Peter, I was in London summer before last and a Times poll said just that. 60%+ of Traditional Brits wanted to leave. In Spain and here I have
met many doing just that. But if no one makes a stand, there will be no where to go. There is a Scott living down the street from me who did just that. Got his guns out, left and will not go back.
Gene

Invader66,

I was a little rushed for time making my last post and didn't explain what I meant too well.

What I meant is that if I lived in a country where the vast majority of the electorate supported or just condoned a huge Government injustice (say something like the introduction of apartheid)I am not sure I would want to live in such a society; simply overthrowing the Government would not be the issue for me at that point...

Getting back to "the right to bear arms" while it is true that we Brits don't have what I would call a Government recognised right, historically it has never stopped us overthrowing Monarchs or Government in the past.

To give an example, inbetween 1642 & 1651 we had two civil wars and for a period after the last, we were effectively a republic before we tired of that too and restored the Monarchy in 1660..

In more recent history you have the Troubles in Ireland as another example...

Regards,

Pete

Pete
While no expert, British History is a hobby
of mine. I have made 12 trips there and love it.
Spent 12 Days in Wales and had a ball and learned much. My birthday is Nov 5th so the Gunpowder Plot is one of my pets. Always wanted to be there for it but has not worked out yet.
Good Shooting
Gene

invader66,

If I drew a circle with a 5 mile radius around my home, I would hate to think how many iron age forts, castles, and other defensive structures there would be...

I can see this one from the house :


It dates back to the 13th Centuary and its still lived in by the decendants of the original family who built it...

Regards,

Pete

Spent many days in and around Caernarfon and Anglesey. Beautiful. BA has a special on here
so we may be back soon.

quote:

Originally posted by roebuck222:

ps you 'aint the moderator.

Not asking for moderation just irritated that some of the practices of other forums appear to be migrating here.

quote:

Got his guns out, left and will not go back.
Gene

Gene - the one trouble about this route is that while he may now own many more guns, the times that he may use them on deer is reduced from approximately 11 months of the year to ?less than 1 month of the year. Speaking as a hunter first and a gun owner second I would rather one rifle and 11month hunting seasons than numerous rifles and 1 month hunting season.

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:

quote:

Originally posted by roebuck222:

ps you 'aint the moderator.

Not asking for moderation just irritated that some of the practices of other forums appear to be migrating here.

1894mk2 you are free to be as irritated as you like,and also just as free to ignore any thread as you see fit to avoided being so irritated...which you dont appear to be able to do.
I dont feel the situation is as bad as you are making out,I am not the moderator and neither are you.

Regards
Roebuck222

If there are any British Lawyers out there correct me if I am wrong in the followi ng tirade but I believe the first significant document leading to the decentraization of power (which in effect is Liberty) was the Magna Carta. And in the Magna Carta the legal definition of a free man, as opposed to a slave is the right to keep and bear arms. The British not the Americans invented the right to keep and bear arms but the Brits have lost it since the communist revolution. The Americans to their credit have enshrined it in their constitution.

Britain, like Canada is not a democracy. It is a Monarchy. The upper house called the Senate in Canada and the House of Lords in Britain is appointed and can veto legislation created by MPs. Mostly it doesn't but it can. The House of Lords is just a Lobby for vested interests. That seems to be its main role. To maintain the status quo.

In America people have rights and are equal before the law. In Britain and Canada they have priviledges and have no rights in the face of appointed individuals. The police, who are themselves appointed, can say who gets a gun permit and who does not. The gun owner has no rights. He is encourage to earn his little priviledges to in effect become a forelock tugger.

As a Canadian who as born with the British system but lives along side the America system all I can say is "God bless America." I see where the new Candian Prime Minister, Steven Harper, wants an elected senate. That will stir the pot and that is a step in the right direction.

As for the North American Indian wars. I don't loook on it as injustice. I look on it as Karma. DNA mapping shows the Mongols and the Sioux were the same people. The Mongols under Attila attacked Europe about 700. They tried again under Genghis Khan about 1230 or so. They got as far as what is now the German border. In two days they would have killed the Kuster family. But they didn't and the Kuster family moved to America, changed their name to Custer, and led the charge that ended American Indian power in North America.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

Addenda; George Armstrong Custer was not the only member of his family at the little Bighorn. There were three or four Custers present. No single family sacrificed more to stop the spawn of Ghengis Khan in North America than the Custer family.

Where are they now that Lee Kai Shing and his allies in the Red Army are on the horizon?

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

Ok everyones way off centre with this one now. Time to turn off the puter, put on the camo and go out and enjoy yourselves.
Please please please keep it civil folks?


Z

Dear All

I was shocked by the content of Ted's two posts on this topic. If your average non-gun owner read something like that no wonder they are wanting to reduce the number of guns in private ownership. We all have the right to free speech but sometimes keeping those thoughts private could be wiser.

Regards

Mark

To be honest to you, I had hoped the two posts would have been graced with total silence. From the general gist of these posts, I doubt there is much point in discussing.

- mike

Ahhh... as some of us in the USA say it:
England the nation with nearly five hundred years of constitutional law, and yet
no actual constitution...."

anyone can look and see where it's gotten them....

AllanD

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Gorsline:
If there are any British Lawyers out there correct me if I am wrong in the followi ng tirade but I believe the first significant document leading to the decentraization of power (which in effect is Liberty) was the Magna Carta. And in the Magna Carta the legal definition of a free man, as opposed to a slave is the right to keep and bear arms. The British not the Americans invented the right to keep and bear arms but the Brits have lost it since the communist revolution. The Americans to their credit have enshrined it in their constitution.

At one time the English were great defenders of free speech. They had an expression, "sticks and stones can break my bones but words cannot hurt me." Even nutters had their say at the very least upon a soap box in Hyde Park. Seems things have changed in England.

VBR,

Ted Gorsline

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Gorsline:
...Even nutters had their say at the very least upon a soap box in Hyde Park. Seems things have changed in England.

VBR,

Ted Gorsline

Actually Ted, it would seem to me at least one of the "nutters" has made it from Hyde Park onto AR.

- mike

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Gorsline:
but the Brits have lost it since the communist revolution.

Cromwell ?

I didn't explain properly. I don't mean the communist revolution in any western country led to gun registration there. What I mean is that when the communist revolution took place successfully in Russia many western goverments reacted by trying to get control of firearms in their own countries because communism became fashionable and they were afraid it was going to take root at home. In Canada handgun registration came into play because Tim Buck, who headed up the Communist party, looked to be getting popular.

If you read about Selous he used to live in dowtown London about this time and he used to sight in his elephant guns by bouncing bullets off the Tower of London. I have an old friend now gone who used to bounce bullets from his pistols of the railway bridge in town in Canada when he was a boy and no one noticed.

Communism brought with it paranoia, but paranoia that was justified at the time.

As regards the treatment of the American Indians. Lets discuss British colonialism. The Brits proved the dreadnaught battleship was superior to the dugout canoe in battle. They proved the knife and spear were no match for artillery. The proof of this is in the form of 10,000 skeletons of the fuzzy wuzzies that still
lie bleached on the plains of Odurmann in the Sudan. Non of these spear chuckers was able to get within 950 yards of British artillery. Or take into consideration the British Colonel Meinartzhagen who bayoneted to death more than 900 kenyan men woman and childern on a "punitive" expedition. Custer would have found battle of this nature repugnant.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

To try and bring this back to some kind of hunting orintated topic...

Much as I'm sure many of our fellow gun owners here in the UK appreciate the "sypathy" for our unfortunate predicament that has been expressed by those that seem to know much more from afar, but personally I don't see it as warranted.

Yes this Government has tried to stick it's boot into country life and nanny us all to some extent. but their success is actually very limited.

Yes... The ban on hunting was passed in parliament and the Anti/Leftie/Commie/Whatever brigade that supported it threw their hjands in the air and shouted Hoorah!! What you lot outside of the UK don't realise is that hunting is still going on WITHIN the framework of the law, more foxes are being killed by the legally placed guns ahead of the pack and birds of prey. Hunt followers have nearly doubled in number and not a single hunt in the UK has stopped operating.

But then this is primarily a deer stalking forum not a fox hunting forum so lets look at that.

Me and my freind have stalking over some 4000+ acres between us. this land is shot over by no one else... (how many hunters are out on public land in the US? and how many hunters shoot eachother each year?)

We usually shoot 60-70+ deer a year between us with no tags, trophy feees or reporting requirements. That year,, is a year.... Every day of the year apart from Christmas day you can go shooting here for one of the 6 deer species found wild in the UK.

As for owning rifles. (touch wood) I have not been turned down on anything to date. I have a .22LR a 243win and a 308win. I have been told that I can add a 6.5 calibre of my choice and a 9.3x62 or 375H+H when I wish Or perhaps even both!! Just put in the request. As for the pistol ban... I was also told that because I do some vermin control and we shoot that many deer I may apply for a .32 pistol as a humane killer.

So I have the approvall of big Brother to own upto 5 rifles, (I can only use one at a time...) and potentially a handgun just because I can show that I will use them sensibly. whether or not I deccide to buy them all is up to me. After all Like I said, I rarely need to dispatch wounded deer because I don't feel the desperate need to take risky shots. After all I can always go out tomorrow and try to get myself into a better shooting position.

So all in all I don't think things are so bad here in the UK for sport shooters.

Oh did I mention that we can lamp hundreds of rabbits and foxes each year usng rifles with sound moderators and own unlimited shotguns which can also be used all year round to shoot a wide range of game, waterfowl and vermin. All with no bag limits...

Anyway I would ordinarily take myself off to Hyde park and proclaim all this to the masses but it's raining.... OK you guys migh have one thing bettter than us. (...By the way over here we call that sarcasm! )

FB

Dear Fallowbuck,

I am slightly familiar with British shooting. My best friend in Britain is Pete Swales who does alot of deer stalking and bird shooting and I have shared a stand with him at Dortmund for 18 years. He did the same thing for Holland and Holland when they had a booking agency.

I realize that there is far more hunting in Britain than most people realize. I think Pete said 5,000 game keepers raise 20,000 pheasants each for the estates. My calculator won't handle all the zeros. But its millions of put and take birds.

People who can afford to own an esate, or the 50 pounds a bird, or work as game keepers do alot of shooting but they have little influence on the decisions of government. They are few in numbers and democracy is mob rule. All ddemocratic politicians do is count heads.

When Tony Blair wanted to ban handguns and the killing of foxes with dogs he just did it and it had no consequence for him.

In Canada and the US game is public property and everyone has an equal chance to get a licence although in some cases, with rare species, it has to be by draw.

The result is there are far more hunters (and voters) per capita in the USA and Canada than in Britain but the hunting, on the whole, is much poorer than it is in Britain for those allowed to do it.

But democracy is a numbers game and when you have 23 million hunters in the USA (4 million in the NRA) and 3 million in Canada you have more political power than British shooters. The NRA in America supported 285 candidates in the last election and won in 280.

The last Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin announced a handgun ban (just like Tony Blair did) prior to the last Canadian elction and he immediately got the bums rush out the door. He now sells steamship tickets for a living.

I would strongly advise the leaders of hunting and shooting groups in Britain in Europe to make the pilgrimage to Arlington, Virginia to meet with the NRA leadership and learn how to play hardball. They are good and helpful people.

Because George Soros, the billionaire, who broke the bank of England, is still out there trying to take your guns away.


VBR,


Ted Gorsline

quote:

Originally posted by Ted Gorsline:
Lets discuss British colonialism...

They proved the knife and spear were no match for artillery. The proof of this is in the form of 10,000 skeletons of the fuzzy wuzzies that still lie bleached on the plains of Odurmann in the Sudan. Non of these spear chuckers was able to get within 950 yards of British artillery... Custer would have found battle of this nature repugnant.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

I cannot resist responding to your (IMO) pseudo-intellectual ramblings.

Omdurmann was where a young Winston Churchhill took part in a cavalry charge as a young British cavalry officer. Steel against steel.

The Soudanese did not get close to the British artillery because the British cavary and infantry did not let them. Tactics 101.

Kipling suggests that excercising the policy colonialism was not always the one-way traffic you suggest it might have been…

"Fuzzy-Wuzzy"
Soudan Expeditionary Force, Early Campaigns
We've fought with many men acrost the seas,
And some of 'em was brave an' some was not:
The Paythan an' the Zulu an' Burmese;
But the Fuzzy was the finest o' the lot.
We never got a ha'porth's change of 'im:
'E squatted in the scrub and 'ocked our 'orses,
'E cut our sentries up at Suakim,
An' 'e played the cat an' banjo with our forces.
So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
Yore a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
We gives you your certificate, an' if you want it signed,
We'll come an' 'ave a romp with you whenever you're inclined.

We took our chanst among the Kyber 'ills,
The Boers knocked us silly at a mile,
The Burman guv us Irriwaddy chills,
An' a Zulu impi dished us up in style:
But all we ever got from such as they
Was pop to what the Fuzzy made us swaller;
We 'eld our bloomin' own, the papers say,
But man for man the Fuzzy knocked us 'oller.

Then 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' the missis and the kid:
Our orders was to break you, an' of course we went an' did.
We sloshed you with Martinis, an' it wasn't 'ardly fair;
But for all the odds agin' you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square.

'E 'asn't got no papers of 'is own,
'E 'asn't got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill 'e's shown
In usin' of 'is long two-'anded swords:
When 'e's 'oppin' in an' out among the bush
With 'is coffin-'eaded shield an' shovel-spear,
An 'appy day with Fuzzy on the rush
Will last an 'ealthy Tommy for a year.

So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' your friends which are no more,
If we 'adn't lost some messmates we would 'elp you to deplore.
But give an' take's the gospel, an' we'll call the bargain fair,
For if you 'ave lost more than us, you crumpled up the square!

'E rushes at the smoke when we let drive,
An', before we know, 'e's 'ackin' at our 'ead;
'E's all 'ot sand an' ginger when alive,
An' 'e's generally shammin' when 'e's dead.
'E's a daisy, 'e's a ducky, 'e's a lamb!
'E's a injia-rubber idiot on a spree,
'E's the on'y thing that doesn't give a damn
For a Regiment o' British Infantree!

So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
An' 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, with your 'ayrick 'ead of 'air -
You big black boundin' beggar - for you broke a British square!

Dear Deerdogs,

I actually read Churchill's account of his part in the battle of Odurman many years ago but can't remember the details. I think the British cavalry charge, which he was part of, was ineffectual and was outflanked and routed by the Fuzzy Wuzzies and chased back to safety behind the artillery.

I think Churchill got six Fuzzy Wuzzies with six shots with a broomhandle Mauser pistol. Good shooting from horseback.

He seemed to very much enjoy shooting Fuzzy Wuzzies and spoke highly of the German made pistol.

I am not anti-colonialist but I couldn't help but respond to an earlier snide remark made by a Brit in reference to the American treatment of Indians. It seemed to me the teacup was calling the kettle black.

My view is the colonial period was the big chance for Africa to come into the 20th century but having rejected it they seem to be going back to the stone age.

Last April I was in Brussel with a Congolese lawyer and he was going on about how the Belgians looted the Congo. As evidence he took me to two streets full of shops he said were built with Congolese money. But two streets in a city of thousands of steets didn't seem like much to me. Then I went to Isiro in the Congo and saw acres of cotton, coffee, and palm oil factories all in ruins.

It looked to me like the white colonials invested alot more money in Africa than they took out. I actually think the colonial powers were the best thing that ever happened to Africa and maybe the only good thing that ever happened. But there were atrocities then and there still are today.


VBR,


Ted Gorsline

Kiplings 'The Young British Soldier'

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!

Imperial soldiering was no picnic.

Amazing how a thread based on the weight of a gun cabinet and how one should secure a firearm whilst in transit can morph into a British Imperial poetry competition.

From 'Alifax to 'Industan,
From York to Singapore-
'Orse,foot an'guns, The Service Man
'Enceforward,evermore!

Regards

Mark

"The boy stood on the burning deck

Eating peanuts by the peck

The Flames came up and burned his chin

But still he stuffed the peanuts in."


Shakespeare

quote:

Britain, like Canada is not a democracy. It is a Monarchy. The upper house called the Senate in Canada and the House of Lords in Britain is appointed and can veto legislation created by MPs. Mostly it doesn't but it can. The House of Lords is just a Lobby for vested interests. That seems to be its main role. To maintain the status quo.

Ted,

When you get a chance, do a search on the Parliament Act...This Act effectively ensures an elected Parliament can force through legislation against the will of the Lords. In recent times, that was how hunting with hounds was effectively banned...

The whole relationship between the Parliament and the Lords and hence the Monarchy has been an evolving one, with power slowing moving from the later to the former...Much of the relationship is not actually written down formally, but takes the shape of an unwritten constitution...

In practice, this means that the UK is actually
more democratic system the than the US..After all voters in the US don't actually directly vote for their leaders...they may go through the motions, but strictly speaking its the Electorial College of each State which casts the votes that count, and there is nothing in law to ensure they follow the mandate of the voting public..

Perhaps thats why you guys need guns to keep everything "fair"???

Regards,

Pete

Dear Pete E,

Good stuff. To be honest I am not sure how the three systems work least of all the English (and Canada since Trudeau). I do get the impression politicians in the USA are quite worried about what their constituents think which is the way I think it should be. In Canada, at least in big cities, there doesn't seem to be much concern about what voters think.

Policy does not seem to come from the voters up but from the Privy council down and the privy council levers MPs in their voting more than their consituents do. Right now the Liberal party is trying to bring in a professor named Ignatieff from Harvard who hasn't been in the country for 30 years as Canada's leader.

They will plunk him into an urban riding with a highly mobile population where nobody even knows who their neighbour is. Then they will call on their lacky writer friends at the Toronto Star and CBC to define him as a good guy, spend money on big bill boards, and then toss their hat into the ring.

I'd rather have a grass roots person rather than an elitist running the country. The latter tend to be social architects and they always bugger things up. Same with the communist system or leaders of any other centralized system.

The strenght of the American NRA is that it has 4 million members and they are organized. They watch for anti gun politicians to get weak, for the voting to be close, and then they torpedo their enemies. Works. Would work anywhere people vote including Britain and Australia and its a good idea.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

Very interesting discussion. One of the best I've ever seen here.
I read every word of it. I did notice the different mind set of Americans versus some others.There seems to be a deep rooted difference in the definition of Freedom.
I ask only two questions.
According to the latest statistics, is the restrictive gun laws in Britain and Australia working? Is the crime rates decreasing?
In America, when the state allows ordinary folks to carry concealed, the crime rate decreases dramatically. I think that's where the slogan "An Armed Society is A Polite Society", comes from. American statistics prove that is correct.

Just an observation here on Mr. Gorsline's narrative about George Armstrong Custer and his famous Last Stand. I have been to the Battlefield, very impressive, a true monument to a man that was a complete Egotistical Maniac. Had that been Vietnam era, his own troope would have shot him in the back. Indians lost the continent when the Dutch bought Manhattan. Custer pulled his little stunt so that he could be elected President. He already had a campaign manager lined up back in the east, that had Guaranteed him the OPresidency if he defeated the Sioux. The man finished bottom of his class at Westpoint, had been busted back to Lt. Colonel from General, and then sent west as an embarrasssment to the whole U.S. military. The man was an idiot. From the battlefield, you are directed by signage to a spot on the horizon, that is several miles from the actual battlefield, where Custer and his troops first caught sight of the indian encampment. Custer in his absolute arrogance, thought that the indians would flee like frightened children. He hadn't received word that a much larger force of calvary under the command of Gen. Crook had already engaged these same indians a few days earlier and got their butts whooped. The North American Indian was a lost cause from the time of the earliest Spanish Expeditions, Custer did what he did for personal reasons, not as any great savior of American beliefs. Me thinks you need to read up a little more on the way things really were, not the fiction that has been written about the American West. JMO

I will leave it to my UK brethren or the Aussis to comment the rise or fall of crime rates after the gun bans. But to connect the decrease or increase in crime rate with gun policies alone, seems to simple for me.

In Norway we have seen a major leap in petty crime as well as in drugs, trafficing, armed robbery and plain murder/ "gang wars". This has nothing to do with change in gun policies, as there have not been any for years.
But mostly because of a more open society, easier border crossings, the expanding of the EU in general, and the "democratiation" of the former East Block countries.

As to the slogan about an armed population...it my be true in the USA, but as a general statement it has to many flaws.

One of the big differences between most European countries and USA is that legal self defence with guns is none existent.
As well as the thought of an armed rising of the citicens agains a corrupt government is pure fantasy.

I´m not saying that it will never happen, but if so.. the societies we new today will then have totally collapsed.

I have the guns I need and want for shooting and stalking, I can buy any realoading equipment I want, lots of rifle ranges, lots of hunting opportunities, as long my record is clean, I have no trouble obtaining a sencible battery of hunting arms. I have Freedom !

But...of cource there are things that I would see different, there will always be.

The defination of Freedom will wary from person to person, from country to country.

To put the American way of life on a pedestal and say it´s the one and only freedom in the world is a gross misunderstanding.
( just for the record...I hunt with American guns, wear American clothes, use American scopes, eat at TGI Fridays, been overseas lots of times, dream about riding the Route 66, have stacks of C&W music, have shaked hands with Willie Nelson and I´m an NRA member )

Just my two cents..........

Custer has been defined and re-defined many times. I see in the summary of a new book (I haven't read the book) that he is now personally credited with turning the tide in the American civil war.

He may have been ambitious but he was a very bold and reckless fellow who always led from the front and never from the rear. That may not have been fashionable in Viet Nam but it has been looked upon favorably at other times in history.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

TJ,

Historically, firearms in the UK have always been seen in a different light than to America.

To explain that, I would say that expect in Northern Ireland, for the last 75, maybe 100 years, the average person has never seen the need for a firearm for self protection..By and large we lived in the polite society anyway..Certainly, in the 50's, 60' and 70's, firearm related crime was very rare..In effect our firearms laws "worked" simply because as a society we respected them..I think "Policing by co-operation" is the term for it..

Legally held civillian firearms (including shotguns) were largely kept for either sporting/recreational purposes or as a "tool" ie crop protection or pest control ect. This in part was due to the fact that we already had a low crime rate and also that the Government restricted how firearms were used by civilians...This is engrained into us so far that even as a shooter, if i heard a fellow shooter going on about wanting a SPAS 12 to protect his home, I'd probably mentally label him as some sort of "rambo wanabe"....

So as already has been suggested, legally held firearms have virtually no effect, positive or negative, on crime in the UK...

Our problem is that our society has gone down hill over the last say two decades..Large chunks of society no longer have any respect for the law...Crime associated with drugs and illegally held firearms have increased although i must say that it is still mostly a problem in our larger cities...

The powers to be still don't seem to have grasped this change, and neither do they grasp the difference between legally held firearms and the illegal ones.

Their response is to trot out new laws aimed at curtailing legally held firearms rather that dealing with the root. This of course is aided and abetted by the bleeding heart liberals some see all firerams as "evil"

Maybe the time has come for a radical change of direction with law abidding citizens being able to carry a firearm for self defence under a concealed carry permit system similar to those in certain of the US States..

Regards,

Pete

Bold and reckless are not character traits to have in your resume when you are leading 200 other men up against a force of a couple of thousand pissed off anythings, let alone Sioux and Cheyenne braves with repeating rifles.

Have you ever been to the Custer Battlefield, and seen how the markers are laid out.

Those poor bastards were running for their lives, and for what reason. Because an arrogant egotistical Son of a Bitch thought he was the new Messiah for the United States.

The only reason the North won the Civil War was because Lee and his Generals were not ruthless enough in their tactics.

Custer was a necessary part of our history, if for no other reason, than it changed the way our military approached the problem of removing the Indians from the plains.

Custer tried to accomplish something in a short period of time that the Buffalo hunters and settlers managed to accomplish, over just a little longer period, without the same amount of loss of U.S. citizens lives.

Pete E:
Excellent, my point exactally! More gun laws restricting law abiding citizens will not decrease crimes.
Here is a couple more examples of the different mind set of our friends across the water.
These are from Arilds post above. I mean no disrespect to him. Just pointing out differences.
He has a "sensible battery of guns". Who determined what is sensible? I also have a sensible battey of guns. Well over a hundred, and I will buy more. I don't "need" them, I just want them.
"An armed rising of the citizens against a corrupt government is pure fantasy." Is it a fantasy? I don't think so. If I remember correctly, the citizens of Norway did a pretty good job of fighting against a corrupt government in WWII.
If it is a fantasy, why are the politicians afraid of the people owning guns?
I'm very interested in this conversation because I want to know how folks in other countries think, compared to how we think in America.
I'm finding out that some of it is certainly different.
Would you say it was because of enviroment?

TJ
I´m with Pete E in everything he said, dont misunderstand me. Me myself would defenately see a CC law welcome, but I doubt I ever will.
The politicans and the gross majority of the popoulation in most European countries ( just my subjective thoughts ), are not ready by a long shot to reconcider the gun laws in terms of allowing private citicens to protect them selfs with firearms.

We have had cases in Norway where people defended them selfs or their property with firearms. And mostly they were convicted for execcive use of force.

As an former Army small arms instructor, competition pistol shooter and hunter since I was twelve, I have a sober relation to firearms, but sadly a lot of my fellow citicens dont.

They see firearms as evil, the tools of the terrorists, the mentally unstable and the criminals.

To concider CC as a mean to lessen abuse, crime and robbery would be as strange to many politicans as chickens with teets.

My comments about a civilian rising against a corrupt government didn´t take into concideration a war situation. If a coutry is attacked and overrun by an alien enemy, and the legally elected government is thrown down, then we are discussing something quite different.

And yes...... we put up a hell of a fight in WW II, and are among the top two or three countries in Europe regarding number of guns pr. capita. But not allowed to use them for self protection.

quote:

To concider CC as a mean to lessen abuse, crime and robbery would be as strange to many politicans as chickens with teets.

Arild,

Actually, most of our politicians are chickens with teets!

quote:

My comments about a civilian rising against a corrupt government didn´t take into concideration a war situation. If a coutry is attacked and overrun by an alien enemy, and the legally elected government is thrown down, then we are discussing something quite different.

And yes...... we put up a hell of a fight in WW II, and are among the top two or three countries in Europe regarding number of guns pr. capita. But not allowed to use them for self protection.

I'm sorry to say that the mentality that our Norwegian citizens had back in WWII when it came to defending their country no matter how big the sacrifice, has now been diluted by too many decades of socialism... Being "patriotic" is now a bad word in Norway it would seem as this is incorrectly connected to nationalism and nazism. Our leftist media has, and does of course, play a major part in this brainwashing.

I shudder when I think of what kind of nation we are becoming, and what the consequences will be for our kids/grandchildren in 40-50 or so years.

Arild has expressed my own point of wiew on this subject almost perfectly

I also agree on the opinion, that if I heard (and I actually sometimes do) some fellow shooter/hunter/citizen here in Finland feeling the need for a SPAS 12 or MP5 for home protection, I would be very suspective for his actual ability to handle any kind of firearm.

About the reasonable number of guns...well, here in Finland it varies, but my own definition for a reasonable number of guns is pretty much about how many different kind of purposes do you have for the guns and multiply that by 2 or three. People have often something like 20 or so guns for hunting, plinking and other kind of shooting.

If you want to have more guns -just because- you can always apply a collector status, which you can easily get if you have all the same features as any gunowner (=no criminal record, decent gun storage) and THEN you can have pretty much as many guns as you wish. Like I've said somewhere here earlier, I've seen private collections of literally thousands and thousands of guns here in Finland.

Many US citizens seem to have the picture, that the officials handling the firearms permits and "making decisions" of how many guns people can own etc. are some sort of communist high authorities who regard every citizen as a potential rebel against their rotten governance or something like that. At least here in Finland the reality is far from that. It is more like applying for a driver's licence in the way that there are some requirements in the law and to keep their work the officials have to follow the procedure set in the law like any other official.

Handling the gun license by police officials is not so much about finding out the political status of the applier or anything of a sort, it is more like checking out if the applier has filled all the lines in the form and written all the information that there has to be, so that the official wouldn't be risking his/her job. If everything is OK and there is no any special reason to deny the license, you can usually get the gun you need without too much hassle.

Actually I'm very happy that in Finland we don't have a constitutional right to own and carry firearms, because our alcohol culture and the number of loonies around, our society would be having more trouble than good with such a legislation. I believe we still have the largest number of guns per capita in Europe, but since they are mostly in the hands of law-abiding citizens, we are doing quite well so far in my opinion.

The leftist fear of guns and the opposition against hunting and all shooting sports is increasing here also, but I guess it can't be totally avoided in urbanising societies. We just need to keep progress into that direction as slow as possible.

quote:

there are some requirements in the law and to keep their work the officials have to follow the procedure set in the law like any other official.

JTH,

The above is what it should be like. Unfortunatly, here in Norway it doesn't always work like this.

There is a big differance between in which city you live in, and thus where you apply for a new gun. Some police districts have a correct veiw on guns and their use, while others are manned by anti's who do their best to actually go against the rules set by law! If you know this, and complain when your application has been refused, your application will then usually go thru. But for those who aren't aware of this, many people then just give up getting a second or third hunting rifle. I have friends who have had this experiance, and can name a couple of citys/towns that are known to have "difficult officials". Yet the "officials" somehow continue to stay in the same job!?!?!

Liberty depends on the distribution of power.

Power comes in many forms. It can be from political office, wealth, access or control of the media, the law etc. But in the end nice people with good intentions don't count. In the end Liberty comes from latent ability to use violence. That is why all national governments retain an army. Its done to try to maintain their integrity.

Its exactly the same with individuals as it is with government. Its legitimate to maintain one's intergrity by violence if need be.

Gun registration is an attempt to centralize power, to put the power of all violence into the hands of the state.

It is always a mistake to do this. It is always dangerous.

You want people to be able to retain enough power of violence so that if need be they can collectively rise up and overcome the army and the police of the state.

You don't have to overdo it. No need to put a nuclear warhead in every garage because then a handful of nutters can overcome the will of the people.

But it is a good idea to put rifles in the hands of the people and make sure they are not registered and that the location of the weapons is not known to the central government.

The American have it figured. The Canadians are begining to figure it out. The Europeans are lost souls.

VBR,


Ted Gorsline

Erik: That is unfortunately often true in Finland also, but I think things are going to a much uniform direction in here. There are these individuals amongst officials who have some strange opinions about guns and their appropriate number, but as you said, they can be complained about and that usually helps.

Ted: Well, I think we here (should I say in Scandinavia?) don't see things that way. My personal guess is that we maybe see that the government isn't that separate from the rest of society, that we would find it relevant to arm ourselves against it. To put it another way: we are the society and if the government gets difficult, we may overthrow it legally as well. The thing is, that in Scandinavia there never has been and most probably never will be significant political power on extremely radical wiews or phenomenons. We are -even our radicals- relatively conservative type of people and the most guaranteed way to lose your credibility as a politician around here is to express some extremely radical wiews on any subject, like forbidding people from their gun ownership. That would be a political suicide.

This is one thing in which we northern people differentiate quite a lot from southern Europe like France, Spain, Italy or Greece. At least that's my own opinion.

In the USA I think that your two-party system makes the political scene and more or less the whole world seem more hostile than in our system. In the US politics -both domestic and foreign- the world is finally simplified to those who are "us" and "all the rest", who are against us. That may not be quite an accurate description and I don't mean to offend anyone -really- but that is how I see the differences between these two political environments.