Canada Ban

[enfieldspares]

Quote

1966 Whitman shot 30+ with a Rem 700, a bolt action hunting rifle using soft pointed ammo.

Correct. Thirty dead in the Texas Tower killings. Indeed where would we be if that happened in the UK?

[Scully]

12 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Correct. Thirty dead in the Texas Tower killings. Indeed where would we be if that happened in the UK?

Indeed. Nothing to prevent it. 

[GingerCat]

17 minutes ago, Scully said:

Indeed. Nothing to prevent it. 

Careful, they are likely to ban everything with that in mind.

On an aside I've never thought much of cricket and the shape of that abhorrent bat offends me. No reason for anyone to have one. Think of all the social housing they could fill the then useless cricket pitches with. The  balls are far to heavy and hard as well, could seriously hurt someone they way they lob them about. 

[old man]

1 hour ago, GingerCat said:

Careful, they are likely to ban everything with that in mind.

On an aside I've never thought much of cricket and the shape of that abhorrent bat offends me. No reason for anyone to have one. Think of all the social housing they could fill the then useless cricket pitches with. The  balls are far to heavy and hard as well, could seriously hurt someone they way they lob them about. 

I think much the same about footballs, being around them causes bad language too, I believe.

Most premier team Stadia are in prime areas too, just ripe to collect council tax from.

[NoBodyImportant]

6 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

I wonder if you could answer something for me. The 2nd Amendment reads: 

'but is it argued that home ownership of firearms for this purpose would be ineffectual? The kind of technological, organisational and strategic advantages that a federal army would have in overwhelming a militia make it all a bit...pointless. If it ever came to a state vs federal assault and the President said, 'take 'em', a 'well regulated militia' not including the bodies that already exist ain't gonna stop them, so the Second just allows one to fire back, rather than protects them from it happening in the first place.

 

[NoBodyImportant]

Here is the thing.  The US can destroy any nation in the world in weeks, as long as they wear uniforms.  But the second goat farmers take off uniforms they can’t touch them.  The US militia is the the US military.  We are the soldiers, we prepare the food, we bottled the water they drink, we repair the planes, we can move in and out the civilian population because we are the civilian population.  We are under the bridges the Military passes we are in the buildings they drive under.  In Afghanistan and Vietnam they looked different but not in America.  

[NoBodyImportant]

6 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

 

Is it ever argued that 'well regulated' either implies sensible legislation that might control the type of arms being borne (i.e. not including grenade launchers, RPGs land mines, cluster bombs or anything currently outlawed by international law) or that a sporadic collection of citizens owning home defense weapons for use against the federal state doesn't amount to it being 'regulated'?

Just a matter of curiosity, not a matter of personal opinion!

In the USA you can own tanks, grenades, pipe bombs, suicide vest as long as you pay the tax on them and fill out a form 1 ATF.  But where people get in trouble is when they try to skip paying the taxes on explosives.  Form 1 has always covered store bought explosives and grenades but courts ruled that it also covers homemade explosives.  

[NoBodyImportant]

My thoughts are this,  if a person is to dangerous to have access to guns then that person should be removed from the population.  Becuase they are dangerous. 

[chrisjpainter]

9 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

Here is the thing.  The US can destroy any nation in the world in weeks, as long as they wear uniforms.  But the second goat farmers take off uniforms they can’t touch them.  The US militia is the the US military.  We are the soldiers, we prepare the food, we bottled the water they drink, we repair the planes, we can move in and out the civilian population because we are the civilian population.  We are under the bridges the Military passes we are in the buildings they drive under.  In Afghanistan and Vietnam they looked different but not in America.  

That argument works both ways though. An American soldier out of uniform looks like an American. An undercover agent from any one of the plethora of intelligence agencies looks like an American. Government penetration behind enemy lines would be vastly in their favour and would probably turn any civil war in their favour. The problem the American army had in Vietnam and Afghanistan is fighting in an alien landscape in an alien culture language against alien ideologies spoken in an alien language - none of those would be true of a civil war against a militia. A federal government would hold far too many trump cards (no pun intended!) in a homeland war. Another huge advantage the enemy had in Afghanistan and Vietnam was an almost total lack of infrastructure. But the huge network of roads across the country, to say nothing of airport access (both civilian and military) across the U.S. make troop and vehicle movement across a state quickly and efficiently an easy process. 

I'm not saying any kind of nation-vs-militia war would be an easy win and it certainly wouldn't be bloodless on either side, but the Second Amendment isn't what protects America's citizens from such an appalling eventuality

[ordnance]

Quote

I'm not saying any kind of nation-vs-militia war would be an easy win and it certainly wouldn't be bloodless on either side, but the Second Amendment isn't what protects America's citizens from such an appalling eventuality.

Assuming all these wannabe militia would fight and not run when the first shots were fired. 

[GingerCat]

Having shot an ar I can se the appeal, I can also see the appeal in banning semi auto centre fires but when there are lots of equilivants it kinda seems pointless and more like a statement to the liberals ready for the next election. Not sure when that is but clearly not far off. 

[Remimax]

as usual a great example of shooters sticking together great job guys.

 

[bluesj]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

Assuming all these wannabe militia would fight and not run when the first shots were fired. 

Assuming all the forces would fire the first shots at their old school mates or their own family and not the politicians that gave the order 

10 minutes ago, Remimax said:

as usual a great example of shooters sticking together great job guys.

 

That did make me laugh but so true

You couldn't get shooters to stick together even if you used glue!

Edited May 2, 2020 by bluesj

[Remimax]

5 minutes ago, bluesj said:

Assuming all the forces would fire the first shots at their old school mates or their own family and not the politicians that gave the order 

That did make me laugh but so true

You couldn't get shooters to stick together even if you used glue!

yep tell me about it,having weathered the last two bans ******* in the wind springs to mind.

[bluesj]

6 minutes ago, Remimax said:

yep tell me about it,having weathered the last two bans ******* in the wind springs to mind.

The "pistol ban" has more effect on me now that it did back in 97 but I wasn't in favour of it then 

[ordnance]

Quote

Assuming all the forces would fire the first shots at their old school mates or their own family and not the politicians that gave the order.

I doubt it would come to that, as the wannabes are all talk unless they were stopping them from getting to Mcdonalds. 

Quote

On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard trying to disperse a crowd of student demonstrators at Kent State University opened fire, killing four students and wounding nine others.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by ordnance

[ordnance]

On 01/05/2020 at 21:49, London Best said:

An RFD friend tells me his best selling .22 is an assault rifle look alike.

I don’t think they should be allowed to sell even look alikes,
even some air guns are designed to look like combat weapons.

I worry about the people who want to own these things.

WANNABE RAMBOS. IMHO.

They are used in some companions, no reason why a licence holder should own one.  

[Scully]

12 minutes ago, ordnance said:

 

 

That reminds me very much of a cartoon which was doing the rounds at the time, supposedly representing the types of British people who were queuing to hand in their banned handguns. 
It wasn’t really that funny back then either. 

[ordnance]

Quote

The one time I went to a club and folk where using ‘military style ‘ semi .22s, a few folk where dressed in camouflage trousers, camouflage jacket and black boots  with trousers tucked into the boots.

I am not sure what clubs you go to, but you would not be allowed camouflage trousers, camouflage jacket at clubs here. 

[ordnance]

Quote

That reminds me very much of a cartoon which was doing the rounds at the time, supposedly representing the types of British people who were queuing to hand in their banned handguns. 
It wasn’t really that funny back then either, the militias are just thugs with guns. 

Apples and oranges. PS it wasn't mean to be funny, the militia are just thugs with guns. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by ordnance

[dogone]

18 hours ago, clumber said:

Dogone,

What's the deal with the Carbon Tax you're being levied with? 

I've watched Quick **** McDick on YouTube, a light hearted take on serious issues, and it seems like the government is willing to destroy the country in search of money?

 

The carbon tax is added to all fuels (I think)  It is meant to discourage fuel use and promote green energy (wind and sun) As a farmer it affects me by increasing my expenses and helps someone putting up a windmill lower their costs. I believe this is a fair overview of the carbon tax. Not at all popular except with of course with the green people it does not affect.

[NoBodyImportant]

6 hours ago, ordnance said:

Apples and oranges. PS it wasn't mean to be funny, the militia are just thugs with guns. 

You couldn’t be more wrong.  They are doctors, pilots, police, soldiers, welders, dog walkers and ditch diggers.  The most rabid 3 percenters are former and current military. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by NoBodyImportant

[Scully]

2 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

You couldn’t be more wrong.  They are doctors, pilots, police, soldiers, welders, dog walkers and ditch diggers.  The most rabid 3 percenters are former and current military. 

🙂 We can’t be letting facts get in the way of people’s preconceived bias and prejudices. 
There was one oddball in our club admittedly ( hardly a Walt ) but the majority were just a mixture of working class blokes who liked guns and to shoot stuff. 
Perhaps the biggest Walt’s were those of the NRA who enjoyed parading about clad in DPM shooting service rifles from all eras. 😉

[ordnance]

6 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

You couldn’t be more wrong.  They are doctors, pilots, police, soldiers, welders, dog walkers and ditch diggers.  The most rabid 3 percenters are former and current military. 

Yeah we had militias here in N/I from all walks of life including former military,  how did that go.  PS After a while they named them correctly terrorists, or as a said armed thugs. 

Quote

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Quote

Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public.  It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by ordnance

[Scully]

So the definition also applies to governments too. It's all down to ones perspective of course; one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist.