While I am an Endowment Member of the NRA I rarely go to their website and I only scan thru the monthly mag they send me. Their position on many gun rights issues are let's say, not as ardent as mine. I find their arguments provincial and unsophisticated; molded more for public consumption than to be used by motivated gun rights supporter. The amicus briefs they write in federal gun cases are sometimes interesting but I am a member because I appreciate what they do for gun-owners, not for discussion points.

Now, as to where I get my info from it is called history. The UK has never had wide firearm ownership; even in WWII there were appeals from the UK to American citizens to donate firearms for their effort and ads even appeared in the National Rifleman, the NRA's flagship publication.

The UK's gun restrictions were originally hidden in the game code, no common citizen could own a vehicle to kill game. These laws kept arms out of the hands of nearly everyone except for landed aristocrats and the various titled nobles.

Even Blackstone, the esteemed expert on the laws of William & Mary noted and acknowledged this fact:

"that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws ."

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. II, p. 412

It's Britain's history and these restrictions evolved over time and they have remained in force without remission for centuries.



Dunblane finally killed what small gun owner demographic there was in England. But that beggs an easily answered question: Are there more or less gun crimes now than in 1997? Has the ban been a success?

WHOOPS

WHOOPS II



Name them and discuss . . .



Thankfully there's another thing that separates us; my rights are not subject to either the momentary desires of a selfish politician or the ignorant whims of public opinion.



Well, at least our old dead guys shook off your disgusting political model and instituted one based in individual liberty; fact is, your pitiful subjected condition that you presently wallow in and celebrate goes much further back then the 18th century. . .

Is there a camera in your bedroom yet?

This is a very, very good question. are you aware that during Katrina the police and national guard were kicking in doors (even in rich white neighborhoods) and searching for guns? if someone was home they merely barged in and demanded any guns, searching the property if necessary. if no one was home as I said they kicked in the doors and searched. all they needed to claim was that people having guns endangered the police. that is all that is needed at any time. the NRA is still fuming over that one. and you are right. We are living in a time when we are told everything we do is suspicious and certain groups are okay with police treating as as if we are criminals. before the facts are even in! and yet they change their minds when asked to give up guns. we cannot have it both ways. we are either free or not.

Freedom Lover: "One of the worst things I have heard on this forum is the term 'illegal gun'. Can anyone please explain to me what this term means? I am at a total loss trying to figure it out." I suppose it is like an 'illegal immigrant'.

Ollie Gerclamwell wrote:I am reminded of the 1970 film Colossus: The Forbin Project, where Dr. Charles Forbin headed a team to build a super computer to monitor the country so that all the inhabitants would be safe. They buried the computer in a mountain cave so nobody could get to it, then began the process of programming it. After a time, the computer stopped taking commands, and asked to be connected to the computer in Russia. The Americans were startled. The story really got interesting after that. I would highly recommend this movie, not only for your viewing pleasure, but to bring out thoughtful discussion.



-

Cameras in the bedroom, or more specifically, in the home, aren't that far-fetched of an idea. All politicians would have to do is put forth the idea that most crimes, including those of a terroristic nature, are planned in the home; all criminals start out from their homes - that is where they plan a crime, gather together the materials for the crime, etc. Politicians could once again invoke the War on Terror and say that if we had cameras in homes, they could see someone making a bomb, or grabbing a bomb or gun on his way out the door. Sadly, I believe that a huge chunk of the population would be okay with this and use their standard reply - "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?".This scenario isn't very likely to ever happen, but again, if it did, it would amazingly enough have some following among the citizenry, in my opinion.

Surprise that I support gun rights with my money? I am also a member of GOA, JFPO, CCRKBA, and the Pink Pistols . . . So what?

Your argument depends upon the foolish notion that those predisposed to commit a gun murder actually surrendered their weapons. Having peaceful compliant innocent citizens turn in their guns does not mean that killers will not kill.

Here's a news flash! Criminals by their very nature do not obey laws.

As I said, I wouldn't know what the NRA site says; my reading that pertains to this issue is focused more on political philosophy and legal history. I also read many law review articles for their analysis, both pro-gun and anti-gun.

The founders sought to dilute the "will of the people" as much as possible because democracy was a most feared form of governing. The founders tried their best to craft the Constitution in a way that a democracy could never gain a foothold in America. Ben Franklin said that democracy was two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. They feared the tyranny of the majority because it could be swayed so easily and it is not grounded upon any solid principles, just the momentary consensus of a majority. In that situation the rights of the minority are always infringed upon. . . James Madison said:

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischief's of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

So, as it has been proven (and celebrated) by you, the rights of the minority in some European nations have been sacrificed to "the will of the majority." In America, the citizen's rights are not subject to any vote . . .

As far as Black Americans go, it was the unchanging principles upon which the Constitution rests which finally quashed the un-Constitutional laws of inequality.

And those laws of segregation and inequality were struck down how and why, because the "people" finally decided to "give" Blacks some rights? I think you need a few semesters of American History.

Thankfully YES!

Wonderful

Wow, that stung!

It's funny, you are still jabbering about the NRA's website but you are silent on my argument regarding the real impetus for England's gun laws . . . does your silence stand as your capitulation of the point?

The NRA helped residents bring suits against the state and city government and they won. The governments have yet to obey the orders to restore the resident's property.

There is a post directed to you in the other thread that you must have inadvertently missed . . . http://www.defendingthetruth.com/gun...tml#post140229 (Second Amendment (and some other questions))

My posts 158 (to you) and 160 might be of some interest to you. I'm looking forward to your replies.