Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > How British laws killed off gun ownership

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-07-2013, 06:56 PM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: tucson,arizona
Posts: 462
Liked 175 Times on 112 Posts
Likes Given: 50

Default How British laws killed off gun ownership

It was a long slow process that severely restricted firearms ownership for Brits. And, of course, it has done nothing to inconvenience the criminals.

http://thegunwriter.blogs.heraldtribune.com/14013/i-am-tony-martin

__________________
JWagner is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 09-07-2013, 11:26 PM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 605
Liked 318 Times on 189 Posts
Likes Given: 508

Default

Sounds alot like what's happening here, huh?

__________________
Warrior1256 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 01:30 AM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
1911love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,459
Liked 628 Times on 379 Posts
Likes Given: 12

Default

Good read. I can't believe the dirt bag got less time than the homeowner and the dirt bag was given money to sue the good guy. I've said it before, all the freedom lovers in the UK should come here and we should deport all of our anti-rights people to the UK. Both groups would be happy.

__________________
1911love is offline  
7
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 02:46 AM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Edge of Darkness
Posts: 6,495
Liked 4788 Times on 2678 Posts
Likes Given: 1736

Default

Following WWI the Euro leeches "Royals" were being executed in other countries. The Czarist Russian "Royals" met their fate in a cold forest grave. In England their useless expensive even though historically oppressive Royal family was very afraid. The Czarist were cousins. The British people were disarmed in order to protect this notion of rule by birth.

__________________
nitestalker is offline  
WebleyFosbery38 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 04:02 PM   #5
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Daoust_Nat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orlando,Florida
Posts: 2,035
Liked 1158 Times on 569 Posts
Likes Given: 72

Default

Rule by birth, Hmmm, doesn't that look like the plan Obummer is trying to walk down? Take away our guns, reduce the size of the military, heavily arm homeland security, retire older military personnel that might now be naive enough to drink his Kool Aide?

For instance take the new voting law in Colorado. You don't have to live in the district to vote, just go and say you intend to live their some time. Bingo. you get registerred and are allowed to vote in that district.

__________________

A bad day at the range is better then a good day on the job!

Daoust_Nat is offline  
towboater Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 05:40 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
manta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK.
Posts: 1,428
Liked 359 Times on 254 Posts
Likes Given: 106

Default

The article doesn't tell the full story as usual. One Tony" Martin was in possession of a illegally obtained firearm when he shot the burglars. Martin had his shotgun certificate revoked in 1994 after he found a man on his property and shot a hole in the back of his vehicle. He shot them and (twice in the back) when they were trying to flee through the window something that would get you in trouble in a lot of American stats not just the UK. You are allowed to use reasonable force in the UK to defend yourself shooting people in the back after they are no longer a threat is seen as unreasonable force.

Quote:
The Czarist were cousins. The British people were disarmed in order to protect this notion of rule by birth.
The British royal family have no power in the UK to effect firearms laws or any other laws.
__________________

Last edited by manta; 09-08-2013 at 05:42 PM.
manta is online now  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 08:03 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
1911love's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,459
Liked 628 Times on 379 Posts
Likes Given: 12

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manta View Post
The article doesn't tell the full story as usual. One Tony" Martin was in possession of a illegally obtained firearm when he shot the burglars. Martin had his shotgun certificate revoked in 1994 after he found a man on his property and shot a hole in the back of his vehicle. He shot them and (twice in the back) when they were trying to flee through the window something that would get you in trouble in a lot American stats not just the UK. You are allowed to use reasonable force in the UK to defend yourself shooting people in the back after they are no longer a threat is seen as unreasonable force.

Illegally obtained firearm bc his shotgun certificate was revoked? Progressive BS IMO. Shot them in the back is a prob for you? They were in his home! Newsflash, in most US states if they are in your home it doesn't matter where you shoot them. Would you really take a chance when your home is invaded and your life threatened all to appear to the "authorities" as the one who took the moral high ground??? Besides, I see nothing immoral about shooting an intruder in the back, balls, face, armpit, etc. Wake up.
__________________
1911love is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 08:19 PM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
manta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK.
Posts: 1,428
Liked 359 Times on 254 Posts
Likes Given: 106

Default

Quote:
Illegally obtained firearm bc his shotgun certificate was revoked? Progressive BS IMO.
So if you shot someone in the back in America with an illegally owned firearm if you were a felon for example that would be OK. The authorities would not have a problem with that.
Quote:
most US states
You said it most us states. Is that not what I said.

Quote:
you in trouble in a lot of American states not
Quote:
Besides, I see nothing immoral about shooting an intruder in the back, balls, face, armpit, etc. Wake up.
Good for you. There are laws in America and the UK when it comes to using deadly force. You don't have to follow them as long as you are willing to face the consciences if you don't.
__________________
manta is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 08:25 PM   #9
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Axxe55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East Texas, Texas!
Posts: 27,174
Liked 19859 Times on 11278 Posts
Likes Given: 50043

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manta View Post
So if you shot someone in the back in America with an illegally owned firearm if you were a felon for example that would be OK. The authorities would not have a problem with that.
You said it most us states. Is that not what I said.



Good for you. There are laws in America and the UK when it comes to using deadly force. You don't have to follow them as long as you are willing to face the consciences if you don't.
but if we follow the example of the UK, Aulstralia and other countries, then it puts more power in the hands of the criminals and makes criminals out of LAC's who would use force to defende themselves.

not an attractive option IMO. why reward a criminal for committing a violent act in the first place? does that seem right to you?
__________________
Coming From The Village Of The Damned.
Resist All Tyranny And Oppression.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke.
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2013, 08:36 PM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
manta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK.
Posts: 1,428
Liked 359 Times on 254 Posts
Likes Given: 106

Default

Quote:
but if we follow the example of the UK, Aulstralia and other countries, then it puts more power in the hands of the criminals and makes criminals out of LAC's who would use force to defend themselves.
Not if they are innocent homeowners defending their property. In this case he used a shotgun that he had illegally. You don't have to like the laws but if you break them then you have to face the consciences. You can use force to defend yourself including deadly force in the UK. But shooting someone in the back with an illegal obtained firearm when they are running away will get you in trouble not just in the UK I think.
__________________
manta is online now  
TDS92A Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
New poll on British gun laws JWagner Legal and Activism 57 06-01-2013 04:37 AM
British .303 synical Curio & Relic Discussion 13 07-18-2012 12:43 AM
303 British Help? Ronaldo General Rifle Discussion 8 06-04-2011 04:07 AM
Help with s&w british 38 REGALPIMP1978 Revolver Handguns 4 01-05-2011 12:11 AM