Author Topic: Firearms Refresher course (Read 2530 times)

Ripsnort · « **Reply #45 on:** February 24, 2004, 05:19:57 PM »

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolf Hitler, April 15, 1935 during his Berlin Day speech

midnight Target · « **Reply #46 on:** February 24, 2004, 05:21:05 PM »

Still nothing huh?

slobber on.

btw... I like guns.

beet1e · « **Reply #47 on:** February 24, 2004, 06:11:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolf Hitler, April 15, 1935 during his Berlin Day speech

He also said the Third Reich would last 1000 years. It was over in less than 20.

Got any Saddam Hussein quotes?

john9001 · « **Reply #48 on:** February 24, 2004, 06:28:53 PM »

beetle you miss the meaning.

first hitler took away the guns , then hitler took away the knives, then hitler took away the jews.

i realize that you are a subject of the crown and the only "rights" you have are the ones parliment gives you (or takes away) you have no constution or superem court to protect your "rights", if you do not under stand america, thats ok , just don't tell freemen how to run their country.

this was not ment to be an personal attack on beetle, there are others who deserve it more

Ripsnort · « **Reply #49 on:** February 24, 2004, 06:41:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
He also said the Third Reich would last 1000 years. It was over in less than 20.

Got any Saddam Hussein quotes?

Exactly. Why, there are senators in our Gov't pushing for the same type of legislation.

Glad you understand our plight.

beet1e · « **Reply #50 on:** February 24, 2004, 06:46:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
beetle you miss the meaning.

first hitler took away the guns , then hitler took away the knives, then hitler took away the jews.

i realize that you are a subject of the crown and the only "rights" you have are the ones parliment gives you (or takes away) you have no constution or superem court to protect your "rights", if you do not under stand america, thats ok , just don't tell freemen how to run their country.

this was not ment to be an personal attack on beetle, there are others who deserve it more

Oh OK. Allow me to return the favour if I may, by pointing out that I don't think you understand the situation in Europe. I am not tied to Britain in any way. I can leave at any time and go to live in any of the other member states, only about half of which are monarchies.

lazs2 · « **Reply #51 on:** February 25, 2004, 08:38:55 AM »

mt... If it wasn't obvious that we could keep and bear arms they would have been banned by now. No fed or state government has ever tried to ban firearms. They have tried to ban firearms types with various degrees of success.. many of their bans have latter been overturned or recinded. The supreme court has come down more on the side of individual firearms rights far more often than not.

lazs

midnight Target · « **Reply #52 on:** February 25, 2004, 09:48:35 AM »

"If it wasn't protected we would have had them taken away" is hardly an argument lazs. Legally speaking, the SC's last word was that no, you don't have the individual right to bear arms.

And, I'm still waiting for an example of ONE gun control law that has been overturned on 2nd Amendment grounds.

-dead- · « **Reply #53 on:** February 25, 2004, 12:34:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
do you have any idea of what the U.S. looks like? In a popular revolt there would be no way that an army could be in all the hot spots at once.

To say that there is no way that a popular uprising could succeed is silly. And... just because you start with a Garrand doesn't mean you have to finish with one. Resistance is allways effective... the better armed the resitance the more effective it is. that has allways been the case and in a large open country like the U.S. it would even be more so.

hong kong would of course be different.

lazs

I've got a fair idea of what the US looks like - it's about the same size as this country - well, China's slightly smaller, and of course the other big difference is that the US has just shy of a billion less people living in it. Of course HK would be different in the same way NYC (closest I can find - HK has 6.8 million NYC 7.3) would be different from the entire US.

China has a lot of guns too though: "China probably is home to a civilian arsenal of several tens of millions of guns" according to the 2003 Small Arms Survey - though they don't have any official figures [who'd have thunk it!]. "China appears to have more publicly owned firearms than almost any other country" according to the 2002 smallarmssurvey.org. There was a series of crackdowns on illegal gun ownership from 1996-2002, yielding over 30,000 military firearms, according to the government although the total number of illegal firearms destroyed could be as high as 1.34 million according one study cited in the Small Arms Survey 2003.

Is the Chinese Communist government not repressive? Does it have a popular mandate? Maybe, maybe not. Yet, if it is unpopular and represssive, why no news on the armed rebellion to overthrow the government? The people have firearms and as you point out "just because you start with a Garrand doesn't mean you have to finish with one." And not only is China far too big for the army to be everywhere at once, there are a lot more people - 389 civilians for every soldier, as opposed to the US's 110 people for every soldier.

How about Iraq and that nasty Mr Hussein - popular uprising? Yes. Large quantities of civilians armed with rifles etc.? Yes. Open country? Yes. Regime change? Nope. Rebels crushed by helicopters and tanks. I note the insurgents currently attacking their erstwhile liberators also seem to favour landmines, RPGs, mortars, MANPADS and car bombs over firearms. Perhaps firearms just don't get the job done after all.

Any examples of firearms v tanks etc rebellions that have come out happily for the civvies with firearms? I can't think of any - for a while I thought Iran, but there the army remained neutral. Still seems like time to ask for much heavier weaponry to me, if you're to keep the "against oppressive government" paradigm going.

lazs2 · « **Reply #54 on:** February 25, 2004, 03:28:15 PM »

there is no way to determine if a revolution would succeed or not... too many variables.. There are numerous cases tho where armed rebelion or resistance delayed and or helped to defeat tyrants. Hong Kong is not china but so far as I know china has had many rebelions.

MT... knapp vs Schweitzer the court ruled that the fifth and the second were individual rights.

"Supreme Court gun cases two centuries of gun rights revealed" by David B Kopel, Stephen p hallbrook Ph D and Alan Korvin

92 cases studied that show the suprems have consistently come down on the side of individual firearms rights.

there has been no successful federal attempt to ban individuals from owning and bearing arms.
lazs

Scootter · « **Reply #55 on:** February 25, 2004, 05:38:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
________________________________

America’s constitutional right to bear arms is an anachronism dating back to the 18th century. In modern times, it is an unmitigated disaster which has given rise to many millions of privately owned guns and an alarming homicide rate, with a tally of more than 300,000 firearms related homicides in the past 25 years. While no law can be 100% effective, Britain has no “gun culture”, and much stricter firearms controls which have contained the annual tally of gun related homicides to a double digit value - fewer than one fiftieth of the American gun-related homicide rate per 100,000 population.
[/size][/color] [/B]

ENGLAND CRIME CAPITAL OF THE WEST
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=314832

How The British Maximize Crime

Did you know that a person`s chances of being mugged in London are 6 times higher than in New York City? Did you know that assault, robbery and burglary rates are far higher in England than in the U.S.? Did you know that in England self-defense of person or property is regarded as an antisocial act, and that a victim who injures or kills an assailant is likely to be treated with more severity than the assailant?

Look up WA. Post 8/08/2002

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=BRITISH%20AND%20CRIME&s_dispstring=BRITISH%20CRIME%20AND%20date(07/01/2002%20to%2008/01/2002)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=07/01/2002%20to%2008/01/2002&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

English Police Raid Youngster`s Birthday Party

Anti-gunners in America have long pointed to England as a nation with model gun laws. However, the restrictions there have led to increases in crime, and ever increasing intrusions on personal freedom. Now, England has taken its phobia of guns to a new level, police there recently raided an young boy`s birthday party, because he was seen playing with his present--a BB gun.

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100local/page.cfm?objectid=11018615&method=full

YEA your perfect!!

and can we have all the privately owned firearms we sent you when you were worried about invasion, but didn’t have enough weapons to form a militia. We Yanks sent you millions of our own weapons but they were never sent back, can we have them now?

hawker238 · « **Reply #56 on:** February 25, 2004, 05:46:07 PM »

I'm sensing the general gun nut consensus is that by owning a gun the police are less oppressive. Very interesting conclusion.

Widewing · « **Reply #57 on:** February 25, 2004, 06:05:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
He also said the Third Reich would last 1000 years. It was over in less than 20.

Got any Saddam Hussein quotes?

Hey Beet1e, short memory you have there.... Don't you recall your government quite literally begging for firearms to equip the Home Guard, who were drilling with pitchforks and axes while Hitler gathered troops on the Channel for an invasion? American civilians shipped thousands of rifles and shotguns to Britain in 1940.

Listen, if firearms frighten you, don't own one. Simple, right?

My regards,

Widewing

Widewing · « **Reply #58 on:** February 25, 2004, 06:26:50 PM »

A couple of points, if I may.

Constitutional arguments are pointless. The fact remains that firearm ownership in the U.S. is legal. If it were not so, federal, state and local governments would have collected them a hundred years ago.

My thoughts boil down to this; if you don't like firearms (for whatever reason), don't own one. I won't insist that you do, if you mind your own business and stop telling me what I can and cannot own. I don't complain about your gas-hog, polluting SUV and I have no right to tell what to buy or own. You see, in America people can have what they want, they're not limited to what someone or some government determines that they need. If that were the case, you might be required to trade in that Expedition for a Focus, or that Durango for a Neon as they certainly will meet your basic need.

Indeed, there is nothing more intrusive than the self-appointed, self-righteous who cannot mind their own business. My view on this is simple, keep your nose out of my business, and I'll let you keep your nose. Simple, isn't it?

My regards,

Widewing

hawker238 · « **Reply #59 on:** February 25, 2004, 07:17:10 PM »

The sole intent of a pistol is a small, easy-to-carry weapon used to shoot people. Some people have a problem with the high availabilty of this kind of weapon.