The British called...They want their guns back.

[Pilgrim]

A must see..check this out

http://www.weaponvideos.org/viewvideo/259/Gun_bans_in_the_UK__NRA_/

 

[Weerd Beard]

Wow, thanks for the link, Dennis.

All I have to say is: "Not on my damn watch!"

 

[Chris]

I guess the real question is this:

If the marching and protesting doesn't seem to work, what's next?

 

[FPrice]

I guess the real question is this:

If the marching and protesting doesn't seem to work, what's next?

Strongly worded letters.

 

[JonJ]

I guess the real question is this:

If the marching and protesting doesn't seem to work, what's next?

They've gone along with knife and toy gun bans so it would appear that they've all laid down and died.
There is no "next". They're done, cooked.

 

[Adam_MA]

Very powerful! Thank you for posting this!

 

[Weerd Beard]

I guess the real question is this:

If the marching and protesting doesn't seem to work, what's next?

Honestly, Chris, why are you suprised that marching and protesting doesn't work?

We just watched a Brady Camp march crash and burn with no effect. We see the anti-war types march day after day, fall on deaf ears. Jesse Jackson has been Marching all of his life, and he's barely a footnote in American history.

What makes you think that if WE marched it would be any different?

Meanwhile the OSHA law that would make ammunition virtually illigal, no marches were held. But we called, we wrote letters, we supported our shooting groups (most noted the NRA) and the bill was quickly withdrawn without protest.

That's how its done. If that doesn't do it, I'll look for a place to run (if its a draconian state law) if I can't run, then is the time to THINK about fighting.

Would I? I can't say untill I'm there.

 

[9000S]

sick..

I think i just threw up a little bit in my mouth.....

 

[Rockrivr1]

I guess the real question is this:

If the marching and protesting doesn't seem to work, what's next?

Armed rebellion. (Hypothetically )

 

[Big_Red]

Wow! This was a real eye opener. One thing's for sure...I am going to do whatever I can to not let that happen here.

I am also surprised to learn that Australia is heading the same direction as Great Britain.

 

[Mikey]

The problem with armed rebellion other then the obvious is we are no match for the American Military as we were against the British centuries ago. Yes guerilla warfare is not ideal to fight against but we could not win an armed conflict especially seeing as most gun owners in this country will probably just turn into sheep instead of fighting. Our only hope if it comes down to fighting is that the Generals and or president are on our side.

As far as the video it makes me sick.

 

[Cato]

From the 1689 English Bill of Rights:

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

 

[Weerd Beard]

The problem with armed rebellion other then the obvious is we are no match for the American Military as we were against the British centuries ago.

You have a point ONLY when you don't take defection into account.

I would like to think that our police and military would be smart enugh to relize that
#1. Gun confiscation (which is what would get me to contemplate fighting back) is horribly wrong.
#2. That while they will win the battle, likely the hold-out will take more than a few with him. Is that really worth dying for?

entirely speculation, but I think its a factor.

 

[Arcticelf]

You have a point ONLY when you don't take defection into account.

entirely speculation, but I think its a factor.

Never mind defection in the actual military. I have no idea what the % would be. I like to think its high, but I don't know.

Armed rebellion is an ugly picture, but I'm not convinced its impossible.

AE

 

[Cato]

Citizen rebellions never work. You would end up worse off than before.

 

[Jose]

I am also surprised to learn that Australia is heading the same direction as Great Britain.

In some ways, Australia HAS suprassed Not-so-Great Britain's stupidity.

Believe it or not, you can still buy semi auto and pump shotguns in the UK on a basic shotgun certificate so long as they are permanently plugged to two rounds in the magazine (not a removable dowel like we do here). The most common way to plug the mags there is to dimple the tube so it cannot accept three shells. This is done by manufacturers, importers, or probably the proof house for personal imports.

You cannot own a semi auto or pump shotgun in Australia AT ALL.

 

[MichaelJ]

I think i just threw up a little bit in my mouth.....

x2

Did you see all those guns sliding into the garbage? The shame.

 

[Mikey]

You have a point ONLY when you don't take defection into account.

I would hope that we would not be the defectors and we and various military and government forces would be fighting the defectors which I would assume will be the rise of the socialist.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Citizen rebellions never work. You would end up worse off than before.

I'd rather die fighting for my rights than live like a sheep.

And if even just a few of those people in Great Britain and Australia had resisted, perhaps the sight of armed agents of the state killing them in cold blood would have made the rest of the population wake up.

 

[TomH]

Don't they remember WWII? They were under constant threat of invasion, I bet they wanted guns then! They're dumb if they don't think it can happen again.

 

[doobie]

That will not happen here. We will not let it happen here.

 

[TomH]

That will not happen here. We will not let it happen here.

Yes we should all put up a fight! The dynamics of it all are a bit different here, as there are states rights etc, and more deeply rooted gun ownership associated with how our country was formed... but I still think the next few years will be crucial for the future of private firearm ownership.

 

[Jay G]

It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

Plain and simple.

They want my guns? Molon Labe.

The problem with armed rebellion other then the obvious is we are no match for the American Military as we were against the British centuries ago. Yes guerilla warfare is not ideal to fight against but we could not win an armed conflict especially seeing as most gun owners in this country will probably just turn into sheep instead of fighting. Our only hope if it comes down to fighting is that the Generals and or president are on our side.

As far as the video it makes me sick.

 

[codenamepaul]

Cato/Mikey

Don't be so quick to get on your knees. To comtemplate that an armed rebellion in the US has no chance for success is folly to believe. It has enough chance that the military believes that this would not be a winnable war. You think- our military is stalemated by a bunch of undisciplined, non-shooting, one-step from the stone age Iraqis/Iranians. In a pretty small geographic area to boot. Think about how well they would fare against a homegrown, at least 10% veteran, well armed, with home field advantage guerrilla army.

There are an estimated 80 million gunowners in Amerika, in posession of an estimated 230million firearms. During the first revolution, it was estimated that only 3% of the population actually took part in the war-including support roles. Given that, that would put a 2,400,000 men at arms in the field. Guerrilla counter warfare/counter insurgency operations dictate (generally) a 10 to 1 advantage needed for success against a guerrilla force. Our current military strength is less than 4 million and that does not include deserters. Not counting the fact that units would have to be divided by geographic origin and deployed away from those areas-because not doing so would raise the desertion rate exponentially. The military is well aware that the desertion rate would be high-sometimes entire units. They will not leave empty-handed either.

You may want to evaluate your comments. The Loyalists were not well treated upon conclusion of the last revolution. I would suggest we have not advanced as a civilization enough to believe it would be any different, or likely, even worse the next time.

 

[Mikey]

I am not getting on my knees nor would I ever, I have already made that pledge to myself, I was simply discussing the scenarios of possible fighting, I never once said I was giving up. With military support it would be much easier to win, without support it would be much harder that’s all…

 

[n1zfg]

Citizen rebellions never work. You would end up worse off than before.

The American revolution was a citizen rebellion.
It took years for the new government to shake itself out and things to calm down, and that period of time was probably worse off than before. But in the end, things did get better.
Not all citizen rebellions work out this way and we may be the exception rather than the rule. In fact I only know of two successes to date, US and the Swiss.

 

[Rockrivr1]

I wonder if there are any statistics from the UK and Australia on the amount of gun owners who didn't turn in their weapons? It would be interesting to see how many and if there were any LE injuries or deaths tied to the home confiscation of these weapons. Basically did gun ownership go quietly into the night or did some fight for it. If they did fight, it would seem they didn't organize as we would of heard about it. (Well, maybe)

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

I wonder if there are any statistics from the UK and Australia on the amount of gun owners who didn't turn in their weapons? It would be interesting to see how many and if there were any LE injuries or deaths tied to the home confiscation of these weapons. Basically did gun ownership go quietly into the night or did some fight for it. If they did fight, it would seem they didn't organize as we would of heard about it. (Well, maybe)

The problem is that they [Australia/U.K.] had a registration of all firearms shortly before the bans were implemented: The litmus test will be if/when there is an eventual federal law that comes down that mandates registration of all firearms. That is when the SHTF in my book...

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

Gun Confiscation in Democratic Societies

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph)

In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)

If you really think about firearm registration and the actual dollar cost for implementing such a system, they could spend that money on hiring more Law Enforcement Officers and enforcing the 20,000+ laws on the book for firearms....build more prisons....whatever....

By this rational, all cars should be banned since people regularly drive over the speed limit and more deaths are caused by vehicular accidents than by guns. Since you have the possibility of becoming a law breaker, you must be stripped of that right that will cause you to become one. So I guess that means Feinstein can step up and turn in her concealed carry permit as the first of many to prove that they are willing to sacrifice their liberties for the common good of others...

Ya gotta keep the booger hook off the bang switch until you are ready to fire! If she was in MA, could they say she was negligent and strip her LTC?

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

What we could look forward to if guns are outlawed:

Easy police access to firearms:
Although New Zealand police are technically unarmed, many police cars are mobile arsenals, police say.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4218780a11.html

"They have to be, but they are not routinely carried by every officer and that's the definition of an unarmed police force."

Every city had police cars equipped with gun safes containing a selection of Glock pistols and M4 or Bushmaster rifles, the officer said.

Police instructions on carrying firearms are:

1. Although the police is an unarmed service, it recognises firearms need to be available quickly and safely.
   
2. The carriage of firearms by police and the visibility of firearms must be kept to a minimum.
   
3. Firearms are not to be carried by officers as a general practice but are allowed in authorised police vehicles.
   
4. Such authorisation can extend to sergeant/senior-sergeant patrols, first-response units, CIB patrols, dog patrols and single-crewed patrols.
   
5. Vehicles used for this purpose are to be fitted with secure cabinets and consideration should be given for the vehicle to be alarmed.
   
6. The district commander must issue strict control procedures over firearms in vehicles and appoint an officer to monitor adherence.
   
7. Police may carry police-issue firearms when there is clear and specific evidence of a threat to their lives or the lives of others (or risk of serious injury) but they must receive authorisation.
   
8. Commissioned and non-commissioned officers may carry firearms without authorisation if they have evidence their lives or those of others are in danger.

I would not want to be a LEO in New Zealand! Great to have your dick in you hand when trying to enforce the law...

 

[Erebus]

Don't they remember WWII? They were under constant threat of invasion, I bet they wanted guns then! They're dumb if they don't think it can happen again.

Apparently they have forgotten yet again.

Taken from The Independence Institute website.

In 1903, Parliament voted to forbid pistol sales to minors and felons. Sales were allowed only to those with gun licenses, which were easy to get. In 1920, despite the fact that people with firearms posed no particular danger, the government expanded controls by prohibiting the ownership of rifles or pistols without "good reason." In 1936, short-barreled shotguns and fully automatic firearms were outlawed.

In 1940, the British government found itself short of arms for island defense and ran ads in American newspapers begging people to "Send a Gun to Defend a British Home. Not having learned its lesson, it searched soldiers returning home from World War II, confiscating and destroying any weapons found.

Here's an image of the ad.

I wonder how many of the guns Americans sent to defend British homes were destroyed by this ban. Think about it, we sent them guns to use to defend themselves from invasion and their own government took them away and destroyed them.