TargetTalk

I am really surprised at Scott for initiating this thread. I thought that this was one of the few places to which I could escape from this never ending political season. I have little interest in who my fellow shooters are going to vote for.

While not surprised, I find it upsetting that members of a board devoted to the shooting sports, should show no interest in the nomination of a leader, so supportive of the 2nd. Amendment. I'm not surprised at the Brits, I guess they can always count on us to send our fine sporting arms over there to arm their home guard, and then, instead of returning them, tossing them in the sea. July of last year, I did a cruise and land tour of the British Isles, and a news piece on Sky News caught my eye. The reporter was interviewing a man in London, whose flat had recently been burglarized. He told the reporter on no uncertain terms, that he wasn't going to let that happen again, and brought him up to his bedroom, where he showed him a tennis racket he had purchased for self defense. To my surprise, the reporter inquired as to whether he feared being arrested for assault. He said he'd rather that, than have to go through another burglary. He was home and we call them home invasions. The reporter interviewed another man, who brandished a cricket bat, and the same conversation ensued.

It turns out Parliament was discussing/voting on? A bill introduced that would make it legal to use physical force to defend your home from intruders. never did find out if the law was passed, perhaps one of you Brits could report on it. I'm sure you remember, it was in July of 2007.
As an American, and a retired NYPD plainclothesman I find this unbelievable! I now live in a state where it's not only legal to use deadly force when someone breaks into your home, but if you're being threatened with the same, by someone outside, and reasonably believe you're in danger, you can open the front door, and give the culprit a dose or two of double-ought buck.

One has only to visit any town in GB, and see the profusion of closed circuit TV cameras and burglar alarm boxes on the front of both commercial and residential buildings, to realize they're in a "siege mentality" over there. And, as regards the world renowned "unarmed" British Bobbies, here are three I met while over there. The couple in London, and the other fellow in Wales.




For obvious reasons, this will be my last posting on this subject, I'm either "preaching to the choir", or talking to the wall here.

Fred, I know how you feel. I'm also tired of watching the Tweedle Dee's and Tweedle Dums battling for the big prize, but I know that my 2nd. Amendment rights are in grave danger. Well, not my rights, I'm almost 69yrs. old. It's my heirs for whom I fear.
Paul

Welsh-shooter wrote:No idea how this thread got involved in the rise of European socialism and the struggle against Hitler...?

My point is that anti-abortion is virtually a non-issue in the UK and very few politicians will openly discuss the issue, as for creationism (does she really believe this?), no politician (conservative or socialist) in their right mind would even mention the subject, it would be political suicide.

These topics are seen from a European perspective as representative of an extreme fringe of religious right-wing American thinking, not mainstream politics, and are thought-of with severe scepticism and some unease. Guns, despite the media and political bias are still a subject of real political debate, and in the UK there is still some sense of injustice within the general public toward what was done to shooting sports following the Dunblane massacre and the fact that we cannot train for the Olympics in 2012.

It is a real danger that any remaining sympathy toward shooting sports could easily vanish, if the whole subject just becomes another example of the extreme views of those "loony Americans" - not my opinion, but the press in the UK just love that angle... From a European shooters perspective, what plays well in the US is often a negative for the rest of us.

Personally I hope she helps McCain win - if only to watch the BBC have a heart attack from the shock...

I think you have missed the point that the gun owners in Europe are in there current situation partly because that the base of shooters in the country shrank and at the same time complacent to the point that by the time they decided to fight back it was to late. One of our country's founding fathers once said something to the affect that winning the freedom (referring to Revolution) was the easy part keeping the freedom will be the hardest part and to the media back then in your country thought he was a loon. When he was making the remarks about keeping our freedom's he wasn't necessarily referring to our enemies from outside the country, but to the people in the country who would become so complacent that they would grant more and more authority to the government to run their lives thereby losing the freedoms won by the thousand lost to keep them.

My observation from watching your politicians talk in parliament and in the government media that many in your government probably already feel that anybody that wants to own a gun is a "loon" and if they feel that way already and are willing to voice it in public they don't fear you and if they don't fear you they are going to say and do whatever they want to the gun owners in your country, despite what us "loony" Americans do. The press in your part of the world has had very few good things to say about us Americans since the days we kicked the British out of the country unless it was somebody like Bill Clinton or Obama who heaven forbid could be the world's next great appeaser.

I am afraid the media in your country knows that your numbers are relatively small and that they probably feel that they can further reduce the numbers just by using us "loony Americans" as an excuse. Frankly, I eventually see that you have nothing to lose at some point the government is going to try and take all your guns they will either do it piece meal or all at once. I know your numbers small and your fighting an uphill battle, but if you don't fight back your going to lose anyway. When Washington went to war during the American Revolution he had only 30% support from the people. The rest where supporters (30%) of the crown and the others were fence sitters, but they still managed to win against the most powerful nation at the time.

Britain today is indeed a very screwed up country, but our American cousins need to better understand the reality of politics outside the US, before spouting a load of rubbish about how weak and afraid to stand up for ourselves we are over here.

Unlike the US, we have no effective constitutional right to bear arms; in fact I am not even a true citizen of the UK, but still a "subject to the crown". When Dunblane hit the shooting community, we did fight within the very limited resources we had available. Faced as we were, with up to 10years in jail for any non-compliance with the legislation - I suspect most Americans would open "their cold dead hands" when the government is actually dragging them off to jail.

The concept that you can somehow stand up for your rights in the face of a consensus from media, police, government and legal system is just unrealistic in the 21st century - 250,000 hunting supporters brought London to a standstill over the foxhunting ban, and it still had no effect.

Shooting sports are under threat globally, because we are loosing the media agenda and becoming marginalised as part of fringe activity that the mainstream public are told to be afraid of. As for the complacency of shooters in the UK - 20 years ago they would have sounded much like our American friends, with comments about how our rights and freedoms would protect us. Yes you have the added protection of your constitution, but I hope you do not come to realise as we did, that your sandcastles are not much protection when the tide really turns.

What happened in the UK should be a lesson to the rest of the shooting world – we had to stand alone in that fight. I do not remember the ISSF or NRA coming to our rescue and these same people will turn up to the Olympics in 2012 without a murmur.

Unlike the US, we have no effective constitutional right to bear arms;

Unfortunately, that is the sad truth for most. But whatever happened to Blackstone's comment to English Common Law? (I make no claim of any sort of expertise here ... an honest question) If Parliment is the "Ultimate" authority, cannot Parliment be changed?

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Another honest question here, as I really don't know, but do have a suspicion:
In all of the democracies that we (the USA) are promoting, helping, nurturing if you will, How many of >those< constitutions contain that right? I hope that 1791 was not the last time this right was acknowledged to peoples of a nation........

I am also no expert in British constitutional law, but I think the key part of the quote is "as such as are allowed by law". Parliament gets to make the law and unlike the US we have no supreme court in which to challenge their opinion. Firearms in the UK are not technically banned, simply that you cannot obtain a "certificate" to possess or use one - a subtle distinction that dodges the constitutional issue.

A number of people have looked into the merits of challenging the government on this issue - unfortuantely we do not seem to have anyone with enough cash and time to take this through the courts. Perviously we did take a case to the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice, where we discovered just how few rights we really have in Europe.

Anyone taking such a case could also expect to be branded by the media as a crackpot, a danger to society and children, unemployable and if you hold a firearms certificate it would probably be immediately revoked and your house searched in case you are a terrorist...

In addition to what welsh-shooter is saying, it would be instructive for our Armerican cousins to think what life would be like without the second amendment.....


No, really think about it. Think of all the political statements that have been uttered over the decades about gun ownership and what many politicians have said they'd like to do if it wasn't for the second amendment etc.

Now imagine the second amendment is gone....


That's where we are :(

jhmartin wrote:

Unlike the US, we have no effective constitutional right to bear arms;

Unfortunately, that is the sad truth for most. But whatever happened to Blackstone's comment to English Common Law? (I make no claim of any sort of expertise here ... an honest question) If Parliment is the "Ultimate" authority, cannot Parliment be changed?

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Another honest question here, as I really don't know, but do have a suspicion:
In all of the democracies that we (the USA) are promoting, helping, nurturing if you will, How many of >those< constitutions contain that right? I hope that 1791 was not the last time this right was acknowledged to peoples of a nation........

Well, in Iraq, all families are permitted to have one (full-auto) AK-47.