Text 11405, 210 rader
Skriven 2008-02-21 09:43:56 av Mr Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till en text av Martin Atkins
Ärende: Shootings in USA
========================
21 Feb 08 03:12, Martin Atkins wrote to ROY WITT:
RW>>> MvdV> So what? Did that come from God?
RW>>> Now that you mention is, yes. It is a God given right to protect
RW>>> yourself, your family and your possessions. It used to be rocks,
RW>>> then clubs and eventually bow and arrow, but then the gun came
RW>>> along. In Europe, the peasants weren't allowed guns because the
RW>>> nobles reserved all game for themselves. All the power they
RW>>> possessed was because the peasants weren't allowed to have guns.
RW>>> Eventually that led to the demise of a few million people because
RW>>> they didn't have guns to thwart attacks on them because of their
RW>>> religious beliefs.
MA>> In the wake of a series of high-profile shootings, an observer might
MA>> assume that guns are suddenly pouring into the UK for the first
MA>> time.
RW>> Just as the Australian gun ban caused crime to increase, not
RW>> decrease as they hoped, it was a disaster. As is the Brit gun ban.
MA> The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether
MA> or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS
MA> figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide
MA> and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.
I don't believe you.
MA> The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains
MA> one-fifth that of the United States.
Australia has 1/5th the population.
MA> Those who claim that Australia suffered a "crime wave" as a result of
MA> new gun laws often cite as evidence unrelated figures for common
MA> assault or sexual assault (no weapon) and armed robbery (any weapon).
MA> In fact less than one in five Australian armed robberies involve a
MA> firearm.
Unvarifiable jibberish.
MA> "Although armed robberies increased by nearly 20%, the number of
MA> armed robberies involving a firearm decreased to a six-year low."
LOL! That's what the government wants you to think.
MA> -- Recorded Crime, Australia, 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics,
MA> Jun 1999
MA>> But gun control is a relatively recent phenomenon in Britain, where
MA>> ownership of firearms was relatively common a century ago.
RW>> Sixty years ago, the British citizen's firearms were voluntarily
RW>> given to help the Brits get off the beaches at Dunkirk. What would
RW>> they have to offer today?
MA> In the face of iminent invasion they would do the same and give them
MA> as much training as they could on how to use them.
Where would they get them? The people no longer have firearms.
MA>> The contrast between UK legislation on gun ownership - among the
MA>> strictest in the world, and that in the United States - among the
MA>> most relaxed, might appear stark.
RW>> Considering the following, it is.
MA>> But in fact both countries' firearms laws can be traced back to the
MA>> same source.
RW>> Do Brits believe in God Given Rights too?
MA> I don't know about god given rights but most i know believe in some
MA> rights being fundimental to all.
That figures. Fundimental rights can be taken away. As we've seen in
Britain and Australia. At least some Canadians had the guts to tell the
governmen to go to hell.
MA>> The right to bear arms was guaranteed in the 1689 Bill of Rights, in
MA>> which the new King William of Orange enshrined a series of rights
MA>> for his subjects-Catholics were famously excluded.
RW>> Gun control is not a new idea, but an old one. English kings,
RW>> starting at least in the realm of Henry VIII, attempted to limit who
RW>> was allowed to own guns. Henry VIII, for example, prohibited poor
RW>> people from shooting crossbows or guns. If you were a king, wouldn't
RW>> you want the rabble to be disarmed?
MA> It wasn't a resounding success. When England was ever at war it as
MA> the peasantry that supplied the archers.
Yes and it was the King's arsonal that supplied the weapons.
MA> The Tudor kings experimented with limits upon specialized
MA> weapons--mainly crossbows and the then-new firearms. These measures
MA> were not intended to disarm the citizenry, but on the contrary, to
MA> prevent their being diverted from longbow practice by sport with
MA> other weapons which were considered less effective.
Of course. That was so the peasants wouldn't have a chance, faced with
troops with superior weapons.
MA> Even these narrow measures were shortlived. In 1503, Henry VII
MA> limited shooting (but not possession) of crossbows to those with land
MA> worth 200 marks annual rental, but provided an exception for those
MA> who "shote owt of a howse for the lawefull defens of the same". In
MA> 1511, Henry VIII
MA> increased the property requirement to 300 marks. He also expanded the
MA> requirement of longbow ownership, requiring all citizens to "use and
MA> exercyse shootyng in longbowes, and also have a bowe and arrowes
MA> contynually" in the house. Fathers were required by law to purchase
MA> bows and arrows for their sons between the age of 7 and 14 and to
MA> train them in longbow use.
All a waste of time, since we already know that peasants weren't allowed
equally as powerful weapons by the King...Your own words.
MA> COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE NINETY-SEVENTH
MA> CONGRESS, FEBRUARY 1982
MA> So far from disarming the peasantry he wanted them ready for war.
Like sending lambs to the slaughter...
RW>> In the seventeenth century, Charles II and James II passed various
RW>> measures to disarm untrustworthy sorts, required gunsmiths to
RW>> register guns that they worked on, and limited imports of guns.
RW>> Unsurprisingly, when the Glorious Revolution of 1688 took place, and
RW>> Parliament invited William & Mary to become the new monarchs, they
RW>> wrote a Bill of Rights that guaranteed a right to keep arms:
RW>> "That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their
RW>> defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."
MA> As i said. The pesantry was not in general suppressed by arms
MA> control.
I guess English isn't your native tongue...
RW>> What about the Catholics?! They didn't get the right to own arms.
MA> No because they where considered enemies of the realm and the
MA> protestant church.
So not all English subjects were equal under the law...nuf said.
MA>> This was enshrined in common law during the early years of the US,
MA>> and later informed the second amendment of the US constitution,
MA>> which explains why the right to bear arms remains so strong a factor
MA>> in America. :-
RW>> In Colonial America, however, things were a bit different. The
RW>> colonies were far enough away that uppity colonists with guns
RW>> weren't any threat to the king (though they sometimes were to the
RW>> king's governors and soldiers).
MA> Yea well they got that wrong when the colonies rebelled and eventualy
MA> gained indipendance.
Meantime, there was plenty of gun control enforced by the King's forces.
RW>> Besides, the colonial governments recognized that they needed an
RW>> armed population, not only for protection from the Indians, but also
RW>> from foreign armies and pirates.
MA>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7056245.stm
MA>> I suppose you think the above are just more lies. You really are the
MA>> biggest bullshit artist on the Fidonet.
RW>> From what I gather of your writings, you're just another
RW>> mis-informed ignorant Brit with a big mouth. Not to mention that
RW>> your version of history has a bias that only a stupid Brit would
RW>> believe.
MA> I merely quoted verifiable facts. At the age of 14 I had a gun
MA> licence that allowed me to posses and carry a twelve bore shotgun in
MA> public provided it was wholly enclosed in a locked bag and I was
MA> accompanied by an adult.
Wow! That's some freedom...At that age, I had both a 12 gage shotgun and a
.22 'semi-automatic' rifle. Oh, and there wasn't any such thing as a
license to posses or carry either one. I had to have a hunting license
later, at the age of 16.
MA> Also if questioned I needed to explain were i was taking the gun and
MA> show that it was destined for privately owned property or a place of
MA> lawful discharge (shooting range).
LOL! No questions asked here.
MA> I only needed to fill in a form at my local police station and have
MA> written consent from my parents.
Some freedom. On occasion, I'd go hunting, using an open vehicle for
transportation (Ford Model A pickup), to and fro. To safeguard my
firearms, I would carry them into the store to buy a cold drink. Nobody
ever said a word about the firearms in the store. Under the law here, I
can walk down the street with a sidearm in a holster and nobody would say
anything. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't be stopped and questioned, but
it never happened in all the years I did that.
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|