Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, if the handgun is of a certain length, and you have a firearms certificate to comply with the law, and it's shown in court that you used it as reasonable force as per the law.Can you own a handgun for self defense in your country? No, you can't. That makes me freer than you?
Handgun ownership has been banned in the UK.Yes, if the handgun is of a certain length, and you have a firearms certificate to comply with the law, and it's shown in court that you used it as reasonable force as per the law.
Next question derp.
You own a hand gun, but you are naked and in the shower, how did your hand gun help?
No they haven't. Handguns 12 inch, 30 cms, in length are legal to own. You utter thick mong.Handgun ownership has been banned in the UK.
If a handgun has to be longer than a rifle, then it isn't a handgun.Yes, if the handgun is of a certain length,
I doubt that.People live in the UK, the population experiences, per capita, per 100,000 people, less crime and less violent crime than in America,
Facts remain facts even when those facts are inconvenient to serfs.Then you have the retard stupidity in trying to tell me how gun laws work in the UK.
Are your armed police officers willing to shoot people?The worst person to own a gun is the person who's willing to shoot someone.
Our gun stats are fine.You call that person a good guy, that's why you guys are fucked up with gun stats.
Sorry, you are ignorant and full of shit. Handguns and rifles in the UK have certain dimensions etc.. not just just willful crap you follow. Look at American gun stats v Brit stats instead of guessing, per capita (assuming you know what that's means, your ilk often doesn't).If a handgun has to be longer than a rifle, then it isn't a handgun.
Not that anyone in the UK is allowed to have an effective rifle either.
I doubt that.
Facts remain facts even when those facts are inconvenient to serfs.
Are your armed police officers willing to shoot people?
Our gun stats are fine.
Brits should have zero gun deathsSorry, you are ignorant and full of shit. Handguns and rifles in the UK have certain dimensions etc.. not just just willful crap you follow. Look at American gun stats v Brit stats instead of guessing, per capita (assuming you know what that's means, your ilk often doesn't).
The police are made up of police and certain officers trained to use firearms. You_re police are fucking inept, all have a gun and shoot anything that moves because they're thick as fuck.
You've been a subject so long, you're totally dependent on the government for everything, even your own personal protection.Wild Bill Kelsoe , the gun laws in the UK tries to make the types of firearms and those deemed suitable to own/use them as safe as possible. Many Brits just can't be bothered in owning a gun. You're an American gun nut, you need them because you have an obsession in blasting away the kid that dared kick the dandelion on your property. People live in the UK, the population experiences, per capita, per 100,000 people, less crime and less violent crime than in America, yet, people here don't have the feeling they need a gun to save themselves from this imaginary shite you lot go through.
By the sounds of it, you wouldn't survive living here, you're too much of a pussy. Then you have the retard stupidity in trying to tell me how gun laws work in the UK. What a fucking bellend. The worst person to own a gun is the person who's willing to shoot someone. You call that person a good guy, that's why you guys are fucked up with gun stats.
They should have zero murders, according to Captain Caveman's logic.Brits should have zero gun deaths
That's correctThey should have zero murders, according to Captain Caveman's logic.
Actually, the people have no such responsibility.The only responsibility people have to society is to not violate the rights of others.
LiarActually, the people have no such responsibility.
The concept of rights concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities; private individuals can’t ‘violate’ the rights of other private individuals.
Only government has the potential to violate rights.
Now, it could be said that people have the responsibility to follow the Constitution and its case law, to not use the authority of the state to violate others’ rights.
And no rights are ‘violated’ when government enacts limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment consistent with its case law.
www.cbsnews.com
Actually, many conservatives say just that.No one said it was.
Hunter Biden liedActually, many conservatives say just that.
See posts #526 and #547 as examples.
Rightwing Second Amendment absolutists will often lie about background checks or carry permits being an ‘infringement’ on the Second Amendment right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Indeed, that’s why most on the right have come to loathe Heller and its holding that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that codifies insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment does not ‘authorize’ private citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government predicated on the subjective, incorrect, and wrongheaded notion that the government has become ‘tyrannical’:The founders had just overthrown their British government and so valued the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government if the government they created failed to represent them fairly. In order to be able to do so they realized they needed to own firearms.
Second Amendment: Last Line of Defense Against Tyranny
The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is a doomsday provision to be used as a last resort when all other rights fail. The founders saw firearm ownership as so necessary that they enumerated this right second in the Bill of Rights, immediately...conservative-daily.com
***snip***
The Second Amendment is our last defense against tyranny. The right to keep and bear arms is a doomsday provision to be used as a last resort when all other rights fail. The founders saw firearm ownership as so necessary that they enumerated this right second in the Bill of Rights, immediately after defining the right to free speech.
***snip***
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms not so that you can grant the government consent, but so that, if necessary, you can act on your dissent!
John Locke writes that free men are obligated to dissolve tyrannical governments. He explains that when all earthly courts fail to uphold the rights of man, the citizen has the obligation and duty to take up arms against tyranny and make an “appeal to heaven.”
The Founders didn’t enshrine the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution so that you could go hunting, nor did they explicitly focus on carrying firearms in public for self-defense. For years, politicians have strayed away from the true purpose of the Second Amendment because, quite frankly, it threatens their very existence! The Second Amendment exists because tyranny, corruption, and abuse of power are unfortunate parts of the human experience.
We are 80 million gun owners endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms. This is a natural right given to all men and the Constitution merely protects it. We gave our government power and we reserve the right to take that authority away when it becomes destructive to our liberty!
The Second Amendment wasn’t designed to protect our right to hunt deer… it protects our right to “hunt” tyrants!
How The Second Amendment Works To Prevent Tyranny
The Second Amendment was supposed to protect us from government by dispersing its coercive power among the people. We still adhere to that system today.thefederalist.com
The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.Our government is in a state of de facto tyranny right now. If armed revolution happens it will be justified.
Whiskey rebellionThere is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that codifies insurrectionist dogma; the Second Amendment does not ‘authorize’ private citizens to take up arms against a lawfully elected government predicated on the subjective, incorrect, and wrongheaded notion that the government has become ‘tyrannical’:
‘Justice Scalia, writing in Heller, acknowledged that modern circumstances had severed the substantive protections of the Second Amendment from their original militia purpose, and by modern circumstances, he meant the preposterousness of insurrectionism. He said that "our standing army is the pride of our Nation" and stated (earlier in the opinion) that "it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks."’
The Resurrection of Second Amendment Insurrectionism is "Ted Cruz Crazy"
By Mike Dorf As I reported here , a few months ago I debated gun rights advocate Alan Gura about the future of gun regulation in the U.S....www.dorfonlaw.org
The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘deter crime,’ not to act in the capacity of law enforcement, and not to ‘overthrow’ the Federal government.
That is the purpose of the second amendment.The notion of possessing guns to ‘defend against’ government is as ridiculous as it is wrong and devoid of merit.
See post #595.
He’s a conservative.Sorry, you are ignorant and full of shit.
You're a lying sack of shitHe’s a conservative.
Conservatives are also dishonest – lying about and misrepresenting gun laws in the UK is an example.
