Don't Let This Happen Here

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by clip11, Jul 17, 2011.

  1. clip11

    clip11 New Member

    178
    0
    0
    Here is what happens when the 2nd Ammendment gets destroyed: England's Story - NFSCars Forums

    And it all started with "reasonable" and "responsible" gun laws. All permits and registrations to own and carry guns (or any other type of arms whether they be knives, brass knuckles, nunchucks etc.) should be done away with. They'll lead to nothing but trouble.

    Alot of gun control laws are sold under the lie that they prevent crime and they make the public safer. And the public, many of whom are willing to sacrifice their rights for a feeling of safety (they're not actually safe, they just want the feeling). I always said that if every gun in Detroit disappeared tonight, crime would remain the same. The guns would be replaced in most cases with knives and blunt objects (which in some cases can do more damage than a gun). And there would be some criminals that would eventually get access to more guns. Although you can't really blame the public, they're just reacting to 50 years of propoganda concerning guns.

    Some of you may have family that are anti-gun like I do. I could tell my family right now I have a gun for self defense and it would cause much commotion. But I could tell them I have a baseball bat for self defense and a few comments may be made and the subject will be forgotten in a few minutes. The difference is there has been no massive media propoganda against baseball bats like there has been against guns. This has to stop.

    I remember as a child in pre-school I would make finger guns and I was told by my teacher that guns are bad and only bad people use guns.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2011
  2. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    Screw "gun control". Let's have "law control", where legislators get

    thrown in prison for making crappy regulations...
     

  3. clip11

    clip11 New Member

    178
    0
    0
    I agree 100%
     
  4. Cory2

    Cory2 New Member

    575
    0
    0
    I feel as though I could definately do much more damage to a person with my sword than I could with a hand gun... But my sword is not concealable ;) and its not a ranged weapon.

    I am against every law that restricts a citizens ability to do anything that doesn't infringe on another citizens rights.
     
  5. Korey

    Korey New Member

    81
    0
    0
    personally I think there should be zero regulations on what fire arm people can own.
     
  6. bigbomar4

    bigbomar4 New Member

    453
    0
    0
    While I am 100% gun rights I do think there should be some gun control laws, very few but still some. The laws I support are simple, if you start just waving your gun around for no reason you go to jail, if you are a convicted felon (particulary violent crimes) you should not own an mg, or if you are proven to have a mental defect and are known to be violent you should not own a gun. Other than that yes the regs should go away. If I wish to protect my home with a .50cal browning mg that should be my right. If I wish to open carry or conceal carry without getting the states ok that should be my right.
     
  7. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    I always thought the word for ANYBODY who

    tried to subvert the Constitution was TREASON!

    Hypocrisy, cowardice, and subjugation of the sheeple

    should have our turncoat administration brought

    up on charges.

    These people aren't fit to be in charge of a

    maggot ridden used diaper, and they don't even have the

    good sense, brains, class, or humility to be ashamed of

    their actions in front of an enraged nation.
     
  8. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,129
    118
    63
    England has long been anti-gun. By the time of WWII most of the guns in England had been confiscated on some whim or the other. After Hitler attacked England from the air, thousands of US citizens were asked to donate guns to help Brit citizens protect themselves from German invasion. The guns were supposed to be returned after the war, most were never returned.

    There are no "states rights" in England. The antigun Brit gov't sent their thugs to tiny Pitcairn Island in the South Pacific to confiscate guns from Fletcher Christian's descendents.

    The police do not report on thousands of gun crimes in order to keep their beloved status quo and to avoid alarming the sheeple.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...e-been-under-reported-police-memo-admits.html


    IMO: Although we need to be ever vigilant, anti-gun and anti-self defense laws in England will have little or no effect on the US.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011
  9. IGETEVEN

    IGETEVEN New Member

    8,358
    4
    0
    Indeed. But real gun control is being able to hit your target. :cool:

    You can outrun a sword blade, but not a bullet. ;)

    This. :cool:
     
  10. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    I agree, but let's take it to the right level to begin debate: there is nothing in the Constitution about firearms. 2A only refers to "arms". As in any arms, not just firearms.
     
  11. clip11

    clip11 New Member

    178
    0
    0
    It needs to be made clear that even the so-called responsible gun laws are bad news. The first laws in England was that guns could not be sold to felons and minors and you needed a license to possess one that could be obtained from the post office for a fee. Kind of reminds me of a concealed carry permit.

    And since it could be done so easily, there was no opposition. And it took a while, but now England is totally disarmed. It doesn't matter how easy it is to get a permit. You may have to spin around in a circle and pay a penny to get a permit, but it doesn't matter, it only gets worst, and somehow, we have to get freedom from all registrations and permits from the government. Local, state, and federal governments included.
     
  12. Cory2

    Cory2 New Member

    575
    0
    0
    Anyone ever noticed that the last two digits in the years major gun laws were signed are always divisible by 3 and 4? 1934, 1968, 1986, 1994. 3 will always go into one of the numbers and 4 will always go into the other. I have always found it.... odd.
     
  13. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,129
    118
    63
    A short history of British gun control:

    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html

    Of special significance is the fact that the Brits outlawed the carrying of guns for self defense in 1953. It is now a criminal offense to defend oneself in nearly any situation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2011
  14. knfxda

    knfxda New Member

    690
    0
    0
    Anyone ever notice that the 1st two digits are always 19!

    Anyone ever notice that the middle two numbers all start with a 9!

    Anyone ever notice that the only numbers missing are 2, 5, and 7!

    And that if you add 2+5+7, you get 14! That's one more than 13!!!

    Spooky! :eek:
     
  15. IndianJoe

    IndianJoe New Member

    1
    0
    0
    As I recall, "shall not be infringed" is not followed by "except certain firearms and high cap mags"

    If I am a law abiding citizen, I should be able to, without question, own a M1 Abrams tank if I so desire
     
  16. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    The gun control in the U.K. has always been a pain in my ass for our cousins over the water. But there is not much I can do to help them except carry on the fight for gun rights here and hope they take note and do the same there.
     
  17. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    These days "shall not be infringed." means " lets regulate guns out of existence, while we, as legislators trusted to do a job by

    the general public, suck up to special interests, pander more votes,

    and,in general, make a sham of properly governing this once-great nation."
     
  18. alhefner

    alhefner New Member

    112
    0
    0
    The Second Amendment does not address "self defense" but rather the defense of the entire nation by the militia which is every able person....

    One of the HUGE debates the framers of our Constitution had was whether or not to even include a Bill of Rights. The reasoning was that it might turn out that future government may "interpret" the Constitution as granting only certain rights instead of protecting certain rights. That would mean that if the "Right" was not "granted" by the bill of rights, then the "right" did not actually exist....that is currently the view of many people today.

    But, the framers, and most reasonable people, understand that there are certain rights that need no special explanation and are in existence as "natural" or God given rights.

    One of those "natural, or God given, rights is the absolute right to self defense. Ask around among liberals and conservatives and most will agree that humans have the right to defend themselves from harm...the difference will be in just "how" that defense is to be undertaken.

    It is my view that in the act of self defense, any means that accomplishes the goal is more than acceptable. I feel that firearms are an invaluable tool for anyone to use in self defense and since all have the right to defend themselves from harm, all have the right to have the best tools they can get for the job....only exception is cases where other people have taken on the 24/7 responsibility for providing security...that would be certain institutions and all jails and prisons.

    Like Mr. Jefferson said, "no free man shall be debarred the use of arms."
     
  19. diggsbakes

    diggsbakes New Member

    1,680
    0
    0
    It's just like the old "GIve 'em an Inch. . ." saying. Despite the fact that it took almost a decade to disarm the citizens of The "Once Great" Britain, it still happened. Sad story. . . Even sadder how the morons on that forum reacted!!!

    That's why we cannot allow any ground to be gained as far as any of our Constitutional Rights go, especially the 2nd Amendment. Because if we don't have the 2nd, then we don't have the means to ultimately protect the rest. . .
     
  20. clip11

    clip11 New Member

    178
    0
    0
    Correct! And the people on that forum must've been smoking crack or something. What the hell kind of drugs are they on???