Ban Teh Buttar Knive!!

[genozaur]

Originally posted by Toad
No. I think that's just more evidence that the number of guns isn't a determining factor in homicide crime. Probably the only thing Moore got right in BFC.

I have to agree with this opinion.
 Homicide rate for Russia (firearms ban in effect since at least 1922) was higher than 41. during late 90s.
 One can not rule out that these numbers include civilian loss of life during the 1st Chechen war, but still it's significantly higher than the US rate, though if we count the victims of 9\11 as homicide deaths, the numbers for both countries will get closer (for the year 2001).
 A lot of other countries have the homicide rate higher than that of the USA but I don't know their gun laws.
http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html

[Toad]

My, my Beetle; there you go trying to deny the obvious again.

Originally posted by beet1e
Yet you seem quite sure that large numbers of firearms were confiscated by the police... Feel free to use real data, rather than data you've made up.

[/b]

You do understand amnesty don't you? Good, follow along.

The legal firearms holders in your country all have a Firearms Certificate; it's required by law and lists the owner, guns and location.

Handguns were summarily made illegal and, according to a BBC article "The average custodial sentence was about 18 months". (There were plans for a 5 year minimum sentence which may have passed already.)

So, now you have gun owners registered with the police holding now illegal firearms. These gun owners are given an "amnesty" period to turn in the guns or be in violation facing an average term of 18 months just for possessing a handgun.

The cops know exactly who has the guns and who hasn't turned them in (if any). That's pretty much confiscation to anyone with a clue.

Beyond that, I assume your police have picked up guns from people who gave them up involuntarily. Unfortunately, according to another article I read, there are no recordkeeping requirements on the number of guns picked up in this manner. Could be one or it could be one million. Most certainly it has happened.

BEET:

As for your insistence that our parliament rushed the 1920 Firearms Act into law for fears of an uprising, you repeatedly cite "fears of Bolsheviks" in statements such as these:  and That, my friend, is only your assessment. I did a search on this entire thread for "bolshev", and found it several times - but only in your posts, not in your quoted sources. In other words, the comparison made with Bolshevism is simply one of your embellishments.

[/b]

Sigh.

Report of the Sub-Committee on Arms Traffic-

...the anarchist or 'intellectual' malcontent of the great cities...

OK, Beet. Given the time,  1918, what currently notorious political movement would be the most likely?  (Hint:) Oct  1917 The Bolsheviks overthrow the Provisional government on the eve of the meeting of 2nd All-Russia Congress of Soviets.

In September 1917, Lord Curzon circulated to his fellow Cabinet ministers a letter from the Bishop of Oxford, warning of "Alleged Disaffection Existing Among British Troops at Home." The Bishop's letter warned that hunger, low pay, and a refusal to allow leave caused British soldiers to secretly put up a placard "to say that they were going to imitate the Russian soldiers" and that they engaged in "open sedition in speech."[44] (PRO CAB 24/25/355.
)

And what did the Russian soldiers do in 1917 Beet? Why they supported the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

Sir Basil Thomson, Scotland Yard's Director of Intelligence, wrote in late 1918 that "England would be spared the full horrors of Bolshevism" yet also believed that the nation could be severely damaged by "serious labour disturbances, carried on with the sympathy of the Police." Thomson also believed that "serious labour disturbances" were beyond the control of the police in big cities.[46]

(Andrew, Her Majesty's Secret Service, 228-229)

Is it clear enough that the Director of Scotland Yard was talking about Bolshevism?

now find myself convinced that in England Bolschevism [sic] must be faced and grappled with, the efforts of the International Jews of Russia combated and their agents eliminated from the United Kingdom. Unless some serious consideration is given to the matter, I believe that there will be some sort of Revolution in this country and that before 12 months are past....[47]
 
(Walter Long to Lloyd George, January 9, 1919, HLRO Lloyd George MSS F/33/2/3, quoted in Andrew, Her Majesty's Secret Service, 232)

Hmmmm. Walter Long writes to Lloyd George about Bolshevism. What was George's job at that time? He was sorta "big" in your government wasn't he?

The events of early 1919 seemed to confirm these fears of Communist revolution. A general strike in Glasgow led to the raising of the red flag over city hall. The Glasgow Herald called it a first step toward Bolshevism, and the Secretary of State for Scotland called it a Bolshevik rising. The army was mobilized, but the police restored order without the military's assistance.

(Andrew, Her Majesty's Secret Service, 233-234.)

Goodness! The Secretary of State for Scotland calling it a Bolshevik rising? Are you still going to maintain that no one was concerned about Bolshevism? Jeez, Beet... stop and think how you're making you and your Mum look. People are going to think you're both really from Arkansas.

How should the British government respond to these fears? There were differing proposals within the Cabinet. On February 27, 1919, Cabinet Secretary Thomas Jones wrote to Sir Maurice Hankey about the increasing problem of labor strife, and told how several Cabinet ministers responded to his proposals to defuse the concerns of the working classes with social policy changes.

According to Jones, his proposal drew "rather long faces" from several Cabinet ministers: "It was blank nonsense to talk of a bagatelle like [sterling]71,000,000 -- a cheap insurance against Bolshevism."[54] (Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1:79-80)

Hey Beet.. why would they consider insuring against Bolshevism?

Ok, now give it up before you make yourself look even more foolish.

It's clear Bolshevism was a major concern of the English leadership right before the Firearms Act of 1920. Further, it's clear the FA was a response driven by those fears. It's documented in your own governmental records.

BEET:

you are so misguided I almost feel like doing your homework for you! FFS! The government wasn't in fear of an armed uprising!!

FFS! You haven't done any homework at all and it's YOUR history. Take your blinders off. This bears repeating:

The events of early 1919 seemed to confirm these fears of Communist revolution. A general strike in Glasgow led to the raising of the red flag over city hall. The Glasgow Herald called it a first step toward Bolshevism, and the Secretary of State for Scotland called it a Bolshevik rising. The army was mobilized, but the police restored order without the military's assistance.

(Andrew, Her Majesty's Secret Service, 233-234.)

You need to do a little research on "Bloody Friday, Jan 31, 1919. Robert Munro was Secretary of State for Scotland ; what he actually said (as reported in the paper) was:

"a misnomer to call the situation in Glasgow a strike-it was a Bolshevist rising".

Further, your government DID send troops... lots of troops and tanks to restore order. The strikers, mostly troops home from the war, beat the crap out of the Glasgow cops and ran them off. Educate yourself; you'll enjoy the story.

(Image removed from quote.)

The famous image of Red Clydeside is the raising of the red flag above 35,000 striking engineering workers massed in Glasgow's George Square during the 40 hours strike that has gone down in history as Bloody Friday.

Tell me, Beet.. who used the red flag as their symbol?

 Like I said all along - nothing to do with bolshevism or guns!!!!

Like I said - you simply don't know your own history.

At the same meeting, Home Secretary Shortt, Adjutant-General Sir George Macdonogh, and Robert Munro, Secretary of State for Scotland, discussed the logistics of using the air force to suppress revolution.[80] (Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1:99)

and

The following exchange between Prime Minister Lloyd George and his Cabinet ministers shows the level of fear that drove the government. It is also the only stated reason for restrictive firearms licensing in the classified documents or memoirs that predates introduction of the Bill in Parliament -- and the reason was fear of revolution:


The P.M. "You won't get sabotage at the beginning of the strike."

Roberts. "You will have to take sabotage at the beginning of the strike into account. There are large groups preparing for Soviet government."

Eric Geddes. "You have got to reckon on the electric power stations being put out of order."...

Macready. "On our information we do not run to the revolution yet. If there is an outbreak of strikes and if there is a sufficient force available, civil or military, to stop it at once, it will fizzle out. We were told today that 700 rifles were concealed in Liverpool. Supposing sabotage and violence get ahead it is very difficult to say how far they will go. We are taking private steps to secure the aid of a certain class of citizen."...

Long. "The peaceable manpower of the country is without arms. I have not a pistol less than 200 years old. A Bill is needed for licensing persons to bear arms. This has been useful in Ireland because the authorities know who were possessed of arms."

Shortt. "The Home Office has a Bill ready but in the past there have always been objections."

Bonar Law. "All weapons ought to be available for distribution to the friends of the Government."[81] (Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1:100)

It doesn't get any plainer than that Beet, but go ahead and pretend.

[Toad]

BEET

...So please, do tell me: Where would these workers have acquired all their guns?

[/b]

Primarily from "war surplus" and "war booty"; that was the major concern.

New Zealand adopted a mandatory firearms registration law in 1920 because returning servicemen had brought pistols and automatic weapons back to New Zealand. "Revolution had occurred in Russia and there was a fear that large scale industrial demonstrations or even riot could occur here."[52]

(New Zealand Police Department, "Background to the Introduction of Firearms User Licensing Instead of Rifle and Shotgun Registration Under the Arms Act 1983", (Wellington, New Zealand: n.p., 1983), 2)

Your government had the same cocerns over returning war weapons that New Zealand did.

You might as well ask where the Irish Nationalists of that period were getting their arms. There were laws controlling firearms in Ireland even before England but the Irish Republicans still seemed to be able to get guns.

you cannot provide material to substantiate the "Great British Disarmament" - ie the mass confiscation.

It the government knows you have newly illegal arms and knows right where both you and the guns are and then offers amnesty... that's essentially confiscation. Deny it all you like, the stats on firearms licenses show that most legal owners complied. You can access those stats online, btw.

BEET

you have declined to answer my question as to why the elected government was returned to power, given that disarmament was as unpopular and draconian as you claim.

[/b]

Show me where I made that claim. Otherwise this is more Beetle Blather.

BEET

 you have declined to answer WHO had all these guns that were confiscated.[/b]

I don't have access to your Firearms Certificate records. The totals are online, however, progressively from about '83 to 2000 IIRC. English citizens had the handguns; they don't anymore. If you want individual names, you'll have to go check your records.

BEET

Last time I checked, it was NOT a lethal weapon, and was not designed to cause death.

[/b]

So, let me give you a hypothetical.

If say 10 million sober Englishmen, driving correctly and legally, die this year in auto accidents and in every case the driver of the other vehicle.. who survives... was drunk as a Lord?

Because alcohol and autos are NOT leathal and not designed to cause death this would just be a "tsk, tsk .. too bad" event for you? You wouldn't support legislation banning alcohol?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad

The legal firearms holders in your country all have a Firearms Certificate; it's required by law and lists the owner, guns and location.

Handguns were summarily made illegal and, according to a BBC article "The average custodial sentence was about 18 months". (There were plans for a 5 year minimum sentence which may have passed already.)

So, now you have gun owners registered with the police holding now illegal firearms. These gun owners are given an "amnesty" period to turn in the guns or be in violation facing an average term of 18 months just for possessing a handgun.

The cops know exactly who has the guns and who hasn't turned them in (if any). That's pretty much confiscation to anyone with a clue.

And how many people was that? Our police force is/was unarmed. If the workers were gathering for some sort of "Bolshevik" revolution as you suggest, how come it didn't happen?

The next month, the Prime Minister was asking which parts of the army would remain loyal. The Cabinet discussed arming university men, stockbrokers, and trusted clerks to fight any revolution.[57] The Minister of Transport, Sir Eric Geddes, predicted "a revolutionary outbreak in Glasgow, Liverpool or London in the early spring, when a definite attempt may be made to seize the reins of government." "It is not inconceivable," Geddes warned, "that a dramatic and successful coup d'etat in some large center of population might win the support of the unthinking mass of labour."

I repeat: Please indicate to me the exact sections in the 1920 Firearms Act which exempted stockbrokers, "university men" and "trusted clerks".

Like I said, after WW1, Britain was faced with the problem of significant numbers of weapons having found their way home from abroad. What I actually said was

WW1 was the first armed conflict after which significant numbers of guns found their way back home. Legislation was needed to deal with this situation where none had been needed before. This was in no way connected with the discontent of the workers of those days, whose concerns were hours, working conditions and pay. In Britain (unlike communist Russia) it is legal to strike, and legal to demonstrate.

 ...to which your considered response was

You're simply wrong for the same reasons posted above. The legislation was directly related to "armed workers" by the fears of your officials. It wasn't the workers; it was the people in power and their fear of armed workers that led to your Firearms Act of 1920.

But then you ended up agreeing with me by saying

Your government had the same cocerns over returning war weapons that New Zealand did.

You said

Beyond that, I assume your police have picked up guns from people who gave them up involuntarily. Unfortunately, according to another article I read, there are no recordkeeping requirements on the number of guns picked up in this manner.

Awwww, shame. You assume? Naaah! Never would believe it!!

I'll repost something for you that may clear it up, but the basics are that in the 1920's gun control laws were implemented in response to a perceived threat to your ruling class from the Bolsheviks.

Better get with the times, Toad. In 1920, Britain was a democracy - not a totalitarian state like czarist Russia or communist Russia. Had the firearms regulations been so draconian, the Conservative government would have been voted out of office. It wasn't. It was re-elected in 1922, 1923 and 1924. OK, the majority was thin in 1923, but you have yet to respond to my question as to WHY the Conservative Party was re-elected - if their measures were so draconian.

It the government knows you have newly illegal arms and knows right where both you and the guns are and then offers amnesty... that's essentially confiscation. Deny it all you like, the stats on firearms licenses show that most legal owners complied. You can access those stats online, btw.

If you finally agree with me that many of the small arms in Britain at that time were weapons that had come home from WW1, then these would have been army issue, not subject to civilian firearms permits at home, and it is unlikely that the police would have known about them. It comes as no surprise to me that many if not most of these weapons would have been turned in during an amnesty, as most holders would not have wanted to keep these weapons. Thus, in this context, amnesty DOES NOT = confiscation.

But what do you mean by the "ruling class"? In 1924, the first Labour Government (which represented the interests of the workers) was indeed elected under the leadership of Ramsay MacDonald. There was no revolution; his premiership was arrived at by the usual democratic process. ie THERE WAS NO REVOLUTION NECESSARY.  

Some more of your quotes -

Roberts. "You will have to take sabotage at the beginning of the strike into account. There are large groups preparing for Soviet government."

Eric Geddes. "You have got to reckon on the electric power stations being put out of order."...

Not sure who Roberts was, but politicians are renowned for talking bull! As for Geddes - yes, the power stations being put out of order. That's exactly what I was telling you about - it happened in three winters out of four in the 1970-1974 time frame. Sure, the Labour Party song is something to do with "the red flag flying", and for sure - a lot of the union militants at that time like Mick McGahey were self declared Marxists... but does this mean that there was a Bolshevik/Communist revolution imminent?  Oh puhleeeezzze - quit the paranoia!

You still cannot account for why the Conservative Party was returned to power in 1922, 1923 and 1924,   and you still can't tell us WHO had all these weapons against which legislation was being enacted. I agree, there were returning war weapons, but there would have been no outlets selling ammunition - or do you know better?

Some other events for you to contemplate: In 1976, the leader of the Miners' Union, Arthur Scargill, was arrested for picketing the Grunwick film processing lab in North London. Holy Revolution, Batman! Another Communist takeover averted!!!

And read all about the 1984-1985 Miners' Strike - another example of workers running amok - punch ups with the police, and ooooh! - I bet they flew that naughty red flag! Margaret Thatcher was in power at that time. Was there a Communist/Bolshevik takeover? Erm.... no.

Mr. Toad, let me give you a little tip for you to bear in mind as you Google your way around the e-universe. Always beware of news reports from one country reporting the news in another country. And always be cautious about applying judgements from your own perspective when reading up on other countries. I learned this in 1981, when I was a guest in your country. Your media was reporting the imminent demise of Britain, which was "under a siege of worker unrest". I was so worried that I phoned my brother to find out what was going on. He put me at ease by advising me that there were pockets of unrest in Croxteth/Toxteth near Liverpool (mostly yobs who wanted a punch up with the police) but "otherwise, life goes on much the same". This was a useful lesson, and one I have always borne in mind when reading foreign news reports. Had you lived in any other country except your own, as I have done (two, actually) then you would know exactly what I meant.

Goodnight, Mr Toad.
And sweet dreams!  

[Mini D]

Hehehe... beetle... you haven't made a single valid point in this thread.  I can't help but notice how vacant your side of the argument has gotten supportwise.

I do like the "my mom said" retort.  It reminded me of "The Waterboy" when Adam Sandler replied to the question "Why do crocodiles have such a mean demeanor?" with "my momma says its because they got all those teeth and no way to brush them."

Toad throws out quotes, you reply with "nuh-uh".  Toad quotes more, you reply with, "huh-uh!".  Damn dude... just let it go... you lost this one badly.

you poor, poor subject.

[Elfie]

Oh puhleeeezzze - quit the paranoia!  

Paranoia is exactly what drove the British gov't to pass the FA in 1920. Paranoia about the Bolsheviks.

British homicides have basically stayed the same for well over 100 years. Britain's gun laws have not changed this.

One other thing will never change. Guns, cars, knives, baseball bats, cricket bats, cast iron skillets....they call all be used as weapons to kill another human being. Yet NONE of them can kill unless a *nutjob* picks one of them up and CHOOSES to use it as a weapon.

As long as human beings are in charge of this world we live in crime and murders will continue to happen. The best we can hope for is to minimize it.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
And how many people was that? Our police force is/was unarmed. If the workers were gathering for some sort of "Bolshevik" revolution as you suggest, how come it didn't happen?  I

[/b]

Been drinking Beet?

The part you quoted was in response to your question on post Hungerford/Dunblane confisications. The banning of handguns was the beginning of that and it happened far later than the '20's.

England's political leadership  perceived the threat of Bolshevism and that was the driving force behind your firearms act of 1920. It is undeniable fact.

Try to get the timeline straight and then ask me what you wish to ask.

[ Beet:
 repeat: Please indicate to me the exact sections in the 1920 Firearms Act which exempted stockbrokers, "university men" and "trusted clerks".

[/b]

Try to read with comprehension. I never said it did.

However, in response to your ridiculous denial of the undeniable link between the Firearms Act of 1920 and the perceived the threat of Bolshevism , I posted this quotation:

At a Cabinet meeting on January 17, 1919, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff raised the threat of "Red Revolution and blood and war at home and abroad." He suggested that the government make sure of its arms.

The next month, the Prime Minister was asking which parts of the army would remain loyal. The Cabinet discussed arming university men, stockbrokers, and trusted clerks to fight any revolution.[57]

The Minister of Transport, Sir Eric Geddes, predicted "a revolutionary outbreak in Glasgow, Liverpool or London in the early spring, when a definite attempt may be made to seize the reins of government." "It is not inconceivable," Geddes warned, "that a dramatic and successful coup d'etat in some large center of population might win the support of the unthinking mass of labour."  

(Footnote [57]: See Colin Greenwood, "The British Experience," in Gun Control Examined 31, a collection of papers presented at Conference on Gun Control, Melbourne University, Aug. 27-28, 1988.)

The Firearms Act of 1920 didn't exempt stockholders. No one said it did.

The point, which you continually obfuscate, is that the Prime Ministers cabinet was extremely concerned about the possiblity of a Russian-style Bolshevik revolution in England. To the extent that they even considered distributing firearms to people considered "trustworty" by the ruling class. Stockbrokers were in that group considered trustworthy. It's in the Cabinet meeting records; it's undeniable.

More proof?

To reinforce a weak and perhaps untrustworthy police force and army, Cabinet ministers had previously proposed a "citizen guard" of politically reliable men to fight against a Bolshevik revolution.

Thomas Jones' notes from the February 2, 1920 conference tell us:

During the discussion Bonar Law so often referred to the stockbrokers as a loyal and fighting class until one felt that potential battalions of stockbrokers were to be found in every town.[76] (Jones, Whitehall Diary, 1:101)

As I'm sure you know, the Prime Minister's Cabinet Secretary was Thomas Jones; the quotes are from his records of the Cabinet meetings.

Beet:

Like I said, after WW1, Britain was faced with the problem of significant numbers of weapons having found their way home from abroad. What I actually said was

[/b]

The part you actually said that was totally wrong was this:

BEET:

Legislation was needed to deal with this situation where none had been needed before. This was in no way connected with the discontent of the workers of those days

[/b]

The legislation was clearly and unmistakably "connected with the discontent of the workers of those days".

The fear of Bolshevism in England by those from the Prime Minister on down through his government has been undeniably documented in this thread. To the point that there's no need to belabor it further; unless you want to look even more silly.

Beet:
   ...But then you ended up agreeing with me by saying You said  Awwww, shame.

[/b]

Hardly. What I said was the English government had the same fear of Bolshevism that the rulers in New Zealand demonstrated. The weapons were only a concern because of the fear of Bolshevism. Without that, I doubt there would have been any Firearms Acts in either country in all probability.

It's all documented in the records Beet. The fear of Bolshevism was the driving force behind the laws in England and New Zealand. Again, you're just making yourself look silly.

Are you saying that your police don't presently confiscate illegal weapons whenever they stumble upon them? No, of course you're not. So what I said is correct. As far as I can determine, published records are not available that tally those confiscations.
 

Beet
In 1920, Britain was a democracy - not a totalitarian state like czarist Russia or communist Russia.

[/b]

Which has does nothing to disprove the fact that George's government passed the Firearms Act in response to its fear of Bolshevism.

Beet:

 but you have yet to respond to my question as to WHY the Conservative Party was re-elected

[/b]

Because that question has no bearing on the reasoning behind the Firearms Act.

Beet:
Thus, in his context, amnesty DOES NOT = confiscation.

Check your Home Office stats on the number of Firearms Certificate holders and the number of guns covered by those Certificates 1995. Then compare the same things in 2000. The number of firearms covered by the certificate has fallen by about half. I'm sure you know which types of firearms required a Certificate in 1995. That's confiscation, amenesty or not.

Beet:

but does this mean that there was a Bolshevik/Communist revolution imminent?  Oh puhleeeezzze - quit the paranoia!

[/b]

I did not say a revolution was imminent.

However, you've essentially said there was no fear of Bolshevism in your government in the period just prior to and immediately after the Firearms Act of 1920; that fear of Bolshevism was in no way related to the passing of the Firearms Act.

You are simply wrong.

I've given you far more than enough quotes to prove your wrong as well.

BTW, Roberts was the Food Controller in George's Cabinet at that time.

Pretty amazing about Minister of Transport Eric Geddes' prediction in early January 1920, eh?

"a revolutionary outbreak in Glasgow, Liverpool or London in the early spring, when a definite attempt may be made to seize the reins of government."

Then you have the Glasgow Bloody Friday, an event described by Robert Munro, Secretary of State for Scotland:

"a misnomer to call the situation in Glasgow a strike-it was a Bolshevist rising".

Yah, right Beet... they weren't worred about Bolshevism.

Beet: I agree, there were returning war weapons, but there would have been no outlets selling ammunition - or do you know better?

[/b]

I know two things. One, prior to and after the Firearms Act I'm sure there were gun shops in England selling common calibers, particularly English military pistol and rifle cartridges. No doubt they sold the more popular calibers from overseas as well. Secondly, apparently the Irish Republicans weren't having too much trouble getting ammo; the Irish experience is mentioned several times in the Cabinet's deliberations over the Bolshevik threat.

Besides, once again you're merely trying to obfuscate. The legislation was directly related to "armed workers" by the fears of your officials. It wasn't the workers; it was the people in power and their fear of armed workers that led to your Firearms Act of 1920. Your ammunition ploy is merely a smoke screen; it's clear what the government feared. Bolshevism.

Mr. Toad, let me give you a little tip for you

[/b]

Here's one for you Beet. If you desire to continue this discussion, you'll have to use your intellect and not your ego.

I'm quite familar with your ego; I'd like to see you use your intellect in this debate however.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Mini D
Hehehe... beetle... you haven't made a single valid point in this thread.  I can't help but notice how vacant your side of the argument has gotten supportwise.

I do like the "my mom said" retort.  It reminded me of "The Waterboy" when Adam Sandler replied to the question "Why do crocodiles have such a mean demeanor?" with "my momma says its because they got all those teeth and no way to brush them."

Toad throws out quotes, you reply with "nuh-uh".  Toad quotes more, you reply with, "huh-uh!".  Damn dude... just let it go... you lost this one badly.

you poor, poor subject.

LOL MiniD! And here I was, expecting you to enlighten me on the difference between a "citizen" and a "subject". You haven't. Could it be that.... you don't know?

I don't need any support in this thread, though all are welcome. What support does your side have - Toad... and you? Forgive me for feeling underwhelmed.

Mr. Toad! Yes, I had a glass of wine - note that it did not cause me to drive my car and cause a fatality.

Ah the perceived threat of Bolshevism - not necessarily a real threat then? I have to hand it to you - nice Googling, but...

...perhaps it would help if we could stick to actual facts and actual events? We all know that politicians have to allow for eventualities. And we all know that politicians/presidents get worked up about perceived threats when none exists at all. Look at your own president - mounted a war against Iraq whose initial cost was some $180bn on the strength that there were WMD in Iraq. None has been found, so was this perceived threat real? Lots of people think that it wasn't, and I think you could be one of them.

And according to your sources, the British govt. was paranoid about the possibility of a "Bolshevik Revolution" on British soil. It never happened. Why is that then? Well, unlike totalitarian Russia, our enfranchisement of the electorate extended to all persons aged 21 and over as of 1918. That was the year that Emily Pankhurst succeeded in getting votes for women. Why would the "potential Bolshevik revolutionaries" in Britain attempt to "seize the reins of government" when an electoral process existed in which they themselves could participate?

And assuming it went ahead, what form could this "Bolshevik Revolution" take? A march on Whitehall? The industrial North is some 150-200 miles away from London for one thing. How would they get there? But can you imagine a coordinated army of cloth capped workers marching up Whitehall, brandishing rusting relics brought home from where they were dropped in the Somme mud?

The point, which you continually obfuscate, is that the Prime Ministers cabinet was extremely concerned about the possiblity of a Russian-style Bolshevik revolution in England. To the extent that they even considered distributing firearms to people considered "trustworty" by the ruling class. Stockbrokers were in that group considered trustworthy. It's in the Cabinet meeting records; it's undeniable.

And did this distribution ever take place? Did the "Bolshevik Revolutionaries" ever look like they were capable of mounting a coordinated armed uprising? Even if it was a perceived potential threat, I VERY much doubt it was a real threat. Do you agree?

I did not say a revolution was imminent.

Alrighty, I'll take that as a YES then - or a MAYBE?

I know two things. One, prior to and after the Firearms Act I'm sure there were gun shops in England selling common calibers, particularly English military pistol and rifle cartridges. No doubt they sold the more popular calibers from overseas as well. Secondly, apparently the Irish Republicans weren't having too much trouble getting ammo; the Irish experience is mentioned several times in the Cabinet's deliberations over the Bolshevik threat.

As I said before, the workers of that era were impoverished, and worked long hours for low pay in crappy conditions. You can't come up with official gun ownership records amongst the working classes of that era and neither can I. But it seems highly unlikely that we had a society of gun enthusiasts who would go tin can plinking on a Saturday morning. Life was work and sleep for those workers.

Earlier you quoted thus:

A general strike in Glasgow led to the raising of the red flag over city hall. The Glasgow Herald called it a first step toward Bolshevism, and the Secretary of State for Scotland called it a Bolshevik rising.

First step towards Bolshevism? LOL! It's the freaking Labour Party anthem, my friend! That was the party that came to power in 1924 under the leadership of Ramsay MacDonald - the result of a democratic electoral process which we know as a General Election! Here is some info -

The Red Flag soon became the anthem of the International Labour Party and it echoed around the world, sung with fire and fervour. Ramsay MacDonald tried to have it replaced as the Labour Party Anthem in 1925 but even though there were over three hundred entries in a competition he was unsuccessful. However Tony Blair and 'New Labour' decided in 1999 the stirring old socialist anthem would no longer be sung to close the Labour Party Conferences but it will continue to be sung 'no matter what Blair or New Labour might think.'.

Bolshevism indeed!!! Source: http://www.wcml.org.uk/culture/songs_redflag.htm

So the 1920 Firearms Act did not exempt stockbrokers and their ilk? Funny that. I was led to believe that our firearms legislation of that time was part of a government orchestrated persecution and seizure of the people's rights. Looks like it applied to everyone then? Well that's no surprise. We never had a 2nd amendment, and were therefore never beholden to the ridiculous belief that flooding our society with guns would reduce crime. The people who would have been able to afford guns/ammo and had to time to use them for practice shooting, if that's what they chose to do, would have been the more affluent segments of society, and natural Conservative voters. So IF they gave up their rights against their wishes in accordance with some draconian government mandate, and IF it was so devastating, and IF there were so many of them, then how come the Conservative Party was re-elected in 1922? (and 1923, and 1924)

Ah yes, the Irish question. In Ireland there was the 1916 Uprising - Michael Collins and all that. They did have guns... I wonder where they got them from.

The IRA was a bloody nuisance to us through the 70s and beyond. There was a lot of talk about them disarming, but quite where it has got to I don't know. The IRA is an illegal terrorist organisation in Britain. As you know, the political wing is known as Sinn Fein. I did a bit of Googling and came up with this photo. It shows the two Sinn Fein leaders Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams. See if you recognise the guy in the middle of this cosy tete a tete.



Well, who would have thought that flying the red flag could have been the first stages of a Bolshevik Rebellion! As I have explained earlier, Eric Geddes' concern regarding the workers' targeting of our power stations was close to the mark. This did indeed happen - not in 1920 perhaps, but in the 1970s. The end result was that the government WAS brought down - but I hardly think of this as a "Bolshevik Rebellion", which is what you're talking about. It was the result of an election, in which Labour presided over a hung parliament.

10 years later, the tables turned. There was a massive miners' strike that lasted a year, with scenes as ugly as the pic you posted about Glasgow. Thatcher crushed it. The power stations were well stocked. The perceived threat was indeed real.

BOLSHEVIK ALERT!!

NUM pickets clash with police in the 1984-1985 miners' strike.

[Mini D]

Beet... you still haven't made a single relevant point.  The only thing you've managed to do is to seize on obscure points (red flag?) and throw a wall of text at them.

Your fundamental reply to Toad's quotes from your parliament was "I don't think so."  Nothing else.  You're whole argument in this thread has been the same.  The quotes you post actually do more to support Toad's argument than your own... and you don't even realize it.

Let's see... someone claiming to stick to actuall facts has used:

I don't think so
Nuh-uh
My mother said...

in this thread.

You really do need to wake up and come up with a point beet.

You do know that you talking about the working class not needing guns and being disgruntled because of long hours basically supports toad's argument... right?  

Damn man... what is it with people sticking to such fundamentally flawed arguments out of shear ignorance these days?

[lazs2]

well... despite all the BS beet is throwing around I think all of us here can see that "sensible" gun laws and regestration and "amnesty" simply mean confiscation.l

If you are an American and value your right to keep and bear arms then you should read this thread and see what has happened in most of the UK.  

George soros and rebecca peters and the UN and finestein won't give up on their plan to confiscate all useful arms from Americans until they are dead.

If they achive it... we will have American apologists like beetle.   they will be touting the reduction in gun homicides while homicides themselves will have gone up and riots and crime through the roof... that is... unless we have a strong socialist government to protect us.... like the old soviet russia for instance.

lazs

[Toad]

Well then, I guess this debate has reached it's end.

I told you I would not continue unless you used your intellect.

You've been proven wrong yet again Beetle; you ignored direct evidence from Parliamentary records and direct quotes of office holders.

Your red herrings, though numerous, are easily seen for what they are.

It is beyond all doubt to any rational reader of this thread that potential Bolshevism was the key factor in England's Firearms Act of 1920.

That you refuse to admit that is your problem, not mine. You're merely validating the image of you that Tomato attested to herself. You are incapable of admitting you're wrong in any situation. (Tomato must be quite a woman to put up with that.)

In that case, I'll close and let the readers decide. I feel I've more than made my case and you've shown absolutely nothing but that famous inability to admit you're simply wrong.

I'm guessing you may have got that from your Mum.

[lazs2]

course boshevism wasn't allways the excuse......

"St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803)
19

              [Annotation to Blackstone's discussion of the right to have arms as the fifth and last auxiliary right:]


              The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence [fn40] suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. [fn41]


              [fn40] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.


              [fn41] Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England.  The commentator himself informs us, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence [sic] to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."


              [A separate discussion in an Appendix, specifically about the Second Amendment.]


              A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


              This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . .  The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.  Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.


              In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes.  True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game.  So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.  [Editorial note:  I understand that this last sentence is considered by some historians to be an exaggeration. 20]


when you have no rights save what your politicians allow you.... then any excuse is good enough to take then away.

let england be our example of what not to do.... just as it has allways been.

lazs

[beet1e]

Well OK then.

MiniD - I guess I'm never going to know the difference between a citizen and a subject then, huh?  "The only thing you've managed to do is to seize on obscure points (red flag?) and throw a wall of text at them. " I wasn't the one who made first mention of the red flag. One of Toad's quotes said "red flag over city hall. The Glasgow Herald called it a first step toward Bolshevism,". I don't agree. As of 1918, there were already 57 Labour MPs sitting in the House of Commons - you know, the party whose anthem is "The Red Flag".

"You do know that you talking about the working class not needing guns and being disgruntled because of long hours basically supports toad's argument... right?" And what argument is that? According to Toad's sources, the 1920 Act "sailed through parliament" - ie no resistance from His Majesty's Opposition, and no protest/demonstration that I am aware of by any group from any social class. I'm sure Toad would have Googled the source - if there was one. Furthermore, when the British Prime Minister himself belonged to the "Red Flag" party (Ramsay MacDonald, 1924 and 1929-1935) I know of no attempts to repeal the 1920 Act in deference to the needs of the workers. There was a major revolt - the 1926 General Strike, but I am unaware of any armed uprising in the course of this event or of any shots being fired at all. Again, if there had been, I'm sure Mr. Toad would have Googled it. He didn't.

Even if we accept Toad's sources - that the reasoning for the 1920 law was the perceived threat of of an armed uprising, do we necessarily believe it? Even if some politicians said that, it doesn't mean they believed it themselves. That's why I threw in that reference to Iraq. Your pres. said that the real reason for the Iraq war was WMD in Iraq, but there are many people who never believed there were WMD in Iraq and many who didn't believe the pres. believed it himself. "All about oil" is what I heard - though I don't necessarily agree myself.

Mr. Toad! How nice to be able to agree with you wholeheartedly at the end of a thread: You're right - Tomato is a hell of a woman.

[lazs2]

yes... tomato is a hell of a woman.  It was all I could do to let you keep her..  the begging helped.

lazs

[Toad]

Yes, perhaps her only fault is her choice in men.