You and the right to defend your property.

MurPHy · Post by **MurPHy** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 12:29 am

Now that's fucked up. Maybe instead of sitting on our asses whining about strict gun laws and such to the politicians we should all get together (with our guns), and take a little ride to where The Man lives and start a rebellion. I hear it's a healthy thing for government. It keeps the politicians and eveyone in power in touch with what the people want, instead of letting the corrupt bastards gain more and more power until the "Democracy" resembles a regime with a new Hitler wannabe at the reign. Or Stalin. Or Pol Pot (Cambodia - genocide; over 1 million dead).

Mr Carrot · Post by **Mr Carrot** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 12:33 am

Stirct gunlaws was simply to appease women voters, they had no idea of what the current gunlwas were (im not being sexist its trie).

Gun crime has gun up 200% since they banned hnadguns and tightened grade one fire arms license ownership.

The current crap laws stem from the 30s when there was fuck all crime in non urban areas, and any criminals would have got a fucking kicking from the police. However nowdays thanks to immigration and the attempted socialism practiced from the 50's-70s crime has rocketed (im not being racist its true) and the "dont worry about protecting yourself we will deal with them" has been replaced with "you cant protect yourself but we cant spare the time to deal with them"

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:09 am

Mr Carrot wrote:Tony martin owning a pump action wasnt illegal, they however can only have a 2 magazine shot capacity.

Two magazine shot cap? in Indiana its like 6. That's a state law, bucko. And Side-By-Sides are better anyway, so who cares? If you cant drop someone/something in 2 shots then you shouldn't have a gun! (w/ a shotgun anyway... and don't say "what if I have #8 shot in my gun?" cause you sould leave a slug(or two :badgrin:! in there.) That is, in the shotgun you use for self defense, not one of your hunting shotguns. Of course there is always the possability that 6 guys walk in with full kevlar and m2's! Thne wtah j00 d0, f00l?! hhu, whate thne?!
EDIT:

Mr Carrot wrote: Gun crime has gun up 200% since they banned hnadguns and tightened grade one fire arms license ownership.

WTF is w/ gun crime rising and gun laws? Anybody stop their rhetoric to think that it's due to increased heroin/cocain/marijuana/speed/(insert drug here)? Why would Mr. Thug say "hmm look, tighter gun laws! better get a new gun!"?
EDIT #2: Although I'm personally against Uber-Gun laws, I like being the devil's advocate! Yah devil!
EDIT #3:

Murphy wrote:Now that's fucked up. Maybe instead of sitting on our asses whining about strict gun laws and such to the politicians we should all get together (with our guns), and take a little ride to where The Man lives and start a rebellion.

I agree! Count me in. when/where should we meet to start this? I got an extra 10 gg. winchester for anyone who needs it!

Mr Carrot · Post by **Mr Carrot** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:26 am

No the banning of handguns increased black market supply and reduced costs making them far more available.

Before the ban handguns were extreemly hard to find and very expensive, now you can buy them on the street.

The whole point of the law mag cap is that you are meant to be using the thing for hunting/pest control, why do you need 8 shots? This is something ive never understood in america, the uproar after they outlawed HIcap mags.

The only time your going to need a load of shots before your reloading is if your a cop or if your a criminal.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:00 am

Mr Carrot wrote:This is something ive never understood in america, the uproar after they outlawed HIcap mags.

Why not. I don't believe having a magazine with 11 rounds is somehow more deadly than a magazine with 10, so why make such an arbitrary distinction? The only purpose that law served is to desensitize the public to further gun control laws. And no, I'm not arguing the slippery slope, the fact is simply that gun control advocates have publically acknowledged an ultimate goal of banning all guns.

More on the "high capacity" magazine ban: In many cases these magazine capacities are actually standard capacity. Often, especially with weapons like Glocks and Berettas, the law is requiring manufacturers to make low capacity magazines for American consumers.

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 11:40 am

Doyle wrote:And no, I'm not arguing the slippery slope, the fact is simply that gun control advocates have publically acknowledged an ultimate goal of banning all guns.low capacity magazines for American consumers.

Yup.

Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" (Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 11:47 am

Mr Carrot wrote:Before the ban handguns were extreemly hard to find and very expensive, now you can buy them on the street.

Now, come on, that's just total bull. You could buy them on the street when they were legal as well. BECAUSE they were extremely hard to find and very expensive - the black market has always existed and always will. You can't (unlimitedly) compete with it, not even under socialism.

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 2:14 pm

trythebill wrote:
Doyle wrote:And no, I'm not arguing the slippery slope, the fact is simply that gun control advocates have publically acknowledged an ultimate goal of banning all guns.low capacity magazines for American consumers.
Yup.
Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" (Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)

WTF? Are you trying to say that "Mr. and Ms. america" should have no "Right to arm bears"? Perhaps you should add something called a "point" to your post, as apposed to having only quotes, and not stating agreeance or lack therof in half of them, especially in extremist rhetoric!

Mr Carrot · Post by **Mr Carrot** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 2:50 pm

Yes Kash because you have experience of the British criminal gun culture.

You cant compare the UK example to that of america, to bring guns into the country they had to go through the import route, either via France or the US smuggling over sections in motor parts. this had a high cost and required contacts in Customs etc. Thus it limited handguns to organised crime, the reason handgun crime has risen soo dramatically is when the ban came into effect there were several thousand handguns that were not turned in and listed as lots/broken/binned by the owners, who had really just sold them on.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 6:02 pm

Killa-Killa wrote:WTF? Are you trying to say that "Mr. and Ms. america" should have no "Right to arm bears"? Perhaps you should add something called a "point" to your post, as apposed to having only quotes, and not stating agreeance or lack therof in half of them, especially in extremist rhetoric!

He was backng my statement up with an example of an extremist anti-gun quote.

Burnov · Post by **Burnov** » Sat Aug 02, 2003 9:55 pm

Up here in Alberta, Canaduh. This one chinese shop owner got something like 11 years for dumping a nice load of buckshot into a criminal as he fled with valuables from his store. No, he didn't shoot him in the street. Just as he sprinted for the doors. That kind of stuff sickens me. You threaten someone's life for their possesions and then you expect to be spared if you do exactly the opposite of what you expected of some law-abiding citizen.

I believe it this way: You threaten someone's life, expect your life to be in the same peril if they happen to turn the tables. It's simply logical. Don't rob a store if you don't want to get shot. Just like you wouldn't jaywalk on a freeway if you didn't want to get run down.

The right to bear arms is a sticky subject though. Some cowboys take it too far. And unfortunately, there are some people out there who are probably entitled to carry a firearm when they shouldn't be. The answer is not to throw more firearms at the problem. I'm just saying. Those practicing self defence in any of it's forms, or defence of their property. Shouldn't be given the heavy hand. What incentive is there to be a law abiding citizen?

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:33 am

Doyle wrote:He was backng my statement up with an example of an extremist anti-gun quote.

How does that back up your statement? For anybody that's got any Intelligence this statement would be dismissed. That's like a Pro-Choice woman saying that those Got-dang anti-choicers wanna kill anybody that has an abortion or is involved in the process. Very rarely is such extremism passed into law.
EDIT: Isreal does not count as an example for a rebuttal.

Burnov wrote:Up here in Alberta, Canaduh. This one chinese shop owner got something like 11 years for dumping a nice load of buckshot into a criminal as he fled with valuables from his store.

Welcome to letting (Essentially) one wing of politics controll everything for too long. This is where extremism gets passed into law.
READ: Doesen't matter where or what side, this always happens. that and corruption, assuming that Canadians are capable of it, eh?

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:36 am

Are you clueless? I said that I wasn't arguing slippery slope because some of our anti-gun politicians have a stated goal of the total ban on guns. He supplied a sample quote. It's not that complicated, I can't believe I even had to make a second post about it.

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 3:45 am

I never said it was complicated. I just said that extremist rhetoric is (Almost) invariably not passed into law. This is why anybody with any brains would mark it off as irrelivant, Like when anti-gun-law people say that you and I should be able to have M4's, AK-74's, m249's, and shoulder-mounted RPG's.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 4:28 am

But that's not the point. The point is that I wasn't arguing a slippery slope.

porcu · Post by **porcu** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 8:33 pm

I haven't read anyone else's post on this matter but I'm all down for universally arming the people of the world like castro did to fight off the US's invasion at the Bay of Pigs.

I'd also suggest you all read Huey p. Newton's writings on the subject of self defense.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 8:37 pm

they should make bullets out of rubber

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 8:48 pm

porcu wrote:I'd also suggest you all read Huey p. Newton's writings on the subject of self defense.

Do you have any specific articles and books in mind?

porcu · Post by **porcu** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 8:56 pm

Pick up the Huey P. Newton Reader.

btw the idiot who suggesting shooting a crook in the legs is an idiot. they can't sue you if they are dead. they can if you've just put a hole in their leg, possibly cripplying them for life.

Viktor · Post by **Viktor** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 6:35 pm

Mr Carrot wrote:Yes Kash because you have experience of the British criminal gun culture..

Really? I didn't know our favourite Finn had lived in good old Blighty!!

Mr Carrot wrote:No the banning of handguns increased black market supply and reduced costs making them far more available.

Before the ban handguns were extreemly hard to find and very expensive, now you can buy them on the street.

Crap! Before the post-Dunblane handgun ban, you could buy just about any handgun you wanted (providing you had a Section 2 Firearms Certificate) for a very reasonable amount of money - around Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£400 for a new S&W revoler and about Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£600 for a new Colt .45 auto.

Most responsible handgun owners sold them on to overseas shooters or turned them into the police (and are still waiting for compensation!). The illegal handguns in circulation after the ban were either around pre-Dunblane or came into the UK thanks to the piss-poor customs proceedures between us and the former Eastern Block.

As the police have a record of every legal firearm purchase/sale/transfer since the introduction of the current UK firearm licensing system in 1968, even the few "irresponsible" legal owners of handguns knew they couldn't just flog 'em for Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£250 down the pub as they would at least get the local firearms officer knocking on their door when their license was up for renewal (every 4 years) and asking to see all the guns listed against their license or proof of legal sale for them.