Politics: Where UK is, US seems determined to follow..

[Old Ironsights]

Stop Guns?

Lets work together to "stop guns falling into the wrong hands." This being a regular announcement of the anti-gun lobby, it is only right that we on the other side of the fence should follow suit.

Did you know that in England you are ten times more likely to be shot dead by SO19 (the armed paramilitary wing of the "unarmed" British police force) than by a crook with a gun? Harry_Stanley__inquest_verdict_October_2004.pdf

And what’s more, they always get away with it. Not a single prosecution has ever been brought against British police involved in what in many cases can only be described as murder...

Why does this sound awfully familliar?

[The Lewis]

Lon Horiuchi still walks free. Our tax dollars working hard for us, mmmm.

[O.S.O.K.]

That will only happen if we let it. If we fail to act. If we are too cowardly.

I await Monday - as the Heller v DC case decision should be announced by the SCOTUS.

Pray for a positive outcome.

[AJMD429]

We seem to forget that this nation was founded under the assumption that the citizen had an inherent ("inalienable") right to possess arms, and that the public servants (police, military) who act on their behalf and under their authority, are granted a limited, revocable, permission to have arms ONLY when performing duties on the citizen's behalf.

The OTHER alternative is a police-state.

During the recent flood, I realized two types of LEO's exist - armed LEO's who respect armed LAC's (Law Abiding Citizens), and those who don't.

1. Most of our local types who encountered an armed citizen out helping sandbag or whatever (in my case, out with a fully tricked-out AR-15 trying to keep coyotes and feral dog packs off an island of stranded deer and fawns) merely nodded acknowledgement, or perhaps politely advised "take care," although I'm sure they did (and should) quietly "assess" the armed civilian for threat potential.

2. The OTHER type (imported big-city LEO's for the most part) seem to prefer to put the citizen up against a wall, frisk and wand them, and make them wait 30 minutes while they "check them out" via radio. I'm sure the loser cops who do this are just HOPING they can drum up a reason to confiscate the nifty Para-Ordance double stack .45 because their department only allows them .40's or some sort of sick infantile jealousy thing. If they can snag it, they'll probably gift it to some drug-pushing relative.

Another way to classify the two types above is

1. True heros and protectors of society, who are man enough to take risks, but do so for the benefit of those they serve.

2. Loser punks who decided "blue" would be their gang color, and enjoy power-tripping at the expense of the honest citizen.

Or put more simply,

1. Friends, and

2. Enemies.

I'm thankful that in the rural area I live, most fit into the first category. I can only imagine how difficult their job must be, not only what the have to do as part of their job, but the extra annoyance of having to deal with co-workers and bosses who are in category 2.

Group 1 deserves all our collective thanks for the work they do, and group 2 should leave the country, and go sign up for Mugabe's terror squads.

[505stevec]

What bugs me is that the "Subjects of the Crown" think they are better off and would dare to convince us of their supperior system. Thank God we rebelled in 1776. I am much happier being a citizen than a subject. Those people will never understand freedom like we do. They will never understand the American Spirit that birthed our nation and has kept the fires of freedom alive. IT is no wonder that there are almost one gun per citizen in this country. While their citizens suck at the Government teet we here are content to be self-relient responsible and self-aware . Oh well one can only hope and pray that we continue to demand freedom

[Slick]

Yep ~>

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... ih.txt.pdf

[Jaguarundi]

That will only happen if we let it. If we fail to act. If we are too cowardly.

I await Monday - as the Heller v DC case decision should be announced by the SCOTUS.

Pray for a positive outcome.

AMEN BRO...I am Praying hard!

[gamekeeper]

What bugs me is that the "Subjects of the Crown" think they are better off and would dare to convince us of their supperior system. Thank God we rebelled in 1776. I am much happier being a citizen than a subject. Those people will never understand freedom like we do. They will never understand the American Spirit that birthed our nation and has kept the fires of freedom alive. IT is no wonder that there are almost one gun per citizen in this country. While their citizens suck at the Government teet we here are content to be self-relient responsible and self-aware . Oh well one can only hope and pray that we continue to demand freedom

The reason some and I mean "some" subjects of the Crown think they are better off with our nanny state, is that the media here portray the USA as a lawless gun happy country, where everyone is armed and ready to shoot anyone who gets in their way. In reality the UK is full of scum armed with all types of illegal weapons and our police are often even more willing than American LEOs to use deadly force when it's not necessary. The numbers of innocent people shot dead by our police is growing, they even shoot each other. Yesterday on the news a Dad reported his son to the police for having 11 rounds of pistol ammo in his bedroom, police also found a handgun. The minimum sentence for this "Offence" is 5 years in jail.
This guy got off with 3 years and his Dad thinks that is too harsh! I would kick my son's backside if he let his ammo drop so low. But my son and I have a legal right to own firearms as we are considered honest and law abiding. BTW I think your Constitution was based on the Constitution of Great Britain, you kept yours and the Sheeple here didn't.

[Nath]

Well said GK, 11 rounds is low
Yeah when ever I see the Queen on TV I get very mixed up feelings.
Here I am pretty much a law abiding subject but I know that if I had to defend my self in a threatening situation it would be her police that ware her crown on their badges that come to arrest me and then it'll be her CROWN prosecution service that puts me behind bars but the scum that was the threat to me will all of a sudden have all sorts of rights bestowed upon him. Where as I was the victim the moment I flatten him he is the victim and nobody will give a second thought of who caused the circumstance in the first place.
Yep, they knew what they were doing slowly taking our guns over the years, hell they even tried it with you guys only you are not as dumb as some of the nations they use to controll back then.
Nath.

[rjohns94]

Friends that I have in the UK, whom I talk with almost daily, despise the fact that they lost their guns. They felt being quiet was the right thing to do while the country stood up around them and stole their weapons. They regret it with a passion. They tell me the same thing all the time, don't let them, don't go quietly, fight to keep them. Our constitution had in part, its heritage in the Magna Carta:
Magna Carta (Latin for Great Charter, literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms), is an English charter originally issued in 1215. It required the King to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — most notably the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.

Magna Carta was the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. Magna Carta influenced the development of the common law and many constitutional documents, such as the United States Constitution. Many clauses were renewed throughout the Middle Ages, and continued to be renewed as late as the 18th century. By the second half of the 19th century, however, most clauses in their original form had been repealed from English law.

Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by his subjects in an attempt to limit his powers by law. It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated that his own powers were under the law.

In practice Magna Carta mostly did not limit the power of the King in the Middle Ages; by the time of the English Civil War, however, it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law.

Magna Carta is normally understood to refer to a single document, that of 1215. Various amended versions of the Magna Carta appeared in subsequent years however, and it is the 1297 version which remains on the statute books of England and Wales.

Each day it seems, Americans are laying down their precious rights. Whether it is allowing the local police to barracade a community and require free americans to produce an ID to enter a section a town and state the reason for their visit, or to ban smoking in all public places, or to ban some evil weapon, or perhaps its to extend the rights of citizens to non-citizens on non-US soil, or to allow free access to social systems by those not entitled, to create another tax to pay for those social systems or ..........

We would do well to remember the example of our parent country in the case of firearms. We can not remain silent, we can not allow our collective voice to not be heard this fall at the polls. EVERY American needs to vote that is of age. We all need to be heard and not to cower in silence. Remember each day the words of freedom that have stirred us since their first utterance some 8 centuries ago, that were distilled in the blood of matyrs again just a quarter millinium ago, purified under fire over the last 200 years, and cherished in our hearts today. "The rights of the people shall not .......

[KWK]

I am much happier being a citizen than a subject.

I don't understand. As far as I can tell, the queen is powerless. If she tried to exert authority, she'd be tossed out. The UK has effectively been ruled by parliament as long as the US has been around. There's no constitutional limits as in the US, but the US limits are often ignored anyway. Here it's a simple majority-rules system.

I think the traditionally low murder rate here combined with the slaughter of two world wars combined to put people off on arms. Murder rates are rising rapidly as the country's population becomes more diverse, but it's still a fraction of the US rate. There are plenty of goofy court rulings regarding self defense on both sides of the Atlantic, but I think the US is on a more even keel there.

It's an interesting place and a pretty place, but I'm eagerly awaiting our final flight back to the US next weekend.

[Bruce Scott]

This may help clarify the role of the British monarch....

Political system in the UK
The head of state and theoretical source of executive, judicial and legislative power in the UK is the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II. However, sovereignty in the UK no longer rests with the monarch, since the English Bill of Rights in 1689, which established the principle of Parliamentary Soverignity. Despite this the Monarch remains Head of State, akin to a President in European (but not American) political tradition.

Originally the monarch possessed the right to choose any British citizen to be her Prime Minister and could call and dissolve Parliament whenever he or she wished. However, in accordance with the current 'unwritten constitution', the Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons and Parliament is dissolved at the time suggested by him or her. The monarch retains the ability to deny giving a bill Royal Assent, although in modern times this becomes increasingly more unlikely, as it would cause a constitutional crisis. Queen Anne was the last monarch to exercise this power, which she did on 11 March 1708 with regard to a bill "for the settling of Militia in Scotland". Other royal powers called royal prerogative, such as patronage to appoint ministers and the ability to declare war, are exercised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, with the formal consent of the Queen.


Today the Sovereign has an essentially ceremonial role restricted in exercise of power by convention and public opinion. However the monarch does continue to exercise three essential rights: the right to be consulted, the right to advise and the right to warn. Prime ministers have weekly confidential meetings with the monarch.

In formal terms, the Crown in Parliament is sovereign even though in practical terms the political head of the UK is the Prime Minister. However, the real powers of position of the Monarch in the British Constitution should not be downplayed. The monarch does indeed retain some power, but it has to be used with discretion. She fulfils the necessary constitutional role as head of state, and with the absence of a distinct separation of powers [as] in the American model and a strong second chamber, acts as a final check on executive power. If a time came to pass, for instance, when a law threatened the freedom or security of her subjects, the Queen could decline royal assent, free as she is from the eddies of party politics

[Old Ironsights]

To understand what the good folks in England lost, and what we are losing read the following:

England entered the twentieth century with no controls over the purchasing or keeping of any type of firearm, and the only measure which related to the carrying of guns was the Gun Licence Act, requiring the purchase of a ten shilling
gun licence from a Post Office. Anyone, be he convicted criminal, lunatic, drunkard or child, could legally acquire any type of firearm and the presence of pistols and revolvers in households all over the country was fairly widespread.
... England at that time was a country where guns of every type were familiar instruments and where anyone who felt the need or desire to own a gun could obtain one. The cheaper guns were very cheap and well within the reach of all but the very poor. ... The right of the Englishman to keep arms for his own defence was still completely accepted and all attempts at placing this under restraint had
failed. (Colin Greenwood, Firearms Control, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1972) ...

...Although firearms were lawfully available virtually without restriction, the level of armed crime was exceptionally low by the standards of today. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner reported that during the three years 1911-13, there had been an average of 41 cases per year in which firearms had been used in crime or found in the possession of individuals whom the police had arrested. For the years 1915-17, when of course a large proportion of young men were in the armed forces, the average annual figure had fallen to 15.6 cases.18 This should be compared with over 1,600 armed robberies in London alone in 1991, under the strictest firearms control in the Western world.19 In 1904, firearms figured in 15 murders; for the years 1988-92 the average number of firearms homicides was 48. Superintendent Greenwood concluded that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before. We do not know how much worse this would have been if there had been no controls, but it is possible to get some indication by looking at the position in relation to shotguns. Despite the fact that they were unrestricted until 1968, shotguns were used in only a relatively low proportion of robberies in the periods immediately before and after the imposition of controls...

... contrary to popular opinion, strict firearms controls were actually legislated in some jurisdictions of the United States before they were introduced in Britain. In the aftermath of the conflict of 1861-65 which is variously known as the American
civil war, the war between the states and the Southern war for independence, depending on one’s interpretation of the issues involved, white supremacist governments introduced firearms controls on former black slaves as a means of subordinating them to white rule. In 1911, the Sullivan Act, a measure for the exceptionally strict control of handguns, was introduced in New York City. According to Superintendent Greenwood, for the years 1911-20, New York, with its strict controls on the private ownership of pistols, suffered infintely more from the criminal use of firearms of all types than did London in a period when all firearms were freely available...

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/polin133.pdf

[AJMD429]

Murder rates are rising rapidly as the country's population becomes more diverse, but it's still a fraction of the US rate.

I thought I read that England's violent crime rates are less than Scotland's, but that both are substantially higher than the U.S.

[Leverdude]

That will only happen if we let it. If we fail to act. If we are too cowardly.

Its already happened at least twice in a big way & likely dozens more that didn't make the headlines.

I await Monday - as the Heller v DC case decision should be announced by the SCOTUS.

Pray for a positive outcome.

I am!

[Leverdude]

Murder rates are rising rapidly as the country's population becomes more diverse, but it's still a fraction of the US rate.

I thought I read that England's violent crime rates are less than Scotland's, but that both are substantially higher than the U.S.

Depends on how the data is prepared but we have a higher murder rate than most other countries. Its always been that way tho.
When England & the US had similar gun laws we had a higher rate, we were always higher than Canada too. Its not guns, IMO its the price we pay for freedoms they dont have, never had & never will have. I wouldn't trade it off either. If we erase a few high crime urban areas we fall in line with most other Western countries.

[gamekeeper]

Given that the UK used to have a low crime rate before our population became "diverse" and that hunting was not available to poorer city dwellers it's no wonder that firearms became less of a "necessity" as folks did not feel threatened or have a culture of hunting. So if you don't have firearms why should you worry if the government puts restrictions on them. The USA is different you still need to keep and bear arms for all sorts of sound reasons. If gun owners become scarce then like us in the UK, who still fight for freedom, you will find yourself in the minority and have very little political clout!

You should view folks who don't own firearms as the enemy of your freedom. The more people that shoot, hunt or just keep a gun at home the better your chances are of keeping yours legally.
Be proud to be a gun owner, let folks know what they are missing by not spending time in the great outdoors or on a shooting range. I'm always positive about my shooting sports and try to encourage others to take it up too! I know not many will but at least they have a better understanding of why ordinary people still use firearms!

And now with a "Diverse" population and a growing crime rate folks over here are beginning to see the logic in being capable of self defence. Pity it's too late!

[Comal Forge]

Genetics is at work here also.

When the Americas were being colonized - and I'd offer the timeline was to about 1930, give or take a few years, those folks that immigrated were looking for better conditions and were willing to take some chances to achieve that. The ones that stayed behind were content enough not to accept the risk. Therefore, those of us who are descended from those waves of immigrants have a natural predisposition not to accept the status quo, which in this case is the removal of our gun rights.

However, as times get easier and a population doesn't have to physically fight to survive, they often become passive and turn to what I will call "pleasures of the flesh" or maybe the Seven Deadly Sins (not simply sex, although that is one aspect - look at the huge increase in pornography). Since there are no more frontiers to conquer, the population is turning its collective energies to self absorbed pursuits instead of what is best for the entire country - like preservation of hard-won freedoms.

The settling of the Americas for the purposes of individual freedom didn't occur in Europe or Asia so the populations living there now do not understand our collective psyche. This is one reason I believe we have so much trouble with foreign policy. Most people resent being told what they are doing is wrong, but we in Western Society believe our ways are always right so we tend to force them on other cultures. Maybe we should sometimes accept that not everyone wants what we want and leave them alone. However, those same societal values are also why so many folks are still beating down the doors to get here as fast as they can - it's so much better here than elsewhere, even with our warts.

I believe we should all pray hard AND be very vocal that the "right" man wins the presidency - and that our legal system makes just decisions, so that neither are influenced by the relatively small groups who are out to restrict our freedoms. The liberal media already does a good job making all gun owners look like crazed maniacs; we must contiue to demonstrate our sanity yet be completely commited to retain our rights - even to the point of death to perserve our liberties.

[gary rice]

That will only happen if we let it. If we fail to act. If we are too cowardly.

I await Monday - as the Heller v DC case decision should be announced by the SCOTUS.

Pray for a positive outcome.

is the decision tomorrow? i heard earlier this week. might as well get on with it.

[donw]

all good, informative, well thought out and reseached replies in this thread.

i would sumit to you that we are subject to one thing that's been overlooked or perhaps neglected...the whims of our 'legislators'.

it seems to me, they reach decisions based on THEIR emotions and what makes them "feel good", NOT what's right or wrong, NOT what the people want or vote for. proof of that is the latest traversty in california about gay marriage, and once before in the passing of prop 187...the calif supreme court overthrew the voters! facts, figures and statistics mean little to nothing to most legislators when it comes to gun legislation.

it seems to me, that the very legislative bodies trying to grapple with the problems of today, end up creating MORE than they solve simply in the legislation they pass. they, in reality, CREATE problems where none existed before.

legislators are more concerned about getting elected, then re-elected, than doing what is right and moral. i just read an article that says obama has had a total of 143 days in the senate, that he formed a committe to explore the possibility of a presidential bid upon his election to the senate. if true, may The Lord help us if he's elected...

[gary rice]

all good, informative, well thought out and reseached replies in this thread.

i would sumit to you that we are subject to one thing that's been overlooked or perhaps neglected...the whims of our 'legislators'.

it seems to me, they reach decisions based on THEIR emotions and what makes them "feel good", NOT what's right or wrong, NOT what the people want or vote for. proof of that is the latest traversty in california about gay marriage, and once before in the passing of prop 187...the calif supreme court overthrew the voters! facts, figures and statistics mean little to nothing to most legislators when it comes to gun legislation.

it seems to me, that the very legislative bodies trying to grapple with the problems of today, end up creating MORE than they solve simply in the legislation they pass. they, in reality, CREATE problems where none existed before.

legislators are more concerned about getting elected, then re-elected, than doing what is right and moral. i just read an article that says obama has had a total of 143 days in the senate, that he formed a committe to explore the possibility of a presidential bid upon his election to the senate. if true, may The Lord help us if he's elected...

absolutely