Panzerknacker’s country also used to drug students and throw them out the back of a C-130 over the Atlantic…
There is always room for one more American my friend, bring your firearms, and the many casks of wine plundered from the English ships, and come be an American.
Thats just Reserve training, if they pass that one they get a parachute next trip…
That’s a benevolent dictatorship for you.
Most dictators wouldn’t waste drugs on them, or give them a plane ride.
Although the Phoenix program in Vietnam gave a lot of people plane rides, but mostly kept the drugs for the people on the planes’ side.
Back on topic, it’d be interesting if the US Supreme Court surprised everyone and narrowed the right to bear arms. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080319.GUNS19/TPStory/TPInternational/America/
Would that be an example of a violation of the constitutional right to bear arms which would justify taking up arms against the Supreme Court and any government which shared its view? 
The Supreme Court is probably going the middle ground. People in DC will get the right to get legal pistols which I actually support, since so many guns pour in the District from VA and the South that there should be no reason why law abiding citizens shouldn’t have them after appropriate criminal and psychological (medical) history background checks and filling out some paperwork. But the Court will also keep in place the power of localities to restrict, or administer, the purchasing of firearms. But I also support making it more difficult to buy a handgun or semi-automatic rifle in VA that just getting a drivers license. I think that’s pretty much all you need. I’ll find out once I finally get around to getting my VA Driver’s License this week…
And I especially advocate making all gunshow sales subject to federal screening and background checks as well…
And as far as the “nanny-state” story goes, apparently even producers that are supposed to be fact checkers and report on relevant stuff that effects their reader/viewer can even tell what is bogus satire and the truth anymore. Mainly because they don’t bother:
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N27/long5_27.27w.html
Right Mike, Is nice to see that there at list two people here still understand me.:rolleyes:
There is always room for one more American my friend, bring your firearms, and the many casks of wine plundered from the English ships, and come be an American.
Thanks TG but by now I going to stay in the old country fighting everyday to make it better.
<snip - pdf27>
Uh ? and this is related with the topic in wich manner ?
It doesn’t and was excessively personal so got removed - pdf27
Guns guns guns. I never will understand the obsession, its supposed to be a Penis thing? Dont get me wrong, I quite enjoy shooting them, but I quite enjoy a lot of things I dont own too. I suppose if its the culture you grow up in fair enough, but the UK hasnt really had a universal gun ownership culture and why we would want one I have no clue.
Each to their own I say…
I’m much the same. It’s good fun to blat away on fully automatic on occasion, but mostly they’re just big, heavy, cumbersome and noisy.
It doesn’t and was excessively personal so got removed - pdf27
Nice to see some sanity here
Medical histories are confidential, and a court order would be needed to obtain them. And, according to Current law, A person must be adjudicated mentally diseased, or defective in order to be disqualified as a purchaser.
Or sometimes they don’t bother…
http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/nwzchik/2007/04/18/Virginia_Tech_Shooting_NY136498x378.JPG
There is no provision in law yet to allow the disclosure of confidential medical info.So even if someone, somewhere had wanted to check, it would not have been possible within the background check system.The information about this man that would have indicated his condition was not in public record, as it was by law confidential. He had not been publicly adjudicated as unqualified by reason of mental disease or defect. There is action ongoing to make such information available on the databases used for background checks.
Guns guns guns. I never will understand the obsession, its supposed to be a Penis thing?
Well, the penis thing is not that bad as comparison…suppose that in some country there is a law forbidding or restricting the use of that body part. Dont sound fair isnt ? :rolleyes:
If anybody had bothered to check, they would have found out that this had nothing to do with either the government or the local authorities, it was a PR stunt set up by the directory enquiries service 118118 :rolleyes:
What a lot of the gun lobby outside of the UK don’t understand, is that the strict guns laws in the UK are the result of public pressure. The government didn’t force these laws on the people, the vast majority insisted on them
What? You mean “fact check?” I mean, why on earth let the truth or actual facts get in the way of a perfectly good “FAUX News” story?
In most civilised countries this is exactly the case. Rape is generally outlawed I think. So yes, you cant just go shooting off where you want too…
I’ll admit I know very little about gun laws in the UK, but I thought I would post this ad from 1940. It is just a small example of how a disarmed population could be a problem for the common good. I am not trying to say England could be invaded today, I just wanted to point out this interesting piece of history:
Australia also had a very real chance of being invaded if the Americans were not successful in the Pacific. It is also still debated as to why Switzerland was not invaded by the nazis.
Why should have it been invaded?
It was formally neutral (ok, belgium was also) and was cooperating with Germany, e.g. Germany had been able to buy some certain resources from Switzerland, which bought those for the German marked. Also Switzerland has many important political contacts, which might have been helpful.
But most important was, that Switzerland was/is a quite important country in matters ‘of where the money comes and goes’.