Off Topic UK has done well-by not given free access to gun??

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Citizens should have access to gun in UK legally?

  • No

    Votes: 29 96.7%

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
People do have legal access to some fire arms in this country.

The fact is the usa allow access to arms that have no place outside a military base. You can get a mini gun ffs.

This country will provide a license for a shotgun or rifle.

Hand guns are not required by anyone outside a gun range if you really want to play and the Olympic shooters all whined after Dunblane.

The argument that it is some sort of right enshrined in constitution in usa is an excuse. They have let the genie out of the bottle many decades ago and admire a complete basket case at this point where gun love is so high it makes the place just stupid
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
People do have legal access to some fire arms in this country.

The fact is the usa allow access to arms that have no place outside a military base. You can get a mini gun ffs.

This country will provide a license for a shotgun or rifle.

Hand guns are not required by anyone outside a gun range if you really want to play and the Olympic shooters all whined after Dunblane.

The argument that it is some sort of right enshrined in constitution in usa is an excuse. They have let the genie out of the bottle many decades ago and admire a complete basket case at this point where gun love is so high it makes the place just stupid
Click to expand...

Technically speaking, the right to bear arms means they are allowed to own a thermonuclear warhead. The fact that supplementary legislation stops this happening means that they could, if they wanted, limit the right to what arms an ordinary citizen is allowed to bear. They won't follow this logical conclusion though, as they LIKE guns.

The constitutuional guff is just a self-serving smokescreen.
 
donga darko said:
Technically speaking, the right to bear arms means they are allowed to own a thermonuclear warhead. The fact that supplementary legislation stops this happening means that they could, if they wanted, limit the right to what arms an ordinary citizen is allowed to bear. They won't follow this logical conclusion though, as they LIKE guns.

The constitutuional guff is just a self-serving smokescreen.
Click to expand...

They ignore the fact it I think says for militias not for any individual. They should be all made do 2 years conscription and then hold their guns in depots if they are so fired up to tote like the wild west
 
donga darko said:
Technically speaking, the right to bear arms means they are allowed to own a thermonuclear warhead. The fact that supplementary legislation stops this happening means that they could, if they wanted, limit the right to what arms an ordinary citizen is allowed to bear. They won't follow this logical conclusion though, as they LIKE guns.

The constitutuional guff is just a self-serving smokescreen.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't!

The 'arms' were, and are, what a single person could carry, which would not include heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
 
Guy I knew had his dad's wwii rifle and hand guns. M1 grand. Now that's a serious piece of kit for any police to deal with so if that's out there then the cops get rifles too.. then it all ramps up.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
They ignore the fact it I think says for militias not for any individual. They should be all made do 2 years conscription and then hold their guns in depots if they are so fired up to tote like the wild west
Click to expand...

It is concerning militias not the people in general, but lets face it the US constitution and every other nation's constitution gets pissed on.
The 2nd allows towns ect to organise and arm a militia in defence of said town city or state. As usual clever language is used to circumvent the 2nd.

There is nothing in there that says each individual person has the right to own anything from a chain gun to a .50 cal MG.

You can buy anything the military has for troops. Bullet proof face masks body armour night vision grenades stun grenades smoke grenades assault rifles smgs pistols incendiary ammo mortars armour piercing ammo, even 40mm cannons. Sure there are criteria to be met for some of that list before you can buy it but still, you have a population that is better armed than some countries' militaries <laugh>
 
Yup it's written to allow 1776 people defend themselves against red coats and injuns. It's not fit for a modern society and especially modern weapons.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
Guy I knew had his dad's wwii rifle and hand guns. M1 grand. Now that's a serious piece of kit for any police to deal with so if that's out there then the cops get rifles too.. then it all ramps up.
Click to expand...

True that. The M1 Garand can put a round through a tree. Even that old gun on the streets would **** the police up.
You ain't hiding it down your pants though :D
 
The US Bill of Rights was actually modelled on the English Bill of Rights of 1689. One of the ancient rights and liberties in the English one being - "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". The Framers copied this almost exactly in 2nd Amendment.

Democracy is supposed to be about the greater good, which gun control would certainly start addressing.
 
Americans will never admit it but they don't trust federal government. The union is set than they'd like people to think it is and then the rednecks don't trust their own states either.

Nobody in a normal state would want guns but the yanks want them to defend themselves from themselves. You never know when the south will rise again you know.
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
Americans will never admit it but they don't trust federal government. The union is set than they'd like people to think it is and then the rednecks don't trust their own states either.

Nobody in a normal state would want guns but the yanks want them to defend themselves from themselves. You never know when the south will rise again you know.
Click to expand...

They say it all the time, especially the further you get from Washington <laugh>

They had that stand off against the Feds in Nevada, Cliven Bundy and a militia armed up and faced off the federal BLM, a mexican standoff over grazing fees <laugh> Of course though those people pointing guns at police were white so it was fine <ok> No one got arrested.

Texas currently believes the federal government is about to "invade Texas" in operation jade Helm, some military exercise. <laugh>
 
moreinjuredthanowen said:
Americans will never admit it but they don't trust federal government. The union is set than they'd like people to think it is and then the rednecks don't trust their own states either.

Nobody in a normal state would want guns but the yanks want them to defend themselves from themselves. You never know when the south will rise again you know.
Click to expand...
They've never trusted the federal government which is why they have a system of checks and balances.
 
Bodanki said:
Their police are pathetic.
Some of the footage I have seen in recent weeks, like a cop pulls someone over for a suspected DUI, he has an outstanding arrest warrant for non payment of Alamony (US equivalent of CSA, child support) so the guy runs, and the cop just shoots him 8 times in the back whilst fleeing. Didn't attack the cop, was unarmed and was fleeing with his back to him, and boom...8 rounds in the back

You must log in or register to see media

Sorry it was a broken tail light.
The officer "feared for his life". Seriously? you ****ing ****!
Click to expand...


That was South Carolina as well as yer man Roof with the killing spree, Slager, known for beating on black people, is one of SC's finest.
 
johnsonsbaby said:
No it doesn't!

The 'arms' were, and are, what a single person could carry, which would not include heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

One person could carry a nuclear warhead.

But that's not the point. The original constitutional right to bear arms doesn't specify numbers or types. It certainly doesn't exclude biological, nuclear or chemical arms that hadn't even been invented in the latter 18th century. The fact that subsequent legislation does prohibit such weapons (including the nuclear warhead I referred to) is the salient point. You CAN legislate control on firearms without infringing the constitution, and even the NRA know that, despite the posturing.
 
Last edited:
DETROIT (WWJ) — Police are investigating a fatal shooting that took place at a block party on Detroit’s west side on Saturday night.
According to police, at least 10 people were shot during the incident, one fatally. One of the surviving victims is in critical condition, while injuries to others appear to be non-life-threatening.
The party was being held at a basketball court near Webb St. and Dexter Ave.
Detroit Police Sergeant Cassandra Lewis told WWJ Newsradio 950 that the shots were fired around 8:45 p.m. in the area where an estimated 400 to 500 people were attending a party.
Police have made no arrests and there is no information on a suspect. The incident remains under investigation.

Shooting and killing of their Presidents Abraham Lincoln.and John Kennedy was madness.
Killing of Martin Luther King (Jnr) and John Lennon was also madness. I wonder if there was gun control these would happen?.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back