They can take our lives, but they will never take OUR FREEDOM!
Guns, Guns, and more Guns.
- Thread starter Colonel
- Start date
They can take our lives, but they will never take OUR FREEDOM!
wilycoyote
King
Yep. Also, if governments made it illegal to eat more than 2,000 calories and not get at least one hour of cardio per day, cases of heart disease would drastically fall. If governments banned cars, cases of auto accidents would plummet. If governments banned sex (instead only allowing lab methods of reproduction) AIDS and herpes would be a thing of the past... Living like a two year old with the government constantly telling you "Get that out of your mouth!" and "Don't touch that!" is my ideal lifestyle!
Dreadnought
Deity
Don't we have a "Guns, Guns, and More Guns" thread already?
Disgustipated
Deity
Ahh good, this gives me the opportunity to go into more detail.
I was rereading some accounts of 9/11 recently in light of the recent anniversary. And I was just amazed that passengers let their plane get hijacked. The people on Flight 93 were the only ones to get it right. The people on flight 93 didn't have guns, but the point is they didn't rely on the government to "save" them. They knew the government was not going to save them, so they took the law into their own hands.
As for the people on the other flights, they assumed the government would get them out of the situation they were in. Bad move. Never let terrorists take you prisoner. Fight to the death and kill every mf'er you can take down with you. So your comment on the towers was silly, I was referring to people on board the planes, not the towers. Although I'll admit my argument has little to do with guns. But I'll relate it back to the topic of guns now. My overall point is not to rely on police forces for your own personal safety or the safety of your family. If someone breaks into your house, you can't rely on police to respond rapidly to a 911 call. You must defend yourself. You can't go around defenseless while criminals have guns. Now if all criminals had no guns, then of course there would be no reason for anyone to have a gun. I'd actually support the government forcibly removing all guns from every U.S. citizen and destroying them. But in the meantime, as long as the bad guys have guns, so then, will I. I recommend everyone have a gun, and teach their kids how to use them.
Moderator Action: threads merged
Ahh good, this gives me the opportunity to go into more detail.
I was rereading some accounts of 9/11 recently in light of the recent anniversary. And I was just amazed that passengers let their plane get hijacked. The people on Flight 93 were the only ones to get it right. The people on flight 93 didn't have guns, but the point is they didn't rely on the government to "save" them. They knew the government was not going to save them, so they took the law into their own hands.
So your comment on the towers was silly, I was referring to people on board the planes, not the towers. Although I'll admit my argument has little to do with guns. But I'll relate it back to the topic of guns now. My overall point is not to rely on police forces for your own personal safety or the safety of your family. If someone breaks into your house, you can't rely on police to respond rapidly to a 911 call. You must defend yourself. You can't go around defenseless while criminals have guns. Now if all criminals had no guns, then of course there would be no reason for anyone to have a gun. I'd actually support the government forcibly removing all guns from every U.S. citizen and destroying them. But in the meantime, as long as the bad guys have guns, so then, will I. I recommend everyone have a gun, and teach their kids how to use them.
How many times had hijackers used planes as missiles before 9/11?
Not sure, probably over 9000 though.
And I could link the refutation of the "countless" studies, because (for the '43 times' one commonly quoted, at least) the methodology was crap. But I won't. Oh, wait, I did. Nevermind.
nonconformist
Miserable
See, the movie Hot Fuzz totally warped my idea of guns in the UK, do people have 'em or not?
"Everyone and their mums is packin' round here!"
Sorry for the bump, but in the rural countryside (like where Hot Fuzz takes place, and where I grew up) there is an exceptionally dense firearm ownership, maybe denser than a lot of America, on account of hunting and farming being major industries.
These firearms are usually shotguns, and either bolt action/manual rifles for hunting, or .22 centrefire semi-autos (which are the firearms which it are both legal and relatively easy to acquire in the UK)
Farmers generally own shotguns and often own .22 rifles, but very few other people barring target shooters like myself.
nonconformist
Miserable
No, this is a common misconception (if not outright lie?) pandered by the American right to typify the UK as a quasi-fascist state with no liberty.
It is true we are more restrictive than many countries with regards to firearms, it is by no means true that we are banned.
The word of the day is "legitimate use"; do you have a legitimate use for a firearm?
Self defence is not recognised under British law (or rather, the carrying of any item as a weapon), so we do not allow personal firearm ownership for self defence; however, work related and hobby related ownership is allowed.
Weapons are classified as Section 1, Section 2 and Section 5 weapons.
Section 5s are outright banned, as having no legitimate use (except for very special purposes, such as gun ranges etc).
This covers most handguns, military grade weaponry from assault rifles to GPMGs, and things like rockets etc.
Ownership of such weapons can result in stiff sentencing, of up to 10 years IIRC.
Shotguns can be owned from age 16, with only a cursary check; the police must prove a person is *not fit* to own it.
Section 1s are firearms that can be owned with a certificate from the Home Office.
These are generally bolt actions/manual actions in usual calibres.
Semi-automatics can be owned if they are in .22 calibre.
I can't speak to motive of the American Right, but there can easily be very little daylight between "banned" and "available for legitimate use" depending on the definition of "legitimate".
Unless the hobby involves... ummm... handguns.
Who came up with that, King Arthur from the Holy Grail movie?
All snark aside, y'all can do what you want over there, it's your boat and you can row it any way you want. But I really dislike the UK's general (civil) attitude toward self-defense. And I've had the pleasure of taking close to a dozen of Blighty's best and brightest to the range and introduced them to the hobby of pistol shooting, to do my best to undermine the anti-gun voting bloc.
nonconformist
Miserable
While I agree with you, mentalities, criminality and such in the UK and America are different enough that most Brits are quite happy to heavily restrict "legitimate use".
I didn't say otherwise
Heh, it's just because it's the sections governing regulation of the relevant firearms under the 1968 Firearms Act (as amended 1989, 1997 etc)Who came up with that, King Arthur from the Holy Grail movie?
All snark aside, y'all can do what you want over there, it's your boat and you can row it any way you want. But I really dislike the UK's general (civil) attitude toward self-defense. And I've had the pleasure of taking close to a dozen of Blighty's best and brightest to the range and introduced them to the hobby of pistol shooting, to do my best to undermine the anti-gun voting bloc.
Oh, I get you, I am, after all, one of the most pro-firearm people in Blighty, but we have an exceptionally different stance on self defence; it's difficult to explain, but essentially the right to self defence is invoked only when life and limb are put in danger.
One cannot "preempt" an attack upon onesself, (with one or two notable exceptions), as that weapon can just as easily be used for attack.
This isn't just firearms and knives btw; carrying a baseball bat, screwdriver, or axe around without a legitimate reason is a criminal offence.
I loved pistol shooting; the military have always enjoyed it if only to rub it in the faces of civilians who can't.
nonconformist
Miserable
Eh, it's not exactly hard for a civvy to take up pistol shooting if he's mentally competant, not convicted of a violent crime, and knows a decent range.
Even 'real' pistol, as opposed to air pistol? As far as I know only muzzle-loaders are allowed.
nonconformist
Miserable
I believe a number of ranges are licensed?
Plus there are some vocations in which ownership of pistols are allowed (country vets for example)
Y'all gotta come over here and go with me to one of our ranges. In Manchester you can rent full-auto. 
Or, I'm told, their .50 BMG. 
Or, I'm told, their .50 BMG.
You may be right, but I don't think that the pistols used by vets are the same as the ones used in the military - could be wrong though. I know that the Olympic team had ot get special dispensation to use their pistols in 2012; they have to go abroad normally to be able to shoot 'real' ones.
Y'all gotta come over here and go with me to one of our ranges. In Manchester you can rent full-auto.
Damn you, for a minute I thought you meant the original Manchester and got all excited...
Similar threads
