Colours

As you might have heard, we have had another incident in Whitehaven, Cumbria which will once again bring Gun Control to the fore of politics.

__________________

Buickguy

Historically, the right to keep and bear arms was viewed by the "founding fathers" as an inalienable God given (or natural, if you prefer) right that went hand in hand with self determination and the right to exist.
In an absolute monarchy, subjects are property of the monarch without the right to self determination and existence is at the monarch's whim.
Recall the tales of Robin Hood (earliest legends) who became outlawed because of taking the "King's deer". The rights of the people became greatly expanded and codified with the Magna Charta. Then add the Scottish Enlightenment of the early 18th century and the type of people willing to make an arduous journey to settle in an untamed wilderness and you have the makings of a revolution. Many of the revolutionary figures were strongly loyal to the British Empire and considered themselves Englishmen with all the rights thereof. When they felt those right were being constantly trampled by their monarch and that the colonists were being relegated to a second class status they took up arms against their monarch and declared themselves independent from that monarchy with the full rights to self government and self determination.
The constitutional guarantee to keep and bear arms was put in place by those same revolutionaries so that the government they formed would never degrade in to any form of tyranny. Yes, they actually meant for the citizens to be able to revolt against their own government.
The constitutional guarantee against a standing army was put in place because of the king’s use of his military regulars to enforce his will. What is particularly interesting here is the earliest police forces in the United States were unarmed. It was felt that arming a police force would violate the prohibition against a standing army. This decision was later reversed because the citizenry can be armed and accepting a job in law enforcement did not negate a person’s right to life and the means of defending it. It was determined that a city’s police force was not a military presence and elected law enforcement like a county sheriff were outlined in the constitution. As citizen law enforcement they retain the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.
The main cultural difference is that here the police are allowed to be armed because the citizenry is armed. The culture that more directly descends from a monarchy would contend the the people may be armed if the police allow them to be.
That is a major dichotomy that is unlikely, if not impossible, to resolve in a forum such as this.
Few Americans can explain it but they have the inborn hatred of oppression. How that hatred of oppression gets expressed by the individual varies greatly but it is present(in some form)
among the vast majority of Americans. Many see the taking away of individual arms as an oppression/ oppressive move. They saw that the Fascist dictators and other oppressive governments of the last century did just that before inflicting their worst tyrannies on their people.


I am in agreement with you here! I come to this forum and hobby to get away from work. The only disagreement I would have is that this issue would be almost impossible to resolve even in a face to face discussion.
Still in all I am just revolutionary enough to defend your right to believe and reason as you desire without fear, threat or retaliation.

__________________

1987 CMX250C Rebel

2002 FSC600 SilverWing

1983 Yamaha Midnight Virago XV920MK

Put your bike's year and size in your signature.
It helps others help you.

Colours

i agree with you in that some arguments cannot be resolved face-to-face although i think some arguments simply would not happen face to face

The Magna Carta transferred power from the King to the Barons and should be highlighted as a step towards democracy although not for the purest of intentions.

You have a "right to bear arms" we have no such right and there is a vociferous opposition to that "right". We simply have no need.

__________________

Colours

Fascists armed their favoured. We have a rather brutal experience of that in Europe

__________________

Buickguy

Quite so! I really have intent of argument but I do find historical converse rather enjoyable.

Also rather true. The rights of the people slowly expanded from there.
Another historical perspective that has gotten lost over here (Particularly in the 20th century) is that the U.S. is not a democracy, nor was intended to be by the founders. The founders intention was a constitutionally limited representative republic. James Madison taught himself Latin, Greek, French and Italian then researched historical republics and their failings considerably when he undertook his work with the US constitution. Many of the founders had not only read the oratories of Cicero, they took them to heart. They believed democracy was nothing more than mob rule whereas a limited republic would best preserve the right of the individual. They then took great pains to spell out the limitations of that republic.


I must sadly admit my knowledge of English history is not as in depth as I would like. I do understand the basics of the current limited monarchy / parliamentary system.
With that in mind, I thought there was a time last century that it was a widely held opinion the every Englishman had the right to live within the law and defend that life. I know of some court cases where that right was either denied or curtailed. I don't quite understand the system of jurisprudence and precedence in the UK. If my information is correct, public opinion changed later in the last century bringing about more limitation on firearms. We had a movie set in WWII where a German soldier asks an American POW why he would fight for the British, an American enemy citing the war of 1812. The POW responds that it was all propagandy and no such events took place. Historically, we had a poster of "modern" WWII troops passing in front of Minutemen with the captions reading "Americans will always fight for Liberty"

Need, on the other hand, is a debate I wouldn't care to engage in


Yes, rather. They also disarmed those they didn't care for as well as any who might oppose them on principle. A sad ordeal that.
To this day, Churchill is one of my favorite orators of that Era. Quite a brilliant man really.

__________________

1987 CMX250C Rebel

2002 FSC600 SilverWing

1983 Yamaha Midnight Virago XV920MK

Put your bike's year and size in your signature.
It helps others help you.

flitecontrol

Historically, most of the British landed gentry owned hunting firearms. I believe the royal family still hunts. Some of the finest shotguns were, and I believe still are, made in Britian. When did gun ownership in the UK become restrictive?

We simply have no need.

Not sure those shot in Cumbria would share that opinion. Although if they don't know how to shoot a gun, it might never occur to them that having one could be a life saver. Certainly the hunters in your country would disagree with that statement.

I have several guns, all but one of which are for hunting. The non-hunting gun, a pistol, was purchased just a few months back. I haven't even fired it yet. When not in use, all my firearms are kept in a locked gun safe.

I know there are some in this country who don't leave home without a gun. Does that knowledge cause me alarm? Not really, because I believe most folks are sane and will use a gun only in dire circumstances. If the Cumbria shooter had no access to guns, he would have used a knife, cricket bat, pitchfork, or something else to kill with.

__________________
I'm keepin' all the left over parts. I'm gonna use 'em to build another bike!

2001 Rebel 250, 1989 Vulcan 750
Putting your bike info in your signature helps others help you!

JunkyardDog

If a government fears the fact that citizens are armed, then there is a clear problem with that government. In the U.S., the government is supposed to be owned and controlled by "We the People." I won't go any farther with that one.

Anyone who thinks that gun control will stop or reduce crime is so far out in fantasyland they may never find their way back. Even in the total absence of guns, criminals would still commit crimes, just as they do now. But that situation will never occur. There are an almost infinite number of guns out there right now, zillions and zillions of them. Criminals will always have access to guns. That being the case, law abiding citizens must also have access to guns.

I only own 4 guns, 2 rifles, a shotgun, and a 9mm pistol. I used to hunt, but don't anymore. I just no longer enjoy killing animals. I still use the rifles for target shooting, and fire a box of shells through the shotgun about once a year, just for the fun of it.

The pistol is strictly a weapon. It was bought for a weapon, and while I have used it on the shooting range to become familiar with it, and practice with it, the barrel is to short for it to be accurate for anything but close range. I purposely bought the smallest semi large caliber gun I could find, with the express intent of using it for concealed carry. I found out after getting my permit that I don't carry it as much as I thought I would, but when I have it, and when it is at home, it is always loaded with one in the chamber, and the safety off, unless I am physically carrying it, then the safety is on.

Nobody has anything to fear from me or my gun, unless they are trying to kill me, or they break into my house, and I am fortunate enough to get the drop on them. If you are one of those, you don't matter anyway. Hopefully I will never have to use it for defense, but it is there, just in case. We live in a sick and twisted world. Most of us hope we never have to use our car or bike insurance either,(I never have) but we have it, just in case. Jerry.

__________________

Colours

Owning a gun here is considered a privilege, not a right.

We have no need of the right.

Gun ownership here is restrictive and background checks are made but even gun owners are saying that follow-up checks are not thorough enough.

Do not get me wrong. I am not one of those people that blindly calls for an outright ban on guns because of the actions of one person but multiple shootings are a fairly recent event here and although the PM has ruled out a knee -jerk reaction on legislation (good -as we might end up with another abomination such as the dangerous dogs act) there will be a very close examination as to why this man was allowed to keep a gun.

I care not what the royal family do, I am a Republican

Our police force although having armed response units are generally unarmed, and that is the way generally the British Public like it. This is a very different culture to that of the US particularly in the attitude towards guns. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who once wrote "Britain and America, two nations seperated by a common language" but dont quote me on that..lol

__________________

Colours

Flite, Gun ownership in the UK became increasingly restrictive after Dunblane and Hungerford

__________________

Fridgitator

The differences are entirely cultural. Given the opportunity for everyone there to have a handgun, I'm sure the public reaction would be just as swift and sure as a repeal of the right to keep and bear arms would be over here. We are a nation founded on rebellion from perceived tyranny, and many of our treasured national heroes are those that are remembered for fighting with whatever was handy against those who would have had them living as serfs. From that, we moved to killing the locals in the name of personal freedom, and homestead mentality of 'A man's home is his castle' still reverberates through much of our thinking. To me, the right to protect my person, home, and property with lethal force is a fundamental part of being human. I would not cede my right to do that under any circumstances.

__________________