UK gun laws?

[TurtleDude]

I been hearing that one since 1990 when i first relocated to the UK. Thirty years later most still don't carry guns. Now the larger cities and other places sure, but for the most part they are still not carried on the person.

I cannot dispute what you have said since my last trip to the UK was around 03 IIRC. I was there for a shooting trip near Exmoor. My loader was a retired armed police officer-he had served in the UK version of the Special forces-SAS and then became a police officer-including the second wave of riots at Brixton. He retired to the "country" where his wife was a keen equestrian. He said more and more officers were being armed-he always was but it was spreading

 

[bluesmoke]

that would require a new amendment to the constitution.

That'll happen sooner than me moving to the UK to enjoy their gun laws.

 

[yankintx]

No worries.
I just hope you enjoyed your time in the UK as I know some of our customs can seem a bit odd to Americans.

There are many things i admire about the UK. I try not to let a bad marriage taint my view of England. I always support England in the World Cup, even over my own. The food is ok, better than France. And HM, well you folks should just appreciate her while she is still around, a class act of service before self.

But you can keep your Grey winters while i am in the Mexican sun

Ta ra luv

 

[yankintx]

I cannot dispute what you have said since my last trip to the UK was around 03 IIRC. I was there for a shooting trip near Exmoor. My loader was a retired armed police officer-he had served in the UK version of the Special forces-SAS and then became a police officer-including the second wave of riots at Brixton. He retired to the "country" where his wife was a keen equestrian. He said more and more officers were being armed-he always was but it was spreading

I believe the UK population over all finds police officers with guns on there person in there little villages threatening.

The British Police have a motto, they are there to serve. American police are there to protect, completely different mind set.

 

[yankintx]

I cannot dispute what you have said since my last trip to the UK was around 03 IIRC. I was there for a shooting trip near Exmoor. My loader was a retired armed police officer-he had served in the UK version of the Special forces-SAS and then became a police officer-including the second wave of riots at Brixton. He retired to the "country" where his wife was a keen equestrian. He said more and more officers were being armed-he always was but it was spreading

The only time i would see British Police actually carrying guns is the airports. And i lived in Cambridge, not a small town.

 

[rahl]

That'll happen sooner than me moving to the UK to enjoy their gun laws.

there is zero chance of an amendment banning or severely restricting firearms will pass.

 

[yankintx]

there is zero chance of an amendment banning or severely restricting firearms will pass.

Zero chance is a hell of a long time. Not one i would wager on.

 

[bluesmoke]

many cops won't enforce laws that they know are blatantly unconstitutional and have a high chance of getting them killed. Authoritarian collectivism is a disease no matter what you call it

And the major American authoritarian of the day is Trump and the collective the Trump cult of Republican/cons.

 

[TurtleDude]

And the major American authoritarian of the day is Trump and the collective the Trump cult of Republican/cons.

oozing nonsense there.

 

[bluesmoke]

there is zero chance of an amendment banning or severely restricting firearms will pass.

I don't know what you would call "banning" or "severely restricting". But for that, I agree. It took one single mass shooting for the UK to pass more strict gun law than the already strict gun law, relative to the US, they had. Our gun culture has been fertile ground for growing mass shootings, the number of which, along with our murder and suicide by gun rate, is proof we tolerate such rather well without much concern at all regarding gun law, to much extent.

 

[rahl]

I don't know what you would call "banning" or "severely restricting". But for that, I agree. It took one single mass shooting for the UK to pass more strict gun law than the already strict gun law, relative to the US, they had.

We already have strict gun law in the US. The type of restrictions you would like to impose would require a new amendment, as the 2nd currently precludes you from implementing them.

Our gun culture has been fertile ground for growing mass shootings, the number of which, along with our murder and suicide by gun rate, is proof we tolerate such rather well without much concern at all regarding gun law, to much extent.

Gun deaths have been steadily declining for over 25 years. But regardless, someone else doing something bad has exactly zero to do with me, and can not be used to infringe on my rights, as I didn't break any laws.

 

[bluesmoke]

We already have strict gun law in the US. The type of restrictions you would like to impose would require a new amendment, as the 2nd currently precludes you from implementing them.

Gun deaths have been steadily declining for over 25 years. But regardless, someone else doing something bad has exactly zero to do with me, and can not be used to infringe on my rights, as I didn't break any laws.

Compared to other advanced countries, we do not have strict gun law as you say. Your claim is unfounded.

As in the US, gun deaths have been declining in advanced countries. The problem is, the US remains the worst.

You must abide by many laws that involve behavior you never would exhibit. The courts decide what is and is not infringement, not rahl.

 

[rahl]

Compared to other advanced countries, we do not have strict gun law as you say.

I don't care about other countries. We have very strict gun laws in the US.

Your claim is unfounded.

I didn't make a claim. I pointed out how strict our laws currently are.

As in the US, gun deaths have been declining in advanced countries. The problem is, the US remains the worst.

We are one of the largest, most diversely populated demographic countries on earth. We have a higher degree of violent crime than other nations because of this.

You must abide by many laws that involve behavior you never would exhibit.

not a single one of my rights may be infringed because someone else did something wrong. The constitution precludes this.

The courts decide what is and is not infringement, not rahl.

and the courts have routinely slapped down your attempted infringements on my gun rights for decades. So again, you are confusing my pointing out constitutional law, with some claim I am making. I have not made any claims. I have corrected your misunderstanding of constitutional law.

 

[bluesmoke]

I don't care about other countries. We have very strict gun laws in the US.

I didn't make a claim. I pointed out how strict our laws currently are.

We are one of the largest, most diversely populated demographic countries on earth. We have a higher degree of violent crime than other nations because of this.

not a single one of my rights may be infringed because someone else did something wrong. The constitution precludes this.

and the courts have routinely slapped down your attempted infringements on my gun rights for decades. So again, you are confusing my pointing out constitutional law, with some claim I am making. I have not made any claims. I have corrected your misunderstanding of constitutional law.

Then prove “We have very strict gun laws” with evidence you believe supports what you say.

“We already have strict gun law in the US” is a claim. “The type of restrictions you would like to impose would require a new amendment, as the 2nd currently precludes you from implementing them” is a claim. What is your evidence of such, which is your burden in debate.

“We are one of the largest, most diversely populated demographic countries on earth. We have a higher degree of violent crime than other nations because of this.” Another claim for which you’ve provided no evidence.

If there are enough “someone else” that do something wrong, a law could be passed to address that wrong that would require you do what you don’t want to do and believe that the Constitution precludes. Are there any laws now required of you, gun or not, that you believe are precluded by the Constitution?

Based on the Constitution, I’ve little objection to the SC having “slapped down” gun law. You assume of me what is not true and you cannot possibly know.

If you can’t provide evidence to support what you say, see you on another thread.

 

[rahl]

Then prove “We have very strict gun laws” with evidence you believe supports what you say.

www.atf.gov

“We already have strict gun law in the US” is a claim. “The type of restrictions you would like to impose would require a new amendment, as the 2nd currently precludes you from implementing them” is a claim. What is your evidence of such, which is your burden in debate.

2no amendment precludes your restrictions.

“We are one of the largest, most diversely populated demographic countries on earth. We have a higher degree of violent crime than other nations because of this.” Another claim for which you’ve provided no evidence.

www.fbi.gov

If there are enough “someone else” that do something wrong, a law could be passed to address that wrong that would require you do what you don’t want to do and believe that the Constitution precludes.

Nope. The constitution does not permit you to do this. It’s why a new amendment would be needed.

Are there any laws now required of you, gun or not, that you believe are precluded by the Constitution?

Yes

Based on the Constitution, I’ve little objection to the SC having “slapped down” gun law. You assume of me what is not true and you cannot possibly know.

Your posts show otherwise.

If you can’t provide evidence to support what you say, see you on another thread.

See above. You remain refuted in this thread. I’ll happily do so again in another thread if you wish.

 

[bluesmoke]

www.atf.gov

2no amendment precludes your restrictions.

www.fbi.gov


Nope. The constitution does not permit you to do this. It’s why a new amendment would be needed.

Yes

Your posts show otherwise.

See above. You remain refuted in this thread. I’ll happily do so again in another thread if you wish.

What is the evidence in the ATF site you can cite that proves your claim “We have very strict gun laws”?

2A does not preclude all restriction absolutely. Your citation is not sufficient evidence to support your claim. There are many laws that restrict firearms which have been constitutionally upheld. Your claim is unfounded.

What is the evidence in the FBI site you can cite that proves your claim “We are one of the largest, most diversely populated demographic countries on earth. We have a higher degree of violent crime than other nations because of this.”?

Law does get passed as I said, so your “precluded by 2A” is refuted. A court can find a new law to be unconstitutional, but 2A does not preclude and all firearm law absolutely.

What law(s) do you believe are not constitutional and do you or will you refuse to follow them?

What post show “otherwise”? Quote me where I object to the SC to act in modifying or “slapping” down gun law. Otherwise, your claim is unfounded and need not be debate further for lack of evidence.

There is no evidence in the “See above”. You’re on record as being evasive, giving the runaround, and failing to support your claims. See you on another thread.

 

[rahl]

What is the evidence in the ATF site you can cite that proves your claim “We have very strict gun laws”?

all of the gun laws listed there.

2A does not preclude all restriction absolutely.

it precludes all restrictions absent due process.

Your citation is not sufficient evidence to support your claim.

yes it is

There are many laws that restrict firearms which have been constitutionally upheld. Your claim is unfounded.

which laws?

What is the evidence in the FBI site you can cite that proves your claim “We are one of the largest, most diversely populated demographic countries on earth. We have a higher degree of violent crime than other nations because of this.”?

the crime statistics listed there.

Law does get passed as I said, so your “precluded by 2A” is refuted.

no it isn't. The 2nd precludes you from implementing it.

A court can find a new law to be unconstitutional, but 2A does not preclude and all firearm law absolutely.

strawman

What law(s) do you believe are not constitutional and do you or will you refuse to follow them?

Any law that restricts or infringes on the ability to keep and bear arms, absent due process, is by definition and per the constitution, unconstitutional.

What post show “otherwise”? Quote me where I object to the SC to act in modifying or “slapping” down gun law. Otherwise, your claim is unfounded and need not be debate further for lack of evidence.

strawman. your posts show you wish to implement unconstitutional restrictions on firearms.

There is no evidence in the “See above”.

of course there is

You’re on record as being evasive, giving the runaround, and failing to support your claims. See you on another thread.

directly refuting your claims, with several citations is not evasion lol. I'll be happy to refute you in whichever other thread you'd like.

 

[uptower]

 

[bluesmoke]

View attachment 67361547

Socialism is taking over! Get yer guns!