Here is a video about the gun ban in the UK. Just curious how the English members of this forum think about this and if they agree. We have some liberal numbnuts in the USA trying to do the same thing. Sad real sad.
I’m just wondering what “liberal numbnuts” are trying to ban guns in the US. Please be sure to be specific…
And are they any worse than asshats that routinely fight for the right for criminals, terrorists, and illegal immigrants to have guns by helping them to skirt background checks laws at gunshows?
Nothing says “self defense” like a machine gun :lol:
Actually, I’d like to get a Class IV licence and own a few machine guns. 
#1) Here is the list of numnuts who voted to extend the weapons ban…a yea vote means the voted to extend the ban…is this specific enough for ya?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00024
#2) No if you sell to any in this group or don’t follow the existing gun laws when you sell a weapon, throw there ass in jail. If you have an example / facts of someone selling to this group please be sure to be specific.
#3) Its amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=173
Class III license is for those who deal in full auto firearms as a business. If not for business there is a collectors license that affords some benefits in aquisition, of new pieces, and disposition of any you no longer want to hold. This license covers anything on the curio & relics list.It however does not relieve the burden of the transfer tax, or paperwork for live class III weapons.
If you really wanna go big time, then the destructive device dealer license is for you, but is very expensive. Aquiring de-activated(these days called unservicable) machineguns, artillery, mortars all of that sort of stuff, you really dont need any license, but the collector license is a good idea. there is no tax, and no awful paperwork .
there is no sound reason in the U.S. for any additional regulation of firearms. There are more than 20,000 separate laws on the books now, if that isnt enough, well, too bad. The U.S. constitution is very clear about this, and basically says that every state may need to raise a militia in order to secure its freedom, lands and people. In order to have a well equiped, and effective militia, Those in it must have weapons. So, that leads to the words “The rights of the people to keep, and bear arms shall not be infringed” This is pretty clear, even a third grader can understand it.
although things in the U.S. are run democratically, we are a Republic, Having the Constitution, and a body of laws to govern ourselves with. It is not allowable for Congress, and Senate to enact any law that contravenes this body of law.This prohibits anyone from signing their rights away.The Govt cannot legislate them away. And should it be attempted, and push comes to shove, It is the right, and duty of the people to correct their gov’t, by means of these same weapons, and militia. This is the reason that the second amendment is in the Constitution to begin with. The ultimate power of government resides in the,citizens, the people of the United States of America.
Like the assault weapons ban or hate it, how does this vote in any way “ban” guns?
#2) No if you sell to any in this group or don’t follow the existing gun laws when you sell a weapon, throw there ass in jail. If you have an example / facts of someone selling to this group please be sure to be specific.
#3) Its amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=173
What? That dangerous things like firearms, cars, chemicals should have some restrictions?
In any case, as a gun owner, I do not advocate the banning of them. But there are gun nuts that have actually attacked federal law enforcement and have in fact made it a lot tougher to enforce “the laws on the books”:
[i]…a .223-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster XM15 rifle, which Bull’s Eye received from the manufacturer on July 2 of last year. On Sept. 21, a bullet from that gun blew through the back of a liquor store manager in Montgomery, Ala. (she died in the emergency room soon after). Two days later, another bullet burrowed through the head of a beauty store manager in Baton Rouge, La., who died instantly. Between Oct. 2-3, bullets from the gun ripped through the bodies of Six people in Montgomery County, Md., killing all of them. Over the next three weeks, the gun claimed seven more victims–including a bus driver, a female FBI analyst, and a 13-year-old schoolboy–killing four of them. Finally, on Oct. 24, law enforcement authorities found the Bushmaster in the back seat of a blue CheW Caprice occupied by John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo.
Exactly how the gun got into the men’s hands remains something of a mystery. Muhammad was banned by federal law from purchasing any gun because of a restraining order obtained by his ex-wife; his ineligibility would have Shown up during the Brady background Check that gun stores are required to run oh potential buyers. Malvo was ineligible because he was a juvenile and an illegal immigrant. Bull’s Eye has no record of selling the weapon, much less conducting a background check on Muhammad or Malvo for it. Bull’s Eye employees have reported seeing Malvo at the store this summer, and later noticed the Bushmaster was not in its display case. But the store did not file the federally required theft report. When the store’s owner, Brian Borgelt, was questioned by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the federal agency charged with enforcing the nation’s gun laws, he claimed not to have known the gun was missing until authorities traced it back to his store. Two weeks after the Sniper suspects’ arrests, he filed the theft report with the police and ATF.
…
But there’s a reason you won’t see anyone investigating ATF: Its failings are the direct result of actions by the Republican politicians who now control both houses of Congress. At the behest of the National Rifle Association (NRA), GOP lawmakers (and some conservative Democrats) have saddled the bureau with so many legal restrictions that it has little practical power to deter sellers from allowing weapons to flow to criminals. ATF could have cracked down harder on Bull’s Eye, but its lack of aggressiveness was precisely what GOP lawmakers had intended. Pro-gun-control Democrats could have made an issue last fall of how Muhammad obtained a sniper rifle, but they remained silent in the face of feared retribution at the polls by the NRA. Now, as the minority party, Democrats have little power to investigate anything, even if they wanted to.[/i]
#1), Those liberal democrat numnuts…VOTED TO BAN those weapons. You understand what BAN means don’t you? Ban (law), a decree that prohibits something, sometimes a form of censorship. This was a vote to extend the BAN when the last BAN was up, that’s why I said in my first post…" We have some liberal numnuts in the USA trying to do the same thing."
The two liberal numnut democrats here in California, Feinstein and Boxer have banned these weapons in California, they are banned and there going for more.
#2) Yes they have restrictions lots of them…are you saying we need more?
Did you vote for any of the numnuts that voted Yea?
We see what is happening in England and Australia with them banning firearms and there trying to do it here too so unless your trying to help them do that ,I hope your not voting for ANYONE of those numnuts that voted yea.
Nick,
This is a quote from your story…it proves my point. BANS DONT WORK to keep bad guys from getting weapons.
“Muhammad was banned by federal law from purchasing any gun because of a restraining order obtained by his ex-wife;”
All a ban will do is keep the law abiding citizen from owning one. My point being in this whole thread…Law abiding citizens will turn in there weapons…do you think the criminals will? Does anyone from England on this forum care whats going on there?
Despite the NRA’s misleading propaganda over the past decade or so about how gun control in Australia ended civilisation as we knew it http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15322 , we can still own firearms that are more than adequate for all the lawful sporting purposes that existed before stricter gun controls came in as a result of some appalling massacres by firearms.
It’s a non-issue here, apart from a very small segment of the population who think they should be allowed to have any firearm they want.
The difficulty in trying to compare Australia, and probably England, with America is that we don’t have the same historical, constitutional and social attitudes to guns and gun control that exist in a very large segment of American society.
We’ve never had anything like the position outlined in the last paragraph of tankgeezer’s post, so gun control here doesn’t generate the same sort of issues about constitutional rights and government interference with rights that it does in America. We have as much right to a gun as we do to a driver’s licence or recreational drugs, being exactly what the governments we elect choose to give us.
Personally, I’m in favour of the gun controls here, particularly the need for industrial strength steel gun safes which have to be inspected by police in their installed position before a permit is granted. Unlike the previous situation, it’s very, very rare nowadays for children to get shot while playing with daddy’s ‘unloaded’ gun, which when I was kid was usually kept in daddy’s wardrobe, often with the ammo on the shelf above.
The only people who could be upset by our gun controls for any practical reason are those who think they need a semi or fully auto firearm for sporting purposes, because there aren’t any other lawful purposes for the average citizen having one.
My view is that any decent sporting shooter should be able to kill successfully with a single shot in most cases, but maybe that’s because my old man made me learn from about age seven or eight with a buggered old Winchester .22 single shot with a missing adjuster on the rear sight and a bent foresight that I could never get right with pliers, before he let me use a repeater after a few years. When I got the repeater, I found I rarely needed it. So I don’t see why anyone needs a semi or fully auto weapon for civilian use, unless they’re a shithouse shot, in which case they shouldn’t have a gun at all.
I guess you found the reason why americans insist on full auto
:mrgreen:
A point which hasn’t gone unnoticed in the military doctrines of nations without America’s endless resources.
The hand gun* ban in the UK is supported by a large majority of the public. There has never been a widespread ownership of guns amongst the British public so the banning had no impact on the majority of the population.
It should also be pointed out that despite the horror stories about gun crime in the UK, the total number of homocides in the UK involving guns of all types was 58, and the total number of deaths caused by guns in 2006 (including accidents, and suicides) was 210, down from the 1994 figure of 341, out of a total UK population of 60 million.
- Single shot rifles and Shotguns are not banned, though you need licenses to own them
Here is a video about the gun ban in the UK. Just curious how the English members of this forum think about this and if they agree. We have some liberal numbnuts in the USA trying to do the same thing. Sad real sad.
Very good Video Mike, I wonder how the politicians in almost the entire world waste resources to put the law abbiding citizen and the felons all in the same bag. After doing that they start with the bans, crazy.
And that happens in two democratic countries.
And I must add that you might not like guns or even hate them, but giving away the freedom of choice is never good…in any context, If you are allowed you can chosee to have or not a firearms but if you are deprived of that… :rolleyes: not good at all.
The hand gun* ban in the UK is supported by a large majority of the public
The large majority of the public seems to like get f…k
But you said “guns.” Not ‘assault rifles,’ which is a clear distinction and clarification, and makes your position a little less tenable. We can argue or even agree on certain semantical designations all day.
#2) Yes they have restrictions lots of them…are you saying we need more?
“Restrictions” and “laws” mean nothing if they are disjointed, redundant, and are not enforced. Especially when is seems to be the policy of a certain special interest lobbies intending to inhibit both federal and state law enforcement and to skirt laws…
Did you vote for any of the numnuts that voted Yea?
I don’t know. Having assault rifles in a nonissue for me since I have a Ruger Mini-14 stored away in another state, which is made in America and is therefore not a shitty Norinco AK knockoff… 
We see what is happening in England and Australia with them banning firearms and there trying to do it here too so unless your trying to help them do that ,I hope your not voting for ANYONE of those numnuts that voted yea.
What you see happening in England and Australia is very much politicized and exaggerated by the US gun lobby when there are few real similarities in the laws. I also notice that the NRA conveniently never mentions that most newer draconian laws in the UK and Australia are usually in response to a specific mass murder…
The assault weapons ban is over a decade old I think. Has it really prevented you from owning guns? And gun control advocates, of which I basically am not, can also point to the drastically smaller crime rate and death rate in both UK and Down-under. And that’s anyway you spin it, statistically or proportionally. It’s minuscule compared to ours.
And these issues have two sides, and are not as simpleminded as presented by US gun lobby propaganda…
And MikeM. Since you like to ask questions:
Do you think that guns should be allowed to be bought and sold at gun shows without background checks on the buyer?
I mean, I have to go through airport security, and some people with no real terror connections are banned from flying. But they can go buy as many guns as they want? Does that make any sense? Really?
Just one of the many inconsistencies in “Homeland Security.”
Of course, this is why they put that shitty three-round-burst on the M-16A2:
Beleagured politcians (attempting to be seen to be doing something) that don’t have the time to step back and look at the real problems as they’re so busy juggling crises upon crises, fuelled by the press. Fire fighting becomes the norm, forward planning becomes a luxury and society loses.
One other point about the UK handgun ban - the government in place at the time of the Dunblane massacre tried to avoid bringing in a total ban. The Labour party (current government) put a complete ban in their election manifesto - largely because they thought it would win votes - and brought it in once they were elected by a landslide.
Like it or not, the firearm bans in the UK and Australia aren’t an example of big government trying to disarm and enfeeble the populace, but rather an example of democracy in action. The people have demanded laws such as these, and therefore got them.
Oh, and incidentally the NRA position that an armed populace is needed to keep corrupt governments in check has it’s part in the legal history of the Anglo-Saxon countries (the Magna Carta and IIRC Charter of the Forest were signed because the Barons threatened to make war on King John if he didn’t sign them). However, in the UK and quite a few Commonwealth countries like Australia it no longer applies - because the governments are effectively disarmed as well. The armed forces are directly loyal to the crown rather the government, and the police are disarmed. Therefore there is no requirement that the populace be armed to let them exercise what Abraham Lincoln termed in his first inaugural address “revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow” the government.
Oh, and if you want examples of the UK being in the brown and smelly stuff then this thread is likely to provide you with far more substantial support…