[LonestarJake]

Your gun rights went the way of so many other vanquished countries before you, regarding gun rights, gun privileges or whatever your country called them.

Did you perceive that your fellow country men fought the gun control laws from happening or just basically laid down and rolled over?

I'm not trying to insult anyone, just asking if we are fighting hard enough? We had a good victory in one major battle today regarding semi-auto rifles that the ignorant refer to as Assault rifles, but we still face universal back ground checks (will lead to registration) and magazine capacities (often, referred to as clips, by the ignorant) and various fights about ammo.

I'm just curious, with you all being folks on the outside looking in, are we fighting these laws of usurpation enough, or are we on the right track?

 

[chrismetallica1]

It was basically from within the ranks of the gun community that killed off all hope in the UK. Back in 1987 the shot gunners and pistol shooters didn't really care that the government was going after semi-auto rifles. With that they and the main sporting organisations backed the shotgun shooters and pistol shooters with the notion that it would save them. Then the law was amended before being passed and the shotgun shooters were pissed off that they were reduced to 3 shots on a shotgun certificate but happier than the rifle shooters who lost everything but bolt actions. Then it came round again in 1997 after Dunblane. The NRA and other major organisations didn't stand up because they did not want to been seen to be insensitive in regards to 16 dead 5 year olds and a teacher. By the time they did stand up it was far too late.

 

[rodfair]

I can only go by the time I lived there. Up till 89.
In the 60's and 70's firearms ownership was only allowed if you were a member of a shooting club. There was not the same interest in the country in shooting or self protection as there is in this country as the gubmit did it all and did a pretty good job of it! Remember also that there is no mention of firearms in the Magna Carta Jake. UK is a tad older than the US and evolved in a different way. While the US settlers, in order to survive, had to fight to protect the land they stole...Sorry had to get that in. So basically the countries are nearly 800 years apart in terms of evolution!
SO, you must always remember that the amount of legal gun owners as a percentage of the population is CONSIDERABLY less than the US.
Because of that, and who the gun owners were, mostly the wealthy, a certain resentment built up, against that part of the population. Therefore the general public for the most part, couldn't have given two hoots about gun confiscation. Throw in a mass shooting or two, case almost closed.
Most of the middle class got their first taste of shooting in one of the branches of the Cadet Corps, or up until 1960, National Service. That for the most part was rifle and pistol.
The shotgunners were the farmers and "Lairds". I remember around 1968, at the farm I used to stay on, an inspector came round to check for firearms, AND, to register them. Obligingly they had told Mr. Doig, the owner when they were coming. Seems they had had a boating accident too! Inspectors didn't find anything, they didn't look very hard, and everybody carried on. But of course he had to beg shotgun ammo from somebody with a license!
Things like deer hunting only occurred on the big estates, where money was involved.
During WW2 with rationing, the wildlife took a huge hit to supplement the food chain.
Bird hunting now is usually a pay as you go with most of the payers being Japanese. This usually occurs on private estates.
Although the UK has many lakes. not many fish in them! Again back to WW2. Salmon fishing is almost all privately owned. To buy 50 feet of bank for a day on the River Tweed in the South of Scotland, last time I checked, was close to $10,000. No fish guaranteed!. That did include a guide and lunch though.
Going back to guns. While in the Cadets I would regularly take my platoon, with weapons, SMLE's and Stens, on the public bus! to thye local Army range.....No ammo, we got that at the range. Not a word would be said!

 

[chrismetallica1]

The main issue with UK firearms law is its a mess. They never sorted it out , every time an amendment was made it was just a cross of a pen and an addition in the paperwork. Its such a mess now different police forces interpret it in different ways ACPO (association of chief police officers) and numerous organisations have been asking for a review and to sort it out. However it never gets done due to cost and time. If most shooters in the UK had an afternoon and a single piece of A4 paper they could write an easier more comprehensive document than the current one. Cant see us ever getting our rights back but there are lots of organisations fighting. The current issue is none of them get along, therefore don't have the numbers. They need to put the differences to one side and work together. Personally I cant see that happening any time soon and its a shame because they all have the same end goal

 

[Texheim]

I am not trying to play moral equivalent here between the **** Holocaust and gun rights, but this is the gist of what Chrismetallica1 said IMHO.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[rodfair]

Tex...read what I said...2 different countries 800 years apart!

 

[Texheim]

Tex...read what I said...2 different countries 800 years apart!

My apologies Rod; TLDR as the youngsters say.

If we don't learn from our past we are bound to repeat it.

 

[Lmstncwby]

As a wise former British Colonist once quipped: "We must all hang together or we shall surely hang separately."

 

[GodCountryCorps]

I was born free, I have lived free and I will die free.
Take the guns from the last free, civilized people on Earth?
Molon Labe

 

[maria3741]

Dear mostly the wealthy, a certain resentment built up, against that part of the population. Therefore the general public for the most part, couldn't have given two hoots about gun confiscation. Throw in a mass shooting or two, case almost closed.

 

[Czechbikr]

Dear mostly the wealthy, a certain resentment built up, against that part of the population. Therefore the general public for the most part, couldn't have given two hoots about gun confiscation. Throw in a mass shooting or two, case almost closed.

Hi Maria and welcome to the forum from Northern Illinois! You have a point about the division of the classes which has never been more apparent before in the USA. This has been fueled by the media which has created that resentment in order to provide a focus for their movement.

I wonder if the same media tilt was played in the UK prior to and that our gun grabbers are following the same script?

 

[mawguy]

In the American Colonies, citizens had firearms to put food on the table and to protect themselves from hostiles. When the King reached the tipping point of the tolerance of the subjects in incremental abuses, the colonists rose up, and sent the royals back to England. This ability to repel tyranny is in the DNA of Americans, and is what propels our zeal in protecting our God given rights. We have a generation of people in this country who are ignorant of why we fought to claim our freedom. It is they who are a threat to our rights now.

To quote the long history of the old countries and how complicated they are make for an interesting read. You have today what you want today and it is that simple. You are stuck with what you have with no ability to break free. Say what you will about "blood thirsty" Yanks. WE are the ones who show up in the darkest hours of a country's despair. And yes, we come with our guns, bombs, ships, tanks and airplanes.

Americans stand for freedom. We are still fighting for it.

 

[Czechbikr]

In the American Colonies, citizens had firearms to put food on the table and to protect themselves from hostiles. When the King reached the tipping point of the tolerance of the subjects in incremental abuses, the colonists rose up, and sent the royals back to England. This ability to repel tyranny is in the DNA of Americans, and is what propels our zeal in protecting our God given rights. We have a generation of people in this country who are ignorant of why we fought to claim our freedom. It is they who are a threat to our rights now.

To quote the long history of the old countries and how complicated they are make for an interesting read. You have today what you want today and it is that simple. You are stuck with what you have with no ability to break free. Say what you will about "blood thirsty" Yanks. WE are the ones who show up in the darkest hours of a country's despair. And yes, we come with our guns, bombs, ships, tanks and airplanes.

Americans stand for freedom. We are still fighting for it.

Our Founders were a select group of independent thinkers which was why they were here in the first place. I am afraid that those characteristics have been bred out of Americans through our educational system and further influx of European "Statist" thinking.

Strange that the folks from Mexico, both legal and illegal, subscribe to the "get along, go along" mentality when, in a sense, they are here for the same reasons that our Founders were. That illegal migration is appreciated by the Mexican government as they would have serious political problems if those people were bottled up in their corrupt nation which has it's rigid class structure.

So, back on track, if we want to preserve our rights it is up to us to educate people in what it means to be an "American" and it won't happen by intimidation. I am following a personal plan that I tried out the other week when speaking to a guy who was repeating the media BS like "my family is full of hunters and I don't see the need for an AR/AK with a 30 round 'clip'."

After presenting my point of view, I asked him if he had ever fired one and invited him out to the range. He declined.

 

[aphdmansoc]

Governments by their very nature seek control. People are arguing about gun control in the U.S.A. It's more, much more than that (song here or is it hear). It's really about people control.

Control of people by taking away their guns. Control of people by taking their money and property through taxes. Control of people by those who can by their position and connections get around the controls.

I ain't sayin its right and I ain't sayin its fair because it ain't right or fair. I guess we need a little more control to get us there.

 

[rodfair]

Governments by their very nature seek control. People are arguing about gun control in the U.S.A. It's more, much more than that (song here or is it hear). It's really about people control.

Control of people by taking away their guns. Control of people by taking their money and property through taxes. Control of people by those who can by their position and connections get around the controls.

I ain't sayin its right and I ain't sayin its fair because it ain't right or fair. I guess we need a little more control to get us there.

To a certain extent I disagree.
My opinion: Gubmints seek control to make their life easier. If things are not laid out in black and white, then people will take advantage.
Take a speed limit... If the law said " You will drive at a safe speed, for the road, weather and traffic conditions" Then it becomes an argument about what the driver thinks is safe and what the authority thinks is safe. "But officer I was doing 120 because the rest of the traffics was going slower, that's why I had to weave in and out. I did not feel safe! That leaves the whole traffic law system open to interpretation. So they make a decision as to what "they" think safe. Saves time and money.
But when you come to a country like this, where you have a Constitution, that yes, I will say it, enumerates certain rights, that was written a million lifetimes ago.... people think that they should be allowed to interpret those rights...whether it be the gubmint or the people!
Some people deliberately push the law if they feel it is wrong. This may result in that person being punished...OR the law being changed. OR BOTH! But what is so great about this country and its Founding Fathers/Framers, is that they had experience of countries they had come from, where the gubmints thought...my may or the highway. This country has a system of checks and balances....may be slow, but most of the time they work.
But the system only works with input!
Then if the system works.....you get the leader of "the greatest country in the world" in a political opportunity, using political pawns, make a speech castigating the lawmakers of this country saying they did not do their jobs....... I thought the Constitution wrote the job description....not the person that occupies 1600!

 

[Marinevietvet]

To a certain extent I disagree.
My opinion: Gubmints seek control to make their life easier. If things are not laid out in black and white, then people will take advantage.
Take a speed limit... If the law said " You will drive at a safe speed, for the road, weather and traffic conditions" Then it becomes an argument about what the driver thinks is safe and what the authority thinks is safe. "But officer I was doing 120 because the rest of the traffics was going slower, that's why I had to weave in and out. I did not feel safe! That leaves the whole traffic law system open to interpretation. So they make a decision as to what "they" think safe. Saves time and money.
But when you come to a country like this, where you have a Constitution, that yes, I will say it, enumerates certain rights, that was written a million lifetimes ago.... people think that they should be allowed to interpret those rights...whether it be the gubmint or the people!
Some people deliberately push the law if they feel it is wrong. This may result in that person being punished...OR the law being changed. OR BOTH! But what is so great about this country and its Founding Fathers/Framers, is that they had experience of countries they had come from, where the gubmints thought...my may or the highway. This country has a system of checks and balances....may be slow, but most of the time they work.
But the system only works with input!
Then if the system works.....you get the leader of "the greatest country in the world" in a political opportunity, using political pawns, make a speech castigating the lawmakers of this country saying they did not do their jobs....... I thought the Constitution wrote the job description....not the person that occupies 1600!

Yes and yes.

 

[joeblocky]

I can only go by the time I lived there. Up till 89.
In the 60's and 70's firearms ownership was only allowed if you were a member of a shooting club. There was not the same interest in the country in shooting or self protection as there is in this country as the gubmit did it all and did a pretty good job of it! Remember also that there is no mention of firearms in the Magna Carta Jake. UK is a tad older than the US and evolved in a different way. While the US settlers, in order to survive, had to fight to protect the land they stole...Sorry had to get that in. So basically the countries are nearly 800 years apart in terms of evolution!





SO, you must always remember that the amount of legal gun owners as a percentage of the population is CONSIDERABLY less than the US.
Because of that, and who the gun owners were, mostly the wealthy, a certain resentment built up, against that part of the population. Therefore the general public for the most part, couldn't have given two hoots about gun confiscation. Throw in a mass shooting or two, case almost closed.
Most of the middle class got their first taste of shooting in one of the branches of the Cadet Corps, or up until 1960, National Service. That for the most part was rifle and pistol.
The shotgunners were the farmers and "Lairds". I remember around 1968, at the farm I used to stay on, an inspector came round to check for firearms, AND, to register them. Obligingly they had told Mr. Doig, the owner when they were coming. Seems they had had a boating accident too! Inspectors didn't find anything, they didn't look very hard, and everybody carried on. But of course he had to beg shotgun ammo from somebody with a license!
Things like deer hunting only occurred on the big estates, where money was involved.
During WW2 with rationing, the wildlife took a huge hit to supplement the food chain.
Bird hunting now is usually a pay as you go with most of the payers being Japanese. This usually occurs on private estates.
Although the UK has many lakes. not many fish in them! Again back to WW2. Salmon fishing is almost all privately owned. To buy 50 feet of bank for a day on the River Tweed in the South of Scotland, last time I checked, was close to $10,000. No fish guaranteed!. That did include a guide and lunch though.
Going back to guns. While in the Cadets I would regularly take my platoon, with weapons, SMLE's and Stens, on the public bus! to thye local Army range.....No ammo, we got that at the range. Not a word would be said!

actually uk bill of rights act 1689 stated "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"
which probary where the americans got idea for they 2nd amemdment!

 

[Lil Beaver]

Rod has a very good take on the differences between the UK and the US. The needs of the first American settlers and those who followed created an entirely different culture in regards to fire arms, also when you consider the differences in land mass and population England is much more heavily populated even if the rural areas, while in America the high population density occurs mainly in the Eastern states and the large cities. Yes England did divide and conquer the gun owners.