OT - The Queen's Christmas Message

perry owens · Post by **perry owens** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:56 am

Nice to hear the Queen say a thank you to our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan http://www.youtube.com/theroyalchannel
For a brief moment I felt proud to be British - not something that happens a lot these days.
Perry Owens

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:50 pm

Take a bit more than that for me Mr Owens. How about the right to shoot a pistol for starters. Then how about the ancient right to defend one self with what ever I so choose? When this country starts treating it,s adults like adults and not children then it may get some of my respect

kimwcook · Post by **kimwcook** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:41 pm

I'm with you Nath.

jd45 · Post by **jd45** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:48 pm

+1 Nath, jd45

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 7:48 pm

From Perry Owens previous posts I think you and him are on the same page Nath

Good luck to you fellas in fighting the good fight.

perry owens · Post by **perry owens** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:59 pm

Hey Nath,
Yes we are on the same page in that we are both Brits and we both hate what our government is doing to our country. But let's not confuse the Monarchy with the Government since the two have been separated for many years. I consider that the Royals have done a lot to support field sports in the past and, if you recall, Prince Philip publicly commented at the time of the proposed handgun ban that "They might as well ban cricket bats because you could kill with those too". I wrote and thanked him for his support and got a personal reply, which is more than I got from any of the 630 MP's I also wrote to.
You don't have a "right" to shoot a pistol but then you never did. You still do have the ancient right to self defense but it is not by any means you choose and it never was. What the law prescribes is the use of "reasonable force" but what the law lacks is a uniform interpretation. One right you do have however is the right to go and live and work in any country in the European Union that may have better firearms laws. When Blair was elected I vowed to leave the UK and I did. Now, after 5 years in the US my allowable visa time is up and I am coming back, Believe me, if I don't like what I find I will be off somewhere else in Europe.

Perry Owens

Post by **AmBraCol** » Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:35 pm

perry owens wrote:You don't have a "right" to shoot a pistol but then you never did. You still do have the ancient right to self defense but it is not by any means you choose and it never was.

That depends on what you believe to be the source of rights. If you believe that they stem from some government's largess in allowing the commoners some measure of "freedom" then you're correct. If however, like many of us who were born in a different land, you understand that The Creator gave us rights which governments tend to usurp or destroy when they stray from His precepts, then you realize that people do indeed have the right to utilize any means at hand to preserve their life against attack by the violent.

I, for one, thank God that my ancestors left "Merry Old England" for the "New World", thus allowing me the chance to know more about freedom.

Still, I agree, that was indeed a lovely speech. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:49 am

I,m afraid Mr Owens you and me are not of the same page!
First of all I believe the monarchy prefere the currant set up as it takes the heat off them and without the present government structure the monarchy would crumble. I say the present system secures them first and us last.
Prince Phillip was not supporting us with the parrable of the cricket bat, he was just stating the obvious and protecting his own interests as in he likes to shoot too! Didn't get us any where! Hollow words from a hollow regime!
Oh your right about we never had the right to own/shoot a pistol but whats that got to do with my previous post?
In the ancient bill of rights there is no mention of restrictions with reguard to bearing arms in self defence so from where do you obtain an authority to instruct any other way Sir?
The present law "reasonable force" has been used to very cunning effect -to usurp the ancient bill of rights of Britons. By brain washing the majority to look to it's government as it's saviour we have played straight into the politicians endless quest for power over other humans.
I am happy that you have been fortunate to escape to a better place but I have to say I find it quite odd that I don't sound patriotic to Britain but have to live here and you Sir sound patriotic but refuse to live here

Good day to you.

perry owens · Post by **perry owens** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:06 am

Quote by Nath

How about the right to shoot a pistol for starters.

Sorry if I misunderstood but I thought you were complaining about the loss of that right.

In the ancient bill of rights there is no mention of restrictions with reguard to bearing arms in self defence so from where do you obtain an authority to instruct any other way

I don't claim any authority to instruct anyone but I do study the 1689 Bill of Rights. IIRC the text of the defense clause is "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". So to avail yourself of this right you have to be (a) English (b) Protestant (c) armed only with what the law allows you.
One thing you immediately notice when living in the USA is the immense patriotism and pride in their country that the great majority of Americans show. I am very patriotic about Britian but I refuse to live there under a government that activeley discourages pride in our national identity.
Enjoy the rest of Boxing Day - but don't go fox hunting of course.
Perry Owens

Nath · Post by **Nath** » Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:17 pm

So there you go, any "law" that prevents a subject bearing arms is going dirrectly against the Bill of rights of 1689. Why would a government want to prevent it's people from ever being ready to defend themselves against a foe? To whom is the advantage to prevent a person from being able to defend themselves? The only answer I can think of is;
The goverment works to aid criminals.
The government has a real sick sense of control or
The government is made up of real dumb people.
I think it's the top two, they are to sly to real dumb.
There is a long line of folk in Britain that have this kind of deep rooted urge to bow before the Monarch for some reason, perhaps it makes them feel special or wanted somehow I not sure and then there is some folk who are caperble of thinking for them selves but are not allowed. Is not it the time to stop burying our heads in the sand and get real before many more become victims to an ever increasing violent crime wave?

gamekeeper · Post by **gamekeeper** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:17 pm

You can say what you like about the Monarchy, love em or hate em but at least they are Huntin' an Shootin' types. Unlike the Labour Government who come out in a rash when they even see a firearm!

The sheeple here in England have given up freedom after freedom and it sure sucks!
Don't let the USofA go down the same road!