TomkinsSP
Member
Child of european refugees fleeing the Nazis, born in a Tube station durring the Blitz...
JMO explains a lot.
Freedom in the US vs. Britain
- Thread starter jag312
- Start date
Child of european refugees fleeing the Nazis, born in a Tube station durring the Blitz...
JMO explains a lot.
TomkinsSP
Member
Read the Federalist Papers. The Founders wanted Four power bases to balance one another, and saw the powers recognised (not granted) by the Second Amendment as the way to insure that The People had the ability to resist tyrany.
This may sound corny, but while reading this "God Bless America" started playing in my head.
Of course that was tempered by his choice of firearms. Still...
Of course that was tempered by his choice of firearms. Still...
I know what the Federalist papers say. Today, I doubt those in power have much concern about what us peons think, armed or not.
But that wasn't really what I was addressing. Most of the 'Quality of life' articles have the U.S. far down the list and falling every year in relation to other developed countries for various reasons. The ability to buy a firearm isn't everything.
TomkinsSP
Member
While I may be accused of blasphemy I agree. Looking over my life and what I have spent my money on, so many things are more important than firearms and ammunituon. A decent place to live, good nutritious food, medical care, warmth, clothing, education for my children, transportation, the list is quite long.
Had I taken a different path perhaps I never would have developed an interest in firearms. With the education my parents gave me I could have chosen a different career. I might be sitting fat, dumb and happy in a nice Upper East Side neighborhood letting OTHER PEOPLE use firearms to protect me and my way of life.
Because regrettably our society, and I mean planet earth, is a dangerous one in which the unprincipled very often choose to use force to take. Life is not precious to these psychopaths and sociopaths. So while owning a firearm is not a guarantor of freedom, freedom and independence can only be maintained through the ability and willingness to use force to protect the 13,275 things more important than my gun.
I don't know if they have changed the Walther P99 but a friend got one when they first came out in .40 S&W. When I fired it I experienced the worst muzzle flip of any handgun I had ever shot, the gun nearly torqued out of my hand. It was like the slide and recoil spring were way too light for the .40 round, I think the factory just took a 9m/m gun and put a .40 barrel and magazine in it.
Last edited:
TomkinsSP
Member
Well, that has never happened before!
ivanwi11iams
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2014
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 86
I moved from London to Atlanta, and went to buy my first gun; Glock 19, 4th Gen.
It took 4 days, and lots of paperwork.
Two years after having that weapon I went to get my CCW license and took multiple gun classes.
Now I carry an M&P Shield 2.0, for CCW. [emoji851]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
It took 4 days, and lots of paperwork.
Two years after having that weapon I went to get my CCW license and took multiple gun classes.
Now I carry an M&P Shield 2.0, for CCW. [emoji851]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I spent 7 yrs in the UK (2 Scotland, 5 England) while on active duty.
Yes, there are many things we take entirely for granted that are not the law in the UK. We have the 4th Amendment concerning search & seizure, requiring probable cause. They don't. We were flat out told during our "local conditions/onboarding" brief by the local Constabulary that if a constable stopped us and asked questions, we had no right to refuse answering.
Also, while I was stationed there in the mid-'90s, the rules changed to where the fact a defendant refused to answer questions could be brought up in court. So, not only what you said could be used, but also that you refused to speak.
Yes, there are many things we take entirely for granted that are not the law in the UK. We have the 4th Amendment concerning search & seizure, requiring probable cause. They don't. We were flat out told during our "local conditions/onboarding" brief by the local Constabulary that if a constable stopped us and asked questions, we had no right to refuse answering.
Also, while I was stationed there in the mid-'90s, the rules changed to where the fact a defendant refused to answer questions could be brought up in court. So, not only what you said could be used, but also that you refused to speak.
I get all that right here.
RobertJ.
Member
He's a sore loser, perhaps?
Texas Star
US Veteran
I once met an Irishman who said the same thing: he moved here partially so that he could own guns, and he had several.
I don't know the law on immigrants bringing in guns, although David W. Arnold brought his when he came from South Africa. Some of you may recall him from the time when he edited, Petersen's Handguns.
I still have some carved African animals that he sent me from Rhodesia when we corresponded before he returned to his native South Africa and eventually came here. I'm glad that he could bring his guns. I hope that'd still be true.
The present Miss Universe, Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters, was Miss South Africa when she was crowned Miss U. She escaped a carjacking shortly before the pageant by punching an attacker in the throat, and advocates self defense classes for women.
In South Africa, she can probably get a carry permit, and I hope she has. But she and her roommate, Miss USA, live now in NYC. They probably can't get licenses to carry there, or even to buy pistols.
Some foreigners can carry more easily at home than in certain parts of the USA. Our gun freedoms aren't universal.
I have ancestors who left Britain seeking greater freedoms and better opportunities. Well, further back, some left France (Normandy) also looking for a better deal.. 1066 and all that, you know... But my Norman ancestors bore arms, then a mark of distinction between serfs and freemen. Now the serfs seem to be running things there and proud of their subservience. Many Britons, like my family, moved to better lands. What's left are the people who are largely content with their status.
Genealogical research shows me to be a hereditary baronet, and I probably have the best claim to a now-dormant earldom. If I had a spare $35,000 or so for their work, the College of Arms could probably confirm my status as Earl. (To protect privacy, I won't mention the specific earldom.) And I'm a bit of a snob, and would like to have my noble titles formally confirmed, if an American can.
But had my ancestors not left Britain, even they, members of the nobility, could no longer have the gun rights that I do. It's a sobering thought, and clearly shows the difference between some rights in the UK and in the USA.
Earl though I may be, my proudest title is, Texan.
I don't know the law on immigrants bringing in guns, although David W. Arnold brought his when he came from South Africa. Some of you may recall him from the time when he edited, Petersen's Handguns.
I still have some carved African animals that he sent me from Rhodesia when we corresponded before he returned to his native South Africa and eventually came here. I'm glad that he could bring his guns. I hope that'd still be true.
The present Miss Universe, Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters, was Miss South Africa when she was crowned Miss U. She escaped a carjacking shortly before the pageant by punching an attacker in the throat, and advocates self defense classes for women.
In South Africa, she can probably get a carry permit, and I hope she has. But she and her roommate, Miss USA, live now in NYC. They probably can't get licenses to carry there, or even to buy pistols.
Some foreigners can carry more easily at home than in certain parts of the USA. Our gun freedoms aren't universal.
I have ancestors who left Britain seeking greater freedoms and better opportunities. Well, further back, some left France (Normandy) also looking for a better deal.. 1066 and all that, you know... But my Norman ancestors bore arms, then a mark of distinction between serfs and freemen. Now the serfs seem to be running things there and proud of their subservience. Many Britons, like my family, moved to better lands. What's left are the people who are largely content with their status.
Genealogical research shows me to be a hereditary baronet, and I probably have the best claim to a now-dormant earldom. If I had a spare $35,000 or so for their work, the College of Arms could probably confirm my status as Earl. (To protect privacy, I won't mention the specific earldom.) And I'm a bit of a snob, and would like to have my noble titles formally confirmed, if an American can.
But had my ancestors not left Britain, even they, members of the nobility, could no longer have the gun rights that I do. It's a sobering thought, and clearly shows the difference between some rights in the UK and in the USA.
Earl though I may be, my proudest title is, Texan.
Last edited:
Judges Rules across the UK still give a right to silence. There is norequirement to answer everything. The change in legislation was to prevent someone charged with an offence later coming up with a spurious legal defence argument in court.
The formal British caution is:
“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
I was born and raised in Scotland, never touched a gun until I was about 30. I moved to the US when I was in my early 20's, never even considered getting a gun until after Sandyhook. I started to research it more and weighed up the pros and the cons, then bought my first handgun (Glock 26)
I won't lie, first time at the range and was very nervous. I had read some books and watched some YouTube videos to get a better handle on it. Long story short, got my concealed carry permit and been shooting guns ever since.
Had my friends over and took them to the range, they just think it's crazy the guns we have available here. The bottom line is, the U.K. doesn't want guns. If there was a vote to legalize guns, I'm very confident it would be a resounding no from the people.
What Brits and Americans have to understand is, our countries have two totally different cultures. Nothing wrong with that, just the way it is. We should respect there stance on guns and they should respect ours.
I won't lie, first time at the range and was very nervous. I had read some books and watched some YouTube videos to get a better handle on it. Long story short, got my concealed carry permit and been shooting guns ever since.
Had my friends over and took them to the range, they just think it's crazy the guns we have available here. The bottom line is, the U.K. doesn't want guns. If there was a vote to legalize guns, I'm very confident it would be a resounding no from the people.
What Brits and Americans have to understand is, our countries have two totally different cultures. Nothing wrong with that, just the way it is. We should respect there stance on guns and they should respect ours.
Last edited:
Absalom
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
This is the key. It's the culture, and especially the history. Not just regarding Britain, but even other formerly British colonies, with frontier histories similar to the US, like Canada and Australia.
None of them had a conflict with the mother country that blew up into a war for independence when the British marched out to confiscate the colonists' guns. I've always thought that without the signal importance of Lexington and Concord, there might not have been a 2. Amendment.
So guns in the hands of the people have become associated with freedom in America in a way they simply haven't anywhere else.
As I've mentioned here before, when I talk to conservative European friends, they don't really get it. To them, the idea of "guns in the hands of the people" smells more of anarchists and revolutionaries. In other countries, gun control is often seen as a simple law-and-order issue, and conservatives are frequently for it. And keep in mind that it was a conservative government that introduced the gun restrictions in Australia after the Tasmania massacre.
So nice to be a Citizen as opposed to a Subject. Had a " Bobbie ", do a ride along one shift. A pleasant Chap. Sat in the cruiser and saw the weapons I carried as well as the, at the time, 870 in it's rack and was literally astonished by the firearms. I just told him to give it a few call's for service and he may have a different view as to why we carry them. He saw the issues but was very adamant he would never desire to carry a firearm.
ivanwi11iams
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2014
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 86
As someone else stated, my first visit to the range was with a Police person friend, and I was PETRIFIED!
We English might say no to weapons locally. However, the likes of Yardies coming to London/Hackney, seem to be armed and it is a little frightening how they are getting the weapons...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
We English might say no to weapons locally. However, the likes of Yardies coming to London/Hackney, seem to be armed and it is a little frightening how they are getting the weapons...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
SuperMan
Member
It's the difference between being a "citizen" and a "subject".
I have always said that the reason we are free and have the freedom mentality and that places like Canada and Australia are still subjects is that we kicked the British out vs. being granted freedom like they were.
And unlike Britain whose "subjects" have no right to self-defense and we do, the reason being the Second Amendment. It gives us both the tools and the right to rise up should the government become corrupt which is why the Brits can't allow self-defense...it would then allow the to rise up against the Monarchy...quite unsporting you know...
Bob
I have always said that the reason we are free and have the freedom mentality and that places like Canada and Australia are still subjects is that we kicked the British out vs. being granted freedom like they were.
And unlike Britain whose "subjects" have no right to self-defense and we do, the reason being the Second Amendment. It gives us both the tools and the right to rise up should the government become corrupt which is why the Brits can't allow self-defense...it would then allow the to rise up against the Monarchy...quite unsporting you know...
Bob
I understand why they should respect ours, as indicated earlier by Lobo, and for other reasons, also mentioned in this thread. But why should we respect theirs? They are wrong, as we all well know.
