England Used to Be a Country of Men

Ouch....Now now....that's not a nice thing to say................... !

Pain in the butt maybe!

Regards
Highlander

 

They certainly did,but only after removing the daggers thrust inot the collective backs of the Allies, courtesy of the Soviet Union and the thugs that ran that country.

 

Nope. The only question is who's freedom is morally legitimate and who's is not. Rights aren't a matter of compromise. They either exist or the don't; you can't make them up as you go along. Everyone has a right over his own person and property; no one has a right over another's. You are illegitimately and unethically claiming you have a right over someone else's person and property. You have no right do to so and never will, no matter how many other people agree with you.

Maybe, or maybe there is some other factor. But I can tell one thing: it has nothing to do with guns because when look at history increased gun control doesn't correlate to decreased crime.

Banning a priori certain driving behaviors that may or may not involve reckless driving (drinking, speeding, talking on a cell phone) is simpleminded. Rather, ban driving behaviors that actually constitute reckless endangerment. Irrational speed variance (traveling against the flow of traffic and erractically speeding and slowing time) is such a behavior, but merely going faster than some arbitrary number a politician thought up is not.

Beware any law that includes a "magic number." That usually means the law is a simplistic and arbitrary means of banning an unpopular behavior a priori with no proof of harm. There's nothing magic of about a 55mph speed limit or a .08 blood alcohol level or a 16 year driving age or a 25 mpg CAFE standard. It's legal skullduggery.

This is why only acts that actually victimize others, not acts that we speculate might be linked to acts that victimize others (like owning a gun).

The key question is what those rights are. You have a right to your person and property; you violate that right when you take someone's gun, just as much as if you took their knives, power tools, matches, or any other tool that could be used for harm. Again, a priori bans on behavior that harms no one because you speculate that it might lead to harming someone is wrong.

Ban aggressive behavior, not the behavior that might (or might not) indirectly enable aggressive behavior.

Stricter gun restrictions don't correlate to less crime.

The right to life means that others aren't allowed to take or threaten your life. Owning a gun for peaceful purposes doesn't threaten your life, anymore than owning a knife does.

 

The OP knows very little about English history. For much of its existence it was a very savage place and the worst offenders were the aristocracy. It's comparatively peaceful nowadays.

 

So you subscribe to the "might makes right" theory that who ever is stronger many take from or do to anyone else who is weaker whatever they want - by which men particularly truly dominated women by overpowering them if no other way.

No, if shooting a robber is necessary to stop the robbery, shoot the robber. I suggest a to the chest-head-chest combination.

 

A robber is inherently threatening your life or it isn't a robbery. One blow can kill or cripple someone for life, no weapon required.

No you don't believe that anyway as a robber is considered an inherent danger as it is the threat that is the definition of what makes it a robbery.

 

A Brief History of British Gun Control
(or, How to Disarm the Law Abiding Populace by Stealth)
by P.A. Luty
www.thehomegunsmith.com

Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise

In 1900 the British government trusted the people with firearms and to be their own guardians. Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the Marquess of Salisbury said he would "laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England". However in 1903 Britain passed its first ever "gun control" law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. It was the first toe over a slippery slope towards complete firearms prohibition.

In 1919 the British government, in fear of communist insurgents and domestic and foreign anarchists, passed its first sweeping anti-gun laws (under the smokescreen of crime control) even though gun related crime was almost non existent in the England of the day. British subjects could now only buy a firearm if they could show "a good reason" for having one and the firearm certificate system that we have today (implemented and abused by police) was introduced. The 1920 gun control act was the beginning of the end for private firearms ownership in England. So much for Robert Gascoyne-Cecil's remarks of "a rifle in every cottage in England" being a laudable goal.

In 1936 short barrelled shotguns (such as shot pistols used for ratting) and fully automatic firearms were outlawed. Why? Not because such firearms were ever misused but because the government dictated that civilians had "no legitimate reason" for owning them. Where have we heard that before! Another slide down the slippery slope. The reasoning has now changed from the government NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS FOR THE RESTRICTIONS to the people NEEDING TO SHOW REASONS TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS, to a government TELLING them that there was NO ACCEPTABLE REASON.

The English Bill of Rights states "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law" Sir William Blackstone, commenting on this in his Commentaries on the laws of England said, "The fifth and last auxiliary RIGHT of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law, which is also declared by the same statute IW & M ft.2c.2 and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression". I wonder what happened to "the natural RIGHT of resistance and self preservation" (from domestic criminals and out of control governments). Have not the "sanctions of society and laws" been shown "insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression"?

In 1936 the government added a "safe storage" requirement on the owners of handguns and rifles to "prevent the guns falling into the wrong hands" Where have we heard that one before, and how often do the British police use that particular requirement to harass what is left of the British gun owning community?

As a direct consequence of the 1920 gun control act, not only did Britain not have "a rifle in every cottage" but they had to ask American citizens to send them every type of rifle and handgun at the outbreak of WWII, so British people would have some means of defending their homes and islands against the Nazi hordes massing across the English Channel. Americans responded by sending every type of firearm to the unarmed and helpless people of Britain. No surprise, but at the end of the war the British people did not get to keep the guns, the government seized many of them back and dumped them in the sea. Such was the British government's gratitude to the American public and distrust of their own people.

In 1946 "self defence" was no longer considered a good reason for requiring a police issued firearms certificate. The slippery slope got even steeper.

In 1953 carrying any type of weapon for self defence was made illegal, making the streets even safer for the criminal element and giving great "crime control" soundbites to the police and press.

In 1967 a chap by the name of Harry Roberts blasted three policemen to death in a London street using a 9mm Luger pistol and the British government restricted shotguns for the very first time. Try to figure out the logic... handgun used... shotguns licensed for the first time in British history. Opportunistic, or am I just being a cynical bastard?

In 1982 black powder muzzle loader shooters and handloaders were required to allow police inspection of their security arrangements to ensure "safe storage" of the powder they possessed, meaning that agents of the state could demand entry into an Englishman's home at any time of day or night without a warrant.

In 1988 all semi-automatic rifles were banned, including pump action rifles. The personal property of law abiding people was once again outlawed and seized. All the guns were registered and easy to find, that is to say, all the legally held ones.

In 1996 all handguns were banned and they too were all registered with the agents of the state. Well, need I say more? You get the picture. Also in 1996 carrying any knife with a blade longer than 3 inches was made illegal. Presumably one cannot stab someone to death with a three inch knife. You now had to show "good reason" for carrying a knife, the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty of a crime, was gone.

In England today you cannot carry any type of weapon for self defence and you cannot use a firearm to defend your home, family, or property. The gun and weapon laws have made crime safe for criminals and the other violent thugs and miscreants who infest our country today.

In 2006 the government passed the Violent Crime Reduction Act. The VCRA restricted all "realistic" toy/replica guns. Now Britons were not to be trusted with even imitation non-firing replicas. "Violent crime reduction" was once again used as the smokescreen to enact oppressive laws and deprive the law abiding of their property. As part of the VCRA an airgun can no longer be purchased by mail order and the name and address of the purchaser must be registered with the seller. Is the bigger picture now getting clearer?

In 2009 talks with the British government were started to devolve airgun laws to the Scottish parliament. If and when the Scottish parliament is given the power over airgun legislation the Parliament has vowed to ban the sale of all airguns in Scotland. In the coming years, England will follow the Scottish example and airgun registration and an eventual licensing system will follow. The slippery slope is now in a vertical freefall.



http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html

 

I recall seeing a photo of the inside of a German home and for self defense they literally had a crossbow on the wall. Like in the UK, even owning a fake gun is a very serious crime. Pepper spray is also illegal to have in Germany.

 

Such a contrast. At one time, for national defense England required every man to learn how to use the then state-of-the-art military weapon - the long bow. Now? A person may not even try to bluff someone to save the life of their family with a fake gun.

When socialists virtually took over France in the 1930s, one of their first acts was to anti-gun laws. Until then, the government wished people to have firearms. Stalin also imposes strict anti-gun laws.

It is easy to see why Hitler believed he could overrun Europe and Russia. The people had been disarmed by the leftists and socialists so a home guard and militia resistance joining with the military was not possible, plus even rapidly recruited troops had no firearm experience even if they were given a rifle. Hitler knew he was invading unarmed countries of tens of millions of literally defenseless people. It is very possible that the leftists and socialists anti-gun laws was one of the core reasons WW2 in Europe ever happened.

 

If you had a gun, the thief may run away. That would be a win without anyone getting hurt.

 

Doublespeak gobbly gook. The dickhead is the robber. You a modern Brit? A post 1984 kinda guy? Big Brudder.

 

This male victim is only 14 years old. I don't think he had more than 5 pounds with him.

 

It is this thinking that will be the end of your country.

 

If the dead are mostly criminals, who gives a ****.

 

And what exactly are you?

 

Rubbish. England could fight Hitler, or join him. There was no middle ground for them?

You propose Nazi rule as the preferable option?

 

Well hardly surprising - it seems to have reached the point of being compulsory these days. When I read of someone being caught 'with his trousers down' (if you'll pardon the expression ) I'm always surprised when the other party turns out to be a female.

 

All empires rise and fall, and it's obvious that we're going through the final stage of the process. It's enough to make all true Englishman weep.

 

Yep, welcome to 'Great' Britain, the land of mass stupidity, vulgarity, and non-stop boozing. And that's only the government!!

 

It's merely a matter of will; that worm has turned in the U.S., it can turn in England as well.

As for 'crime rates' in the U.S., it's comparable to the safest parts of Europe in the same demographic areas, and with a far smaller police presence in the vast majority of the country than Europe has, so the argument that crime rates are higher here falls down when controlled for race and cultural factors, but of course ignoring giant elephants in tiny rooms is also as much a feature of American PC kulturekampf as it is in Europe as far as media and academia goes, which is why those two types have less than zero credibility now. Some Euro states are refusing to accept fake 'refugees', even the Dutch and French are getting fed up, so will British patriots; it's just a matter of when, not if.

 

Stop whining and gore a pair; get over your fear of judges and left wing cretins and you're 99% of the way to reason and common sense. Who cares if the vermin wag fingers and make scary faces at you for growing a pair??? Just deport the PC Nazis along with the fake 'refugees'.

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

lol .. if you don't know, just walk around bent over with your pants down and your anus lubed, and don't worry about it.