinks bollocks is a really rude word and their sensibilities are hurt-which is bit like I thought you were doing so my apologies
You're right we can agree to disagree. I too have seen such debates turn a bit personal but not so much on this forum. There are a lot of conflicting opinions that get aired and talked about without it getting personal-it is after all rather the point of a forum to discuss things with people you don't agree with. There is the odd one or two that seem to think disagreeing with someone is the same as attacking them personally and passionate argument is something to be avoided-the logic of which I never understand. Our media does rather give the impression you are all running around shooting each other at the least provocation.
because of the difference , there is no reason for people in the UK to be thinking or worrying about this
[quote=gmc;1183338]I don't want to see us go the same way as the states. is there ?
To a certain extent this is happening "you are all running around shooting each other"
but it's the gang bangers and druggies that are doing it, yes every once in a while an innocent by stander catches a stray round and that's what our media and government jumps on like 'ugly on ape' when they start running off at the mouth on gun control. IMHO we need to block off a piece of each town and city , herd all the gang bangers and thier off spring into that blocked off area and feed them the rounds. wait for a few hours after the last shots have been fired and go see what there is to see. Notice if you will I said IMHO , I am not speaking for all Americans, some have the same thoughts and opinions , but some don't. It isn't that I am cold blooded or don't have compassion for my fellow human beings. but them bangers are gonna shoot each other and stab and rob and fight each other because one lives in a neighborhood where every body wears a yellow bandanna and the other lives where they all wear a purple one so that makes them angry and they have to fight. does it sound like some silly Holly wood s cartoon ? maybe, but it the way them bangers are. so by herding all the yellows into the same area where all the purples are and giving them all the rounds the ole ladies and kids can carry in thier pockets . Is just speeding things up a bit . I am 50 years ago soon and have never shot a fellow human being no matter what color they are wearing. and have never been shot at. After 50 years of continuous exposure to and access of fire arms . if we were all trigger happy gun packing running around shooting each other at the least provocation kind of people , I couldn't say that.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
[QUOTE=scholle-kid;1183477][quote=gmc;1183414][quote=scholle-kid;1183378]
because of the difference , there is no reason for people in the UK to be thinking or worrying about this
[quote=gmc;1183338]I don't want to see us go the same way as the states. is there ?
To a certain extent this is happening "you are all running around shooting each other"
but it's the gang bangers and druggies that are doing it, yes every once in a while an innocent by stander catches a stray round and that's what our media and government jumps on like 'ugly on ape' when they start running off at the mouth on gun control. IMHO we need to block off a piece of each town and city , herd all the gang bangers and thier off spring into that blocked off area and feed them the rounds. wait for a few hours after the last shots have been fired and go see what there is to see. Notice if you will I said IMHO , I am not speaking for all Americans, some have the same thoughts and opinions , but some don't. It isn't that I am cold blooded or don't have compassion for my fellow human beings. but them bangers are gonna shoot each other and stab and rob and fight each other because one lives in a neighborhood where every body wears a yellow bandanna and the other lives where they all wear a purple one so that makes them angry and they have to fight. does it sound like some silly Holly wood s cartoon ? maybe, but it the way them bangers are. so by herding all the yellows into the same area where all the purples are and giving them all the rounds the ole ladies and kids can carry in their pockets . Is just speeding things up a bit . I am 50 years ago soon and have never shot a fellow human being no matter what color they are wearing. and have never been shot at. After 50 years of continuous exposure to and access of fire arms . if we were all trigger happy gun packing running around shooting each other at the least provocation kind of people , I couldn't say that.
We've got similar kinds of social problems in out cities as you do. Here it tends to be knives instead of guns they use but I suspect if we had the same access to guns as you do we'd have a similar level of killings in some areas. You can always outrun someone with a knife given enough incentive. There are certain bits of every city anywhere in the world you need to be careful-mind you I did have a deliverance type incident in the wild and woolly north one summer but it ended up being funny rather than threatening.
because of the difference , there is no reason for people in the UK to be thinking or worrying about this
[quote=gmc;1183338]I don't want to see us go the same way as the states. is there ?
To a certain extent this is happening "you are all running around shooting each other"
but it's the gang bangers and druggies that are doing it, yes every once in a while an innocent by stander catches a stray round and that's what our media and government jumps on like 'ugly on ape' when they start running off at the mouth on gun control. IMHO we need to block off a piece of each town and city , herd all the gang bangers and thier off spring into that blocked off area and feed them the rounds. wait for a few hours after the last shots have been fired and go see what there is to see. Notice if you will I said IMHO , I am not speaking for all Americans, some have the same thoughts and opinions , but some don't. It isn't that I am cold blooded or don't have compassion for my fellow human beings. but them bangers are gonna shoot each other and stab and rob and fight each other because one lives in a neighborhood where every body wears a yellow bandanna and the other lives where they all wear a purple one so that makes them angry and they have to fight. does it sound like some silly Holly wood s cartoon ? maybe, but it the way them bangers are. so by herding all the yellows into the same area where all the purples are and giving them all the rounds the ole ladies and kids can carry in their pockets . Is just speeding things up a bit . I am 50 years ago soon and have never shot a fellow human being no matter what color they are wearing. and have never been shot at. After 50 years of continuous exposure to and access of fire arms . if we were all trigger happy gun packing running around shooting each other at the least provocation kind of people , I couldn't say that.
We've got similar kinds of social problems in out cities as you do. Here it tends to be knives instead of guns they use but I suspect if we had the same access to guns as you do we'd have a similar level of killings in some areas. You can always outrun someone with a knife given enough incentive. There are certain bits of every city anywhere in the world you need to be careful-mind you I did have a deliverance type incident in the wild and woolly north one summer but it ended up being funny rather than threatening.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
gmc;1183550 wrote: [quote=scholle-kid;1183477][quote=gmc;1183414][quote=scholle-kid;1183378]
because of the difference , there is no reason for people in the UK to be thinking or worrying about this
[quote=gmc;1183338]I don't want to see us go the same way as the states.
We've got similar kinds of social problems in out cities as you do. Here it tends to be knives instead of guns they use but I suspect if we had the same access to guns as you do we'd have a similar level of killings in some areas. You can always outrun someone with a knife given enough incentive. There are certain bits of every city anywhere in the world you need to be careful-mind you I did have a deliverance type incident in the wild and woolly north one summer but it ended up being funny rather than threatening.
Well I tend to stay out of any city . and most towns also. the closest city to my place is Albuquerque and that's 75 north of me.A bit far for them gang bangers . Plus my big gun and bigger dogs would make any of them feel way more safer in the city.
On another site that is at least 65 % UK natives there has been some threads about crime and some involving fire arms , more than I would have expected if ask. I'm asking your opinion on this bit of info . that is the site where I have been in debates turned ugly.
because of the difference , there is no reason for people in the UK to be thinking or worrying about this
[quote=gmc;1183338]I don't want to see us go the same way as the states.
We've got similar kinds of social problems in out cities as you do. Here it tends to be knives instead of guns they use but I suspect if we had the same access to guns as you do we'd have a similar level of killings in some areas. You can always outrun someone with a knife given enough incentive. There are certain bits of every city anywhere in the world you need to be careful-mind you I did have a deliverance type incident in the wild and woolly north one summer but it ended up being funny rather than threatening.
Well I tend to stay out of any city . and most towns also. the closest city to my place is Albuquerque and that's 75 north of me.A bit far for them gang bangers . Plus my big gun and bigger dogs would make any of them feel way more safer in the city.
On another site that is at least 65 % UK natives there has been some threads about crime and some involving fire arms , more than I would have expected if ask. I'm asking your opinion on this bit of info . that is the site where I have been in debates turned ugly.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1182573 wrote: I said nothing about 'following' Englands examples.
I said we should learn from Englands experences.
I notice that all of your quotes are from, socially and technologically speaking, pre-history. To me thay are all irrelevant because the situation is so totally different today - they were discussing apples when we have cheese.
Back in the days when the army carried muskets and could, at most, muster a few cannons to go with them, an armed population could defeat any standing army by sheer weight of numbers given that they carried comparable weapons.
Today? There is no conceivable way that the people could stand against the army and win by force of arms - they would be more likely to win by standing there without a weapon amongst them and calling on the army to on them or kill them.
Using the prospect of armed rebellion as a justification for the free and widespread availability of guns is pulling the wool over peoples eyes - there might possibly be justification but that's not it.
I said we should learn from Englands experences.
I notice that all of your quotes are from, socially and technologically speaking, pre-history. To me thay are all irrelevant because the situation is so totally different today - they were discussing apples when we have cheese.
Back in the days when the army carried muskets and could, at most, muster a few cannons to go with them, an armed population could defeat any standing army by sheer weight of numbers given that they carried comparable weapons.
Today? There is no conceivable way that the people could stand against the army and win by force of arms - they would be more likely to win by standing there without a weapon amongst them and calling on the army to on them or kill them.
Using the prospect of armed rebellion as a justification for the free and widespread availability of guns is pulling the wool over peoples eyes - there might possibly be justification but that's not it.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1183612 wrote: [quote=gmc;1183550][quote=scholle-kid;1183477][quote=gmc;1183414][quote=scholle-kid;1183378]
because of the difference , there is no reason for people in the UK to be thinking or worrying about this
Well I tend to stay out of any city . and most towns also. the closest city to my place is Albuquerque and that's 75 north of me.A bit far for them gang bangers . Plus my big gun and bigger dogs would make any of them feel way more safer in the city.
On another site that is at least 65 % UK natives there has been some threads about crime and some involving fire arms , more than I would have expected if ask. I'm asking your opinion on this bit of info . that is the site where I have been in debates turned ugly.
Let me put a bit of context around this.
I have grown up living and working in a city and walking round the city centre frequently morning, noon and night. I currently live in London and frequently walk and cycle round what are considered to be the "rough areas".
In my life I have seen precisely one firearm - I promptly reported it and the jerk was arrested and jailed for firearms offences.
Firearms are not a big problem in the UK unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
because of the difference , there is no reason for people in the UK to be thinking or worrying about this
Well I tend to stay out of any city . and most towns also. the closest city to my place is Albuquerque and that's 75 north of me.A bit far for them gang bangers . Plus my big gun and bigger dogs would make any of them feel way more safer in the city.
On another site that is at least 65 % UK natives there has been some threads about crime and some involving fire arms , more than I would have expected if ask. I'm asking your opinion on this bit of info . that is the site where I have been in debates turned ugly.
Let me put a bit of context around this.
I have grown up living and working in a city and walking round the city centre frequently morning, noon and night. I currently live in London and frequently walk and cycle round what are considered to be the "rough areas".
In my life I have seen precisely one firearm - I promptly reported it and the jerk was arrested and jailed for firearms offences.
Firearms are not a big problem in the UK unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
Bryn Mawr;1183636 wrote:
I notice that all of your quotes are from, socially and technologically speaking, pre-history. To me thay are all irrelevant because the situation is so totally different today - they were discussing apples when we have cheese.
Back in the days when the army carried muskets and could, at most, muster a few cannons to go with them, an armed population could defeat any standing army by sheer weight of numbers given that they carried comparable weapons.
Today? There is no conceivable way that the people could stand against the army and win by force of arms - they would be more likely to win by standing there without a weapon amongst them and calling on the army to on them or kill them.
Using the prospect of armed rebellion as a justification for the free and widespread availability of guns is pulling the wool over peoples eyes - there might possibly be justification but that's not it. .
You may be some what confused or maybe you think it really means what you want it to but here is a link to the info about the words "pre history " and after reading what the phrase mean ,,, you useing thay phrase in this context is like i'm talking cheese and your wanting cannes tuna
here's yhe link
Prehistory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me put a bit of context around this.
.
Firearms are not a big problem in the UK unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
Firearms are not a big problem in the US of A unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
Dog gone it gmc see what has happened here ? We have found the difference that makes it the same. darn the luck.
I notice that all of your quotes are from, socially and technologically speaking, pre-history. To me thay are all irrelevant because the situation is so totally different today - they were discussing apples when we have cheese.
Back in the days when the army carried muskets and could, at most, muster a few cannons to go with them, an armed population could defeat any standing army by sheer weight of numbers given that they carried comparable weapons.
Today? There is no conceivable way that the people could stand against the army and win by force of arms - they would be more likely to win by standing there without a weapon amongst them and calling on the army to on them or kill them.
Using the prospect of armed rebellion as a justification for the free and widespread availability of guns is pulling the wool over peoples eyes - there might possibly be justification but that's not it. .
You may be some what confused or maybe you think it really means what you want it to but here is a link to the info about the words "pre history " and after reading what the phrase mean ,,, you useing thay phrase in this context is like i'm talking cheese and your wanting cannes tuna
here's yhe link
Prehistory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me put a bit of context around this.
.
Firearms are not a big problem in the UK unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
Firearms are not a big problem in the US of A unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
Dog gone it gmc see what has happened here ? We have found the difference that makes it the same. darn the luck.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1183657 wrote: You may be some what confused or maybe you think it really means what you want it to but here is a link to the info about the words "pre history " and after reading what the phrase mean ,,, you useing thay phrase in this context is like i'm talking cheese and your wanting cannes tuna
here's yhe link
Prehistory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me put a bit of context around this.
.
Firearms are not a big problem in the UK unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
Firearms are not a big problem in the US of A unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
Dog gone it gmc see what has happened here ? We have found the difference that makes it the same. darn the luck.
I know exactly what pre-history means and its use made exactly the point I wanted to make in my post. I am, however, somewhat confused by the intent of the highlighted part of your post.
here's yhe link
Prehistory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Let me put a bit of context around this.
.
Firearms are not a big problem in the UK unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
Firearms are not a big problem in the US of A unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
Dog gone it gmc see what has happened here ? We have found the difference that makes it the same. darn the luck.
I know exactly what pre-history means and its use made exactly the point I wanted to make in my post. I am, however, somewhat confused by the intent of the highlighted part of your post.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
Bryn Mawr;1183682 wrote: I know exactly what pre-history means and its use made exactly the point I wanted to make in my post. I am, however, somewhat confused by the intent of the highlighted part of your post.
The bold text in my post was a quote taken from your post . I bold text the exact quote , then copied it and made a small change and then bold text again..
The US of A has a large problem with the violence and crime and guns in the gang banger infested parts of our cities. and as luck would have it you posted that same statement .. ie the part I put in bold text copied and made the change in .
the dog gone it crack was pure nonsense because gmc and I have spent the a post or two over a couple of days on the topic and why our countries can't be compared or learn from the other and here you come with that statement..
what I don't understand is why you see the need to put a bit of context around my post of not going into cities or towns . I live where I was raised all my life . and have never felt the need for anything cities have to offer. And so i don't need any context around or my personal preference of staying out of them cities. And I can believe out of a lifetime spent in a UK city a person would only see one gun , simply because they have been restricted from the general public owning one for over a hundred years.
The bold text in my post was a quote taken from your post . I bold text the exact quote , then copied it and made a small change and then bold text again..
The US of A has a large problem with the violence and crime and guns in the gang banger infested parts of our cities. and as luck would have it you posted that same statement .. ie the part I put in bold text copied and made the change in .
the dog gone it crack was pure nonsense because gmc and I have spent the a post or two over a couple of days on the topic and why our countries can't be compared or learn from the other and here you come with that statement..
what I don't understand is why you see the need to put a bit of context around my post of not going into cities or towns . I live where I was raised all my life . and have never felt the need for anything cities have to offer. And so i don't need any context around or my personal preference of staying out of them cities. And I can believe out of a lifetime spent in a UK city a person would only see one gun , simply because they have been restricted from the general public owning one for over a hundred years.
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1183726 wrote: The bold text in my post was a quote taken from your post . I bold text the exact quote , then copied it and made a small change and then bold text again..
The US of A has a large problem with the violence and crime and guns in the gang banger infested parts of our cities. and as luck would have it you posted that same statement .. ie the part I put in bold text copied and made the change in .
The bit *I* highlighted - not the bit *you* highlighted
scholle-kid;1183726 wrote:
the dog gone it crack was pure nonsense because gmc and I have spent the a post or two over a couple of days on the topic and why our countries can't be compared or learn from the other and here you come with that statement..
Do you not think that my statement might be related to the discussion you've been having with gmc?
scholle-kid;1183726 wrote:
what I don't understand is why you see the need to put a bit of context around my post of not going into cities or towns . I live where I was raised all my life . and have never felt the need for anything cities have to offer. And so i don't need any context around or my personal preference of staying out of them cities. And I can believe out of a lifetime spent in a UK city a person would only see one gun , simply because they have been restricted from the general public owning one for over a hundred years.
My post was a direct response to yours. Where you said :-
Well I tend to stay out of any city . and most towns also. the closest city to my place is Albuquerque and that's 75 north of me.A bit far for them gang bangers . Plus my big gun and bigger dogs would make any of them feel way more safer in the city.
On another site that is at least 65 % UK natives there has been some threads about crime and some involving fire arms , more than I would have expected if ask. I'm asking your opinion on this bit of info . that is the site where I have been in debates turned ugly.
I was attempting to show that, contrary to what you appear to have heard, we have no need to stay out of cities and that, if anyone is quoting figures of 65% of all UK natives have been involved with firearms which is what you appear to be saying, then the figures quoted are unrealistic - you were, after all, asking for an opinion.
The US of A has a large problem with the violence and crime and guns in the gang banger infested parts of our cities. and as luck would have it you posted that same statement .. ie the part I put in bold text copied and made the change in .
The bit *I* highlighted - not the bit *you* highlighted
scholle-kid;1183726 wrote:
the dog gone it crack was pure nonsense because gmc and I have spent the a post or two over a couple of days on the topic and why our countries can't be compared or learn from the other and here you come with that statement..
Do you not think that my statement might be related to the discussion you've been having with gmc?
scholle-kid;1183726 wrote:
what I don't understand is why you see the need to put a bit of context around my post of not going into cities or towns . I live where I was raised all my life . and have never felt the need for anything cities have to offer. And so i don't need any context around or my personal preference of staying out of them cities. And I can believe out of a lifetime spent in a UK city a person would only see one gun , simply because they have been restricted from the general public owning one for over a hundred years.
My post was a direct response to yours. Where you said :-
Well I tend to stay out of any city . and most towns also. the closest city to my place is Albuquerque and that's 75 north of me.A bit far for them gang bangers . Plus my big gun and bigger dogs would make any of them feel way more safer in the city.
On another site that is at least 65 % UK natives there has been some threads about crime and some involving fire arms , more than I would have expected if ask. I'm asking your opinion on this bit of info . that is the site where I have been in debates turned ugly.
I was attempting to show that, contrary to what you appear to have heard, we have no need to stay out of cities and that, if anyone is quoting figures of 65% of all UK natives have been involved with firearms which is what you appear to be saying, then the figures quoted are unrealistic - you were, after all, asking for an opinion.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1183612 wrote: [quote=gmc;1183550][quote=scholle-kid;1183477][quote=gmc;1183414][quote=scholle-kid;1183378]
because of the difference , there is no reason for people in the UK to be thinking or worrying about this
Well I tend to stay out of any city . and most towns also. the closest city to my place is Albuquerque and that's 75 north of me.A bit far for them gang bangers . Plus my big gun and bigger dogs would make any of them feel way more safer in the city.
On another site that is at least 65 % UK natives there has been some threads about crime and some involving fire arms , more than I would have expected if ask. I'm asking your opinion on this bit of info . that is the site where I have been in debates turned ugly.
The british that post in favour of gun ownership would tend to be those with more extreme views they also tend not to be able to deal well with any disagreement and become abusive.They are perhaps also fairly derogatory about things like human rights legislation and think the death penalty should be brought back. They may also quote the bits from the act of settlement in 1689 which apparently gives an Englishman the right to bear arms but usually miss out the bit where it was only protestants and so they would be able to shoot Catholics. I don't know but I would guess it's something like that you have seen.
posted by scholle-kid
Dog gone it gmc see what has happened here ? We have found the difference that makes it the same. darn the luck.
There are other differences. The UK is one of the most industrialised, urbanised countries on the planet. I live in a nation of about 6 million people-most of them are within 75 miles of me. Quite simply we do not have the wide open spaces you do. Unless you go to the far north it is impossible to see the night sky without the lights from a town or city also being visible. We have no large animals to hunt except deer and what hunting there is tends to be the preserve of the very rich (one of the reasons hunting is a political issue here and shooting estates very much an issue inn Scotland) so the need for guns to fill the larder is non existent. Nor do we have recent history of warfare and taking a frontier that you have.
I did read somewhere that actual gun ownership in the states-while allowed- didn't really burgeon until the civil war states and the final western expansion. Your gun culture has historical roots peculiar to the states.
posted by bryn mawr
I was attempting to show that, contrary to what you appear to have heard, we have no need to stay out of cities and that, if anyone is quoting figures of 65% of all UK natives have been involved with firearms which is what you appear to be saying, then the figures quoted are unrealistic - you were, after all, asking for an opinion.
The 65% refer to the percentage of british posters on another site where gun crime has been discussed.
posted by scholle-kid
On another site that is at least 65 % UK natives there has been some threads about crime and some involving fire arms , more than I would have expected if ask.
because of the difference , there is no reason for people in the UK to be thinking or worrying about this
Well I tend to stay out of any city . and most towns also. the closest city to my place is Albuquerque and that's 75 north of me.A bit far for them gang bangers . Plus my big gun and bigger dogs would make any of them feel way more safer in the city.
On another site that is at least 65 % UK natives there has been some threads about crime and some involving fire arms , more than I would have expected if ask. I'm asking your opinion on this bit of info . that is the site where I have been in debates turned ugly.
The british that post in favour of gun ownership would tend to be those with more extreme views they also tend not to be able to deal well with any disagreement and become abusive.They are perhaps also fairly derogatory about things like human rights legislation and think the death penalty should be brought back. They may also quote the bits from the act of settlement in 1689 which apparently gives an Englishman the right to bear arms but usually miss out the bit where it was only protestants and so they would be able to shoot Catholics. I don't know but I would guess it's something like that you have seen.
posted by scholle-kid
Dog gone it gmc see what has happened here ? We have found the difference that makes it the same. darn the luck.
There are other differences. The UK is one of the most industrialised, urbanised countries on the planet. I live in a nation of about 6 million people-most of them are within 75 miles of me. Quite simply we do not have the wide open spaces you do. Unless you go to the far north it is impossible to see the night sky without the lights from a town or city also being visible. We have no large animals to hunt except deer and what hunting there is tends to be the preserve of the very rich (one of the reasons hunting is a political issue here and shooting estates very much an issue inn Scotland) so the need for guns to fill the larder is non existent. Nor do we have recent history of warfare and taking a frontier that you have.
I did read somewhere that actual gun ownership in the states-while allowed- didn't really burgeon until the civil war states and the final western expansion. Your gun culture has historical roots peculiar to the states.
posted by bryn mawr
I was attempting to show that, contrary to what you appear to have heard, we have no need to stay out of cities and that, if anyone is quoting figures of 65% of all UK natives have been involved with firearms which is what you appear to be saying, then the figures quoted are unrealistic - you were, after all, asking for an opinion.
The 65% refer to the percentage of british posters on another site where gun crime has been discussed.
posted by scholle-kid
On another site that is at least 65 % UK natives there has been some threads about crime and some involving fire arms , more than I would have expected if ask.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
Bryn Mawr;1183632 wrote: I notice that all of your quotes are from, socially and technologically speaking, pre-history. To me thay are all irrelevant because the situation is so totally different today - they were discussing apples when we have cheese.
Okay fine, would you be so kind as to tell me whe's history do you think my quotes 'pre date'.
Back in the days when the army carried muskets and could, at most, muster a few cannons to go with them, an armed population could defeat any standing army by sheer weight of numbers given that they carried comparable weapons.
Today? There is no conceivable way that the people could stand against the army and win by force of arms - they would be more likely to win by standing there without a weapon amongst them and calling on the army to on them or kill them.
Today , an Older America is facing some very similar issuese in the way that a self serving few are trying to 'control the masses so the few can continue to 'feed' off the many. Really it's pretty much a rerun only with more of evert thing , the few, the masses, the weapond etc...
Using the prospect of armed rebellion as a justification for the free and widespread availability of guns is pulling the wool over peoples eyes - there might possibly be justification but that's not it.
Here is where I will say the same to you that I said to gmc. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Bryn Mawr;1183636 wrote: [quote=scholle-kid;1183612][quote=gmc;1183550][quote=scholle-kid;1183477][quote=gmc;1183414]
Let me put a bit of context around this.
I have grown up living and working in a city and walking round the city centre frequently morning, noon and night. I currently live in London and frequently walk and cycle round what are considered to be the "rough areas".
In my life I have seen precisely one firearm - I promptly reported it and the jerk was arrested and jailed for firearms offences.
Firearms are not a big problem in the UK unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
Bryn Mawr;1183802 wrote: The bit *I* highlighted - not the bit *you* highlighted
Let me put a bit of reality around your context.
I tend to stay away from cities ,not because I'm afriad , but because I PERSONALLY do not like cities , they stink, and city dwellers have no common sense , , as far as I'm concerned , all a city is
is a bunch of , clueless ,helpless, consummors that have no idea they are so far out of out of touch with reality that they wouldn't reconize it if it walked up and inyroduced it's self.. to a city dweller reality is a swipable credit card..
Do you not think that my statement might be related to the discussion you've been having with gmc?
My post was a direct response to yours. Where you said :-
I was attempting to show that, contrary to what you appear to have heard, we have no need to stay out of cities and that, if anyone is quoting figures of 65% of all UK natives have been involved with firearms which is what you appear to be saying, then the figures quoted are unrealistic - you were, after all, asking for an opinion.
I know for a fact that your posts have nothing in context with my question .
Okay fine, would you be so kind as to tell me whe's history do you think my quotes 'pre date'.
Back in the days when the army carried muskets and could, at most, muster a few cannons to go with them, an armed population could defeat any standing army by sheer weight of numbers given that they carried comparable weapons.
Today? There is no conceivable way that the people could stand against the army and win by force of arms - they would be more likely to win by standing there without a weapon amongst them and calling on the army to on them or kill them.
Today , an Older America is facing some very similar issuese in the way that a self serving few are trying to 'control the masses so the few can continue to 'feed' off the many. Really it's pretty much a rerun only with more of evert thing , the few, the masses, the weapond etc...
Using the prospect of armed rebellion as a justification for the free and widespread availability of guns is pulling the wool over peoples eyes - there might possibly be justification but that's not it.
Here is where I will say the same to you that I said to gmc. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Bryn Mawr;1183636 wrote: [quote=scholle-kid;1183612][quote=gmc;1183550][quote=scholle-kid;1183477][quote=gmc;1183414]
Let me put a bit of context around this.
I have grown up living and working in a city and walking round the city centre frequently morning, noon and night. I currently live in London and frequently walk and cycle round what are considered to be the "rough areas".
In my life I have seen precisely one firearm - I promptly reported it and the jerk was arrested and jailed for firearms offences.
Firearms are not a big problem in the UK unless you are within the gang or crime scenes.
Bryn Mawr;1183802 wrote: The bit *I* highlighted - not the bit *you* highlighted
Let me put a bit of reality around your context.
I tend to stay away from cities ,not because I'm afriad , but because I PERSONALLY do not like cities , they stink, and city dwellers have no common sense , , as far as I'm concerned , all a city is
is a bunch of , clueless ,helpless, consummors that have no idea they are so far out of out of touch with reality that they wouldn't reconize it if it walked up and inyroduced it's self.. to a city dweller reality is a swipable credit card..
Do you not think that my statement might be related to the discussion you've been having with gmc?
My post was a direct response to yours. Where you said :-
I was attempting to show that, contrary to what you appear to have heard, we have no need to stay out of cities and that, if anyone is quoting figures of 65% of all UK natives have been involved with firearms which is what you appear to be saying, then the figures quoted are unrealistic - you were, after all, asking for an opinion.
I know for a fact that your posts have nothing in context with my question .
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
gmc;1183812 wrote: The british that post in favour of gun ownership would tend to be those with more extreme views
Oi! I wouldn't make it compulsory, though!
Oi! I wouldn't make it compulsory, though!
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
scholle-kid;1183813 wrote: Here is where I will say the same to you that I said to gmc. We will just have to agree to disagree.
You are seriously contending that the people of the US, armed with legal guns, could stand against the US Armed forces if those forces decided to put down a rebellion
I would genuinely like to know how you think they would manage it.
scholle-kid;1183477 wrote:
I know for a fact that your posts have nothing in context with my question .
Then demonstrate it - your statement is meaningless as it stands.
I posted in direct response to you post. I might well have misunderstood your English and misinterpreted what you were trying to say, as gmc has suggested, but my post was totally within the context of the discussion.
You are seriously contending that the people of the US, armed with legal guns, could stand against the US Armed forces if those forces decided to put down a rebellion
I would genuinely like to know how you think they would manage it.
scholle-kid;1183477 wrote:
I know for a fact that your posts have nothing in context with my question .
Then demonstrate it - your statement is meaningless as it stands.
I posted in direct response to you post. I might well have misunderstood your English and misinterpreted what you were trying to say, as gmc has suggested, but my post was totally within the context of the discussion.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
Jester2;1140462 wrote: Let them try to remove my guns. 'nuf said.
Where is this GUY???
I Heered of Jester being her before!!!
Where is this GUY???
I Heered of Jester being her before!!!
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
It's attitude. Euro's want their government to babysit them cradle to grave. Americans prefer more independence and freedom.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
Interesting topic. may I ask why the US doesn't do what Australia did?
You are allowed to own guns under certain circumstances. That means those who need them can have them and those who cannot show any legitimate reason for owning them can't.
Difference between our country and your own is the fact that Australia never had "the right to gun ownership" Guns have been customarily used as tools here . Not as weapons or dare I say defensive weapons. so it would be wrong to compare American gun ownership attitude and mindset to anywhere else in the world.
When our laws came in Everyone thought that Everybody would have to hand over their guns. the hype of antigun lobbyists and the NRA confused everybody. Farmerswere up in arms sporting shooters and hunters were all having hissy fits. That fact is our laws were pretty layed back. but it was to come to nothing All that was required was to assert a "need" basis to owning a firearm. The buy back amnesty the goverment introduced saw many guns handed over from people who just 'Had" firearms lying around their properties, most of which hadn't been fired in years. And people in the cities simply didn't need guns.
To address the massacre rate ( not so much gun deaths, but massacre deaths were on the rise) the availability of high powered firearms was reduced by law.
As Robin williams points out "you don't need armour piercing bullets to shoot a deer it's not wearing armour". And when was the last time a medieval knight attack you?
BTS, My son is off to NewZealand soon for a Skeet and trap competition (and a bit of fly fishing) he learnt to shoot when he went to high school . Our high school provided an outlet for students who have probably been shooting on their farms since they were little a safe enviroment to learn safety accuracy and a hobby .And maybe one day represent their country at the olympics or nationally. My own son has no such background but enjoys helping out local farmers keep the rabbit population down. This is a way of practicing his skill. He has a firearms lisence but is not allowed to store any gun on our property . Again a safety precaution. so you see australians today think that no one is allowed to own guns except for farmers, police and the military .....this is not the case nor would it be the case in your own country if they implimented stricter rules and regulations. I'm not anti gun ...but I am anti ******** who owns or has accsess to a gun.
Regulations after our gun laws were introduced
Victoria Police - Firearm Permit Applications
As far as insurance goes on gun ownership that is taken care of within the fees and lisences and club insurances.
You are allowed to own guns under certain circumstances. That means those who need them can have them and those who cannot show any legitimate reason for owning them can't.
Difference between our country and your own is the fact that Australia never had "the right to gun ownership" Guns have been customarily used as tools here . Not as weapons or dare I say defensive weapons. so it would be wrong to compare American gun ownership attitude and mindset to anywhere else in the world.
When our laws came in Everyone thought that Everybody would have to hand over their guns. the hype of antigun lobbyists and the NRA confused everybody. Farmerswere up in arms sporting shooters and hunters were all having hissy fits. That fact is our laws were pretty layed back. but it was to come to nothing All that was required was to assert a "need" basis to owning a firearm. The buy back amnesty the goverment introduced saw many guns handed over from people who just 'Had" firearms lying around their properties, most of which hadn't been fired in years. And people in the cities simply didn't need guns.
To address the massacre rate ( not so much gun deaths, but massacre deaths were on the rise) the availability of high powered firearms was reduced by law.
As Robin williams points out "you don't need armour piercing bullets to shoot a deer it's not wearing armour". And when was the last time a medieval knight attack you?
BTS, My son is off to NewZealand soon for a Skeet and trap competition (and a bit of fly fishing) he learnt to shoot when he went to high school . Our high school provided an outlet for students who have probably been shooting on their farms since they were little a safe enviroment to learn safety accuracy and a hobby .And maybe one day represent their country at the olympics or nationally. My own son has no such background but enjoys helping out local farmers keep the rabbit population down. This is a way of practicing his skill. He has a firearms lisence but is not allowed to store any gun on our property . Again a safety precaution. so you see australians today think that no one is allowed to own guns except for farmers, police and the military .....this is not the case nor would it be the case in your own country if they implimented stricter rules and regulations. I'm not anti gun ...but I am anti ******** who owns or has accsess to a gun.
Regulations after our gun laws were introduced
Victoria Police - Firearm Permit Applications
As far as insurance goes on gun ownership that is taken care of within the fees and lisences and club insurances.
$1 Million dollar insurance policy proposal for Illinois gun owners
One million dollars is certainly a lot of coverage! It seems extreme, doesn't it? I didn't find that part in the link either but I've no doubt that the one million is what legislators are pushing for. It's just ridiculous.
flopstock;1140310 wrote: Is that the right link? I'm not seeing the insurance part there..
long day though....lol
flopstock;1140310 wrote: Is that the right link? I'm not seeing the insurance part there..
long day though....lol