Mistake in gun bill could defeat the effort

No more so than your signature.....After all English citizens do not have the right to carry arms to defend their selves...

o8lu.jpg

Coppers CAN be well-armed, tho. Look at the Summer Olympics, last year. :icon_thumleft:
 

Dano Sverige said:
My signature is NOT an attack! True it can be used as a tongue in cheek "swipe" at the gun crowd, but it's purpose to ME is that it defines my views and beliefs on owning guns. Yeah yeah, i'm not an American blah blah blah etc, but it makes no difference. I believe EVERYONE should be entitled to defend and protect themselves and theirs....within reason!
1 shotgun - for home defence.
Max of 3 handguns for home defence/concealed carry.....with permits.
Hunting rifles to be allowed in rural areas and as required by legitimate hunters.

This is my belief, whether it be the US, Britain, Sweden or Guatamala. I DON'T agree with stockpiling guns and ammo because "well, you never know do you?"!!
So..my signature states my stance - I'm all for the first (with additions,restrictions) and not for the 2nd (no pun intended). If this upsets people then so be it!

Completely agree. We are all entitled to state out opinion. I just always think it best to keep discussions at a non-personal level and stick with the topic at hand.
 

This is an example of why "Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it". In early 1938 or so, Hitler had pictures of himself surrounded by children and movies were taken. The captioned movies said in effect "dies ist der Grund, warum wir konfiszieren Waffen sind - zum Schutz der Kinder! Which means: "this is the reason we are confiscating guns - to protect the children".
Of course it was... a ploy to get the nation UNARMED so that a takeover could be done without a struggle.
Stalin in effect did the same and as you know, MILLIONS were killed in the purges.
That is why we have the 2nd amendment...so our govt. cannot subjugate us to their will.
Once the people are disarmed and at the mercy of the gov't for subsistence, medical care etc., freedom is LOST!
 

deepsky48 said:
This is an example of why "Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it". In early 1938 or so, Hitler had pictures of himself surrounded by children and movies were taken. The captioned movies said in effect "dies ist der Grund, warum wir konfiszieren Waffen sind - zum Schutz der Kinder! Which means: "this is the reason we are confiscating guns - to protect the children".
Of course it was... a ploy to get the nation UNARMED so that a takeover could be done without a struggle.
Stalin in effect did the same and as you know, MILLIONS were killed in the purges.
That is why we have the 2nd amendment...so our govt. cannot subjugate us to their will.
Once the people are disarmed and at the mercy of the gov't for subsistence, medical care etc., freedom is LOST!

Study your history. Hitler was welcomed into power by by many and frankly many didnt care who was in power as long as that person could improve the economy. His antisemitic views were frankly cheered by much of the German population and they became the accepted scapegoats for all if Germany's ill. You are basically removing all responsibility of the citizens of Germany who were at least extremely complacent and many active participants. I know it's the thing to do equating Obama to hitler but lets not create a pseudo history to do so.
 

My signature is NOT an attack! True it can be used as a tongue in cheek "swipe" at the gun crowd, but it's purpose to ME is that it defines my views and beliefs on owning guns. Yeah yeah, i'm not an American blah blah blah etc, but it makes no difference. I believe EVERYONE should be entitled to defend and protect themselves and theirs....within reason!
1 shotgun - for home defence.
Max of 3 handguns for home defence/concealed carry.....with permits.
Hunting rifles to be allowed in rural areas and as required by legitimate hunters.

This is my belief, whether it be the US, Britain, Sweden or Guatamala. I DON'T agree with stockpiling guns and ammo because "well, you never know do you?"!!
So..my signature states my stance - I'm all for the first (with additions,restrictions) and not for the 2nd (no pun intended). If this upsets people then so be it!

Dano, I am glad you have no say in this as you do not understand the reason the second is there nor do you understand real Americans.....
 

This is an example of why "Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it". In early 1938 or so, Hitler had pictures of himself surrounded by children and movies were taken. The captioned movies said in effect "dies ist der Grund, warum wir konfiszieren Waffen sind - zum Schutz der Kinder! Which means: "this is the reason we are confiscating guns - to protect the children".
Of course it was... a ploy to get the nation UNARMED so that a takeover could be done without a struggle.
Stalin in effect did the same and as you know, MILLIONS were killed in the purges.
That is why we have the 2nd amendment...so our govt. cannot subjugate us to their will.

You're following the general NRA view of things, which as usual...is wrong! Germany's gun ban was already well established long before Hitler gained power. Hitler actually restored the rights for Germans to own guns. The 1938 ban was aimed at the jews and "undesirables", communists, Gypsies etc.
Stalin never had many guns to ban. Private gun ownership was virtually unknown to anyone outside of "the party". Ever seen the WW2 films where Russians going to the front line are given arms? One guy gets a rifle and no ammo. 2nd guy gets ammo and no rifle. Not enough guns to go around see?
This goes for most of the countries on the endless lists posted by the NRA and it's followers concerning "Democide". Most never had guns to be confiscated in the first place, and would have still been massacred!
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom