How British laws killed off gun ownership

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by JWagner, Sep 7, 2013.

  1. JWagner

    JWagner New Member

    598
    0
    0
  2. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 New Member

    614
    0
    0
    Sounds alot like what's happening here, huh?
     

  3. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    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.
     
  4. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    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.:(
     
  5. Daoust_Nat

    Daoust_Nat Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,435
    109
    63
    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.
     
  6. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,077
    152
    63
    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.

    The British royal family have no power in the UK to effect firearms laws or any other laws.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2013
  7. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0

    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.
     
  8. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,077
    152
    63
    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. :rolleyes:
    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.
     
  9. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    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?
     
  10. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,077
    152
    63
    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.
     
  11. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    then please explain why and how the shotgun was illegally obtained.
     
  12. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,077
    152
    63
    He said he found it. It doesn't matter why it was illegal like it or not. He had a shotgun that was taken of him for shooting at and hitting the car of someone that was on his property. The person was not a threat that might be OK in America but it would be seen as overreacting here.
     
  13. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    are you assuming that the person he shot at on his property wasn't a threat, or you KNOW they weren't a threat?

    huge difference there.
     
  14. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    You're not in trouble in a lot of US states, just the FEW that are commie run progressive utopias: NY, NJ, CA, and a couple more.

    If you find a gun in the US it's simple. A few of my friends have been lucky fishing and hunting. Step 1: Contact police with serial number to make sure it's not stolen. If not stolen, proceed to step 2. If stolen, turn over to police to give back to rightful owner. Step 2: Generally after 30 days if no one comes foward to claim their property, it becomes yours. It's just like finding money, cuff links, or a guitar.

    If you are faced with an intruder wouldn't you grab the best tool available to preserve your life? I'm sure he wasn't thinking, "Oh my, my shotgun certificate isn't valid and I found this gun without getting permission from my enslavers. Therefore I deserve to die/be victimized."

    Your thought process is why crime is so high in the UK and the criminals have MORE rights and consideration than the victims. I can hear it now, gun crime in the US is......Yada yada yada, I mean crime regardless of the means used. A rape or robbery with a knife or physical force is the same as a rape or robbery committed with a belt fed machine gun.
     
  15. 7.62 Man

    7.62 Man New Member

    904
    0
    0
    I have read many reports that the gangs in the UK are using plastic flair guns to rob people lately.
     
  16. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,077
    152
    63
    Because the guy he shot at reported it to the police that's why he had his certificate revoked. I don't think he would have went to the police if he was a threat.

    Yes and that is self defence shooting someone in the back when they are trying to get away would seen as excessive force. Not just in the UK.

    That's America not the UK or a lot of other countries. This person was not allowed to own firearms because of his past behaviour. If you were a felon in America and found a firearm and kept it you are telling me that would be OK. ?
     
  17. jigs-n-fixture

    jigs-n-fixture Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,440
    516
    113
    Exactly what states is it legal to fire on them as they retreat through a window?

    You have the right to defend yourself against threat, not to execute them when they are fleeing.
     
  18. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    again, are you assuming that or do you know that for a fact? because i have had the cops called on me before on my own property, by trespassers! so should they come and remove my firearms?
     
  19. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,077
    152
    63
    The shotgun hole in the guys car was a clue for the police. If he was a threat drawing attention to himself by going to the police wouldn't be a good idea as they would check has background for criminal offences etc.
     
  20. Axxe55

    Axxe55 The Apocalypse Is Coming.....

    7
    2
    0
    are you sure about that? a person would have had to be have been caught to have a criminal background. does not mean the they still didn't have criminal intent when on the man's property for him to shoot at them.

    are you taking this at face value, or do you know for a fact about the details of this incident? just because the media reports something doesn't mean it's always the truth. they have been caught many times not telling the truth or omitting certain details about a story.