Ban Teh Buttar Knive!!

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
yes... tomato is a hell of a woman.  It was all I could do to let you keep her..  the begging helped.

lazs

Told Tomato you said that! We had a laugh.

Mr. Toad! I'm looking forward to the next one already.

[Toad]

Beet, I relish an honest discussion with intelligent people.

I know you're intelligent but your posts in this thread have certainly cast doubt on your honesty. There's only so much unmitigated ego I can stomach.

There may or may not be a "next one". That depends on you.

[Elfie]

Beet1l you remind me of some Americans who when presented with evidence refuse to believe it. And people call Americans ignorant heh.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Beet, I relish an honest discussion with intelligent people.

I know you're intelligent but your posts in this thread have certainly cast doubt on your honesty. There's only so much unmitigated ego I can stomach.

There may or may not be a "next one". That depends on you.

Toad - thank you for those few kind words.

FWIW I don't think I was being disingenuous. In my heart of hearts I really do believe that there was absolutely NO actual threat of an armed uprising of the British working classes, and the events after 1920 support my belief.

I then provided a somewhat obvious example (Iraq) to illustrate that the perceived threat (or at least the declared perceived threat) is sometimes out of all proportion to the actual threat.

[Toad]

This is absolutely my last word on this.

No one in this thread, certainly not myself, made the case that there was an actual threat of an armed uprising of the British working classes.

What I said was George's government perceived a major threat of Bolshevism in England and the Firearms Act of 1920 was the direct result of the government's perception. This is indisputable, considering the wealth of historical data that supports this position.

In order to avoid admitting that you're mistaken, you continually twisted this (amongst other points you twisted) into NO actual threat of an armed uprising of the British working classes, which was not in the least germane to the discussion of the point.

Your Iraq example is another red herring that merely blows more smoke. It's easily turned around. Whether or not the WMD threat was there is immaterial when considering WHY the government decided to act. They decided to act because they perceived the threat.  This is EXACTLY why George's government passed the Firearms Act of 1920, the perceived threat of Bolshevism. So, you merely agree that governments act on perceived threats.

Bottom line is that there is irrefutable documented evidence in the records of the Cabinet meetings, in the press, in historical research and in private memoirs that the Firearms Act  of 1920 was passed due to a perceived threat of Bolshevism.

Now, I can either assume you are intelligent enough to understand that but that your ego prevents you from admitting you were mistaken. And, as I said, I've had about enough ego, to the point that future discussions are rather pointless.

Or I can assume you are simply not that intelligent which makes further discussions rather pointless as well.

I would prefer that you simply drop the ego. We are all wrong at some point; its no big deal to admit it.

[Rude]

Not me....I'm never wrong and you know it too!!!

[Red Tail 444]

Who needs utensils anyway? What about all those hunters who woof about not needing to go to the supermarket to feed their family..yada yada yada...

I say ban all eating instruments, and we can tear the meat off the bone with our hands...you know, be real men...

In fact, ban EVERYTHING god-damnit

[lazs2]

I don't care what they ban so longt as there are no penalties involved for not observing the ban.

lazs

[beet1e]

OK, Mr. Toad. I'm getting rather tired of it too. I have a visitor here from America (I'll come back to this) , and don't want to spend a long time on this post.

Actually what pisses me off about your analysis of British firearms laws is the way you depict us as a nation of sheep, powerless to protest about legislation that was passed. We had the 1920 Firearms Act, and as your earlier quoted sources have said, it "sailed through parliament". Now to me, this comes as no surprise for the simple reason that no-one here (apart from pockets of special interest groups like your beaters) gives a fork about guns, and therefore it comes as no surprise to me that there was no opposition to this legislation. Points to note are that the Conservative government that passed it was re-elected, and that there was no opposition from any social class (natural Conservative supporter or natural Labour supporter). Indeed, when Ramsay MacDonald was elected (in 1924 and 1929-1935) I am unaware of any attempts to repeal this legislation. Guns were not an issue, and whatever conversations and other banter wafted around Whitehall at that time, there was never any actual threat of an armed proletarian uprising. However, don't think that as "British subjects" (as some people are fond of reminding us) that the people were not prepared to stand up to fight on issues which were important to them: Wages, hours and working conditions were the primary issues, and the workers did indeed protest in the 1926 General Strike. But I haven't heard of the workers protesting about any gun rights being taken away.

And yet you seem unable to grasp the fact that maybe - just maybe - any surplus arms were handed in voluntarily. You said

Originally posted by Toad
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.

How would the cops know who had guns and who didn't after WW1? What police records would have existed? How could they know if a returning soldier had picked up a weapon dropped on the battlefield by a dead soldier or even an enemy soldier? In the chaos following the war, the cops wouldn't have known who had what - especially as guns for the war would have been tracked by military records, not police records - if they were tracked at all. Even if they did - how could they deal with it? Are you suggesting they searched every working man's home in the land? - there would have been millions.  Hardly seems plausible. Besides, if they were that worried, all they had to do was to cut off the supplies of ammunition and/or examine records of ammo sales...

For me, however, it's much easier to accept the scenario of weapons being handed in voluntarily. We were never an armed society as yours has been since Day1. We were never a nation of frontiersmen. We never had to have our menfolk defending the property by standing on the stoop with a rifle.

But for you (and other American gun enthusiasts consumed with the rights conferred upon them by your 2nd amendment) the notion of voluntarily handing in a weapon to the authorities because it is no longer wanted or needed is inconceivable. So for you, any such amnesty is tantamount to confiscation.

As for how disinterested our country is about guns, you only have to look at the low rate of UK participation in these gun threads. Apart from me (and I have a special interest having lived in the US) we have maybe one or two others - that's all. And as I said before, when I came to sell my Joyce Lee Malcolm book about guns in Britain, the eBay ad attracted just a single bid of £2 - that's how much interest there is in guns here.

My visitor here is an English friend - a mere subject - who has lived in Arkansas for about 4 years. We were talking this morning about the process of applying for US citizenship - something he doesn't intend to do. He's happy with his green card. I asked him if there's anything he cannot do as a non-citizen. The only thing he knows about is not being able to vote. I asked him if he could buy a gun - yes he can. The only stipulation is that he be a resident of the state...

...so is he going to buy one, given that about 60-70% of the people he knows out there have guns? Nope... why not? He doesn't see the need for one. In a way, it would be neat if he did - think of it - a British "subject", owning a gun legally in the US.

By the way, Toad, I think you'll find that our PM, David Lloyd George, had a double barrelled surname even if it wasn't hyphenated. Hence, his surname was Lloyd George, not simply George.

Toodle-Pip
Beet.

[Mini D]

Actually beetle, voluntary would have involved the people turning in the surplus weapons before ligislation mandated it.  You don't voluntarily do something after being told to do it, you comply.

Not a very strong argument on the "we aren't sheep" side of hte fence.

[beet1e]

As you seem convinced about Bolshevism, and have googled the references, I have to ask myself - did the government really believe it themselves, or was it smoke and mirrors to galvinise the commons into action and pass the new law?

I brought up Iraq because there are plenty of people who do not believe there was ever any threat of WMD in Iraq, and do not believe that even your government believed it.

As for Britain, you point out that stockbrokers/trusted clerks were being considered for being armed by the government, and yet you have agreed that they were not granted exemption from the 1920 Act. Can you explain?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Mini D
You don't voluntarily do something after being told to do it, you comply.

Oh yeah? So what were all those "when guns are outlawed, then I'll be an outlaw" bumper stickers I see in the US? And do you assume that all British people do what they're told? The law says "do not burgle". I guess some people just cannot read.

[Mini D]

Once again, the word volunteer does not apply to a mandated action.  The term "amnesty" does not equate to "volunteer".  There is a very specific statement being made with both:  Turn in your guns or go to jail.

Oh yeah... they "volunteered".  No... they complied in order to avoid jail.

But... feel free to bring up the U.S. philosophy on it Beetle.  Just don't try to pretend you aren't saying that brit's are sheep when you use that one.  It won't wash.

Your government has you convinced that as long as you do what they say you'll be just fine.  That's cool.  It will stay cool until you actually come to terms with the fact that when it isn't just fine, you'll be absolutely powerless to do anything about it.  Our country operates under the philosophy that no branch of government is to be trusted completely and  the voters themselves are never in a position where they are powerless to defend themselves from either individuals or government action.

It might seem odd, but a system built on distrusting any branch of government seems to make a hell of a lot more sense to me.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e

And yet you seem unable to grasp the fact that maybe - just maybe - any surplus arms were handed in voluntarily. You said How would the cops know who had guns and who didn't after WW1? What police records would have existed?

[/b]

Are you really that obtuse? I've previously pointed out that my statement you quoted refers to the post-Dunblane/Hungerford amnesties. Obviously you're not really reading what I post.

For the rest of it, you'll have to wait. I could explain... again... but since you aren't reading what I write I see no purpose. I think if you reread the posts you'll find your answers already there.

[genozaur]

Originally posted by beet1e
As you seem convinced about Bolshevism, and have googled the references, I have to ask myself - did the government really believe it themselves, or was it smoke and mirrors to galvinise the commons into action and pass the new law?

I brought up Iraq because there are plenty of people who do not believe there was ever any threat of WMD in Iraq, and do not believe that even your government believed it.

As for Britain, you point out that stockbrokers/trusted clerks were being considered for being armed by the government, and yet you have agreed that they were not granted exemption from the 1920 Act. Can you explain?

Dear Mr Beet,
It's an odd thing to deny that in 1920 the red flag was used PRIMARILY as the flamboyant symbol of the international Soviet revolution (i.e. of Bolshevism). The red flag was the state standard of the Soviet Russia since Jan.28, 1918 till Dec.30, 1922 when it was adopted as the state standard of the USSR.
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Russia.htm

In the early 1920s the Communist parties of several other european countries established Soviet governments (e.g. Bavarian Soviet republic in Germany, Hungarian Soviet republic). Read about the use of the red flag early in 1920 in Germany in the link below.
http://www.thedempseyarchives.com/1920.htm
#

By March 20 of this year  in Germany a Red Army of 50,000 workers loyal to the Communist Party  has occupied  a large part of the Ruhr industrial district, and on today also the Communist newspapre the Ruhr Echo announces that the red flag must fly in victory over all of Germany.  "Germany must become a Republic of Soviets and, in union with Russia, the springboard for the coming victory of the World Revolution and World Socialism." (SOURCE: Quoted in ADOLF HITLER by John Toland   Ballantine Books (paperback), pp. 100-101)..
#

 It just looks that they don't teach history of the world in the British schools.

The Red Scare of the 1920s was not connected with the proud symbol of Labour, but with the same Red Flag being used as the symbol of the "world revolution" propagated at that time by the head of the Russia's Soviet government Vladimir Lenin and the Red Army chief Lev Trotskiy.