For those that think gun registration is a logical compromis

Post Reply New Topic

Here is how it works, in the words of a gun enthusiast from England...



The rioting in England last August should serve as a reminder to gun owners not to take their Second Amendment rights for granted. Not long ago, the British enjoyed much the same access to firearms that we enjoy today, but all that has changed. That’s why I’ve asked my friend and longtime NRA-ILA supporter David Rooney, a former British citizen and maker of fine precision rifles, to share his personal story of how the gun owners of Great Britain were divided and conquered.
– Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director

The days of the British Empire are long gone. I watched recently as looters interviewed in London described their criminal activities as “great fun.”

Thugs, coordinating their movements through text messages and social networking websites, stole from innocent people on London streets in broad daylight. I saw criminals charge vastly outnumbered police, reveling in the knowledge that crime would be unopposed. I was embarrassed to see the effect of decades of media brainwashing on those who didn’t fight back and gave in like lambs to the slaughter. For those few remaining Brits unwilling to give up without a fight, their fears lay not with the criminals, but with the government. To remove a shotgun from its safe in preparation to defend one’s family shows criminal intent in the eyes of British law.

Those with an understanding of military strategy are familiar with the tactic, “divide and conquer.” Used successfully by generals throughout history, the same strategy has also been used against firearm owners, particularly in Great Britain.

Acts of a Madman

In 1987, I stood on Altcar Rifle Range, discussing the proposed legislation in the wake of the mass murders at Hungerford with some fellow members of the Manweb Rifle & Pistol Club. The Home Office was proposing a ban on all semi-auto rifles above .22 rimfire. I could not believe my ears when one individual stated, “I’m okay, I only own bolt actions and pistols.” More shocking was the fact that no one disagreed with his blinkered perspective, except me. Because I was just a teenager, he laughed when I tried to explain the Home Office strategy to divide shooters to weaken our stance. I told him his guns would be next on the ban list. Unfortunately, time proved me correct. Media misinformation surrounded the Hungerford murders. The killer had a semi-auto rifle, but he also owned a 9 mm handgun and an illegal full-auto Thompson submachine gun. They also failed to publicize that the police officers who first arrived at Hungerford came ill-equipped with shotguns and lost precious minutes sitting outside of town while the killer walked the street shooting unarmed civilians. A lack of concealed carry, which the nra fights so hard for here, guaranteed there would be no opposition.

Afraid to take on the entire gun community, the government and media at first left pistol owners alone. The media made no mention that Ryan shot nine of his 14 unarmed victims with a pistol. Instead, they demonized the rifles that had become popular in the growing sport of Practical Rifle. The thought of civilians consistently hitting the same targets at 600 yards that the military shot at 300 yards was utterly terrifying to the government, which neglected the lessons of World War II, where civilians armed with the help of generous Americans were prepared to stand as the last defense of the British Isles. Despite former Home Secretary Leon Brittan declaring, “You cannot legislate against the acts of a madman,” Parliament passed the 1988 Firearms Amendment Act, banning semi-auto and slide action rifles above .22 rimfire.

The law was the result of a quarter century of planning by antigun activists in the u.k. Their movements were subtle; along the way they assured gun owners that legally owned guns were safe from confiscation and that their legislation would only target criminals. Serial number registration for rifles and handguns began in 1968. Twenty years later, when semi-auto rifles were banned, the government knew where to find them. I remember having to surrender my brand new hk g3. As a soldier, I could sign out fn 240 machine guns from my battalion’s armory, but I wasn’t trustworthy enough to keep a g3 in my gun safe at home. The legislative monster sprang once more into action in 1997, banning all handguns as a knee-jerk reaction to the tragic Dunblane murders. Still not content, in 2006 Parliament passed the Violent Crime Reduction Act outlawing the mail order sale of air pistols.

A year after pistols were banned I asked a friend who worked for the Liverpool Police if the pistol ban had an effect on armed crime. He laughed and told me there had been a 300 percent increase due to a massive flow of illegal Eastern European guns. In 2007, opposition Home Secretary David Davis made clear that u.k. gun policies had failed, citing the government’s own figures showing that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than 400 percent since the handgun ban. From registration to confiscation took 30 years, and now the u.k. public was finally safe from itself. The government had confiscated all those wicked rifles and pistols that were never used in crimes. u.k. gun owners were divided and unquestionably conquered.

Why it Happened

The anti-gun u.k. media has always sought to portray the u.k. gun owner as some Rambo wannabe. As a result my u.k. shooting friends go to extreme efforts to prevent their neighbors from knowing they own guns, loading their cars before dawn or inside their garages before going to the range. I did, too. The complacency of many u.k. gun owners, who felt their guns weren’t targets of the legislation, was to blame. They hid in the darkness, happy to throw the semi-auto rifle owners to the wolves, content that they were under no threat. Only 10 years later, pistols went on the chopping block. That’s how politics works in the u.k. and here: divide and conquer.

Protectors of Freedom

How many gun owners skim through these pages without truly seeing the significance of the nra’s efforts? The nra is the sole protector of the Second Amendment, the very backbone of the Constitution. The enemies of our rights are far more wealthy and organized than in the u.k. The nra needs your continued support against these adversaries. Without the nra’s aggressive stance, the amazing foresight of the Founding Fathers will be legislated into oblivion. This is a much larger issue than simply firearm rights; it’s about the freedoms that are the very fabric of u.s. society. With proponents of this tactic in the White House today, the attempts to divide and conquer have not gone away.

This is a much larger issue than simply firearm rights; it’s about the freedoms that are the very fabric of U.S. society.

Imagine This: Before taking your son on his first deer hunt, you must apply to your local chief of police for permission. If you hand your son a rifle without him having his own license, he will be in illegal possession of a firearm, a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. In the u.k, this is not fantasy, but fact. Here are some of the requirements:

You must satisfy the police that you have a good reason to own a gun.
If you are not already a probationary member of a gun club, you will have your application denied.
You must satisfy the police that you have suitable land on which to shoot.
This must be a Ministry of Defense (mod) range or land that has been inspected and certified safe by the local police.

Your guns must be kept in a locked cabinet while not in use. Ammunition must be locked in another cabinet away from the firearms. If you stop to have lunch on your way home from the range, your car is broken into and a gun stolen, you are in breach of your safekeeping requirement and will face gun confiscation, license revocation, and possible criminal charges. The police can, and do, perform surprise inspections to ensure you are satisfying the safekeeping requirement. No court order is required. By applying for the fac, you are agreeing to this. You must state what caliber you want, in advance. If you ask for permission to buy a .308 rifle, and upon visiting your local gun store decide the .30-’06 on the shelf is more suitable, then you must go back to the police and explain in detail why you want the change. Also, if you ask for a .243 rifle for deer hunting, and a .308 for target shooting, don’t even think about deciding to take your .308 on that deer hunt. You must state, in advance, how many rounds of each caliber you wish to possess at any one time. Larger quantity requests are often denied or reduced. If you exceed your limit, your license is revoked, your guns confiscated, and you may face criminal charges. So whatever you do, don’t have three stray rounds in your shooting bag when you buy your next case of 200, as those three rounds could cost you your liberty.


After the enactment of Britain’s restrictive
laws, David Rooney immigrated to Florida,
where he is the owner of Tactical Rifles, Inc.
(www.tacticalrifles.net, (877) 811-guns)

I believe that individuals should protect their firearms ownership, regardless of what 'the law' says, insofar as they can safely and affordably do so. In fact, I think most 'guns rights' people are Pinkos because they acknowledge the government has ANY business in how many machine guns and grenade launchers a man owns.

The son of Reverend Moon is the head and founder of Kahr Arms, it's not unusual to see pro-gun people in my church; even in a place as restricted as Asia.

Wait wait, you....your username...my mind is blown.

The thread explains that you should own a gun in case your government sucks so much that it forces everybody else to go rioting. Which is really such an obvious claim that I am not sure why it needs so many huge paragraphs.

It really provides no proof at all as to what's wrong with registration or why wouldn't it be a logical compromise.

So, feel free to get guns to protect yourself from angry rioters. But why not register them? If you are incurring in your rights to defend your property then surely you would not be afraid of letting everyone know that you shoot the rioters invading your home, right?


Also, did you consider that if there was more gun freedom in London, the rioters would have guns too?

If the UK was a gun culture like the US is, instead of stores being looted, you would have had blood on your streets.

I thought of something. It is understandable that the author of the article John quoted and John are not really familiar with angry mobs. I am.

It is inaccurate to compare them with criminals, I am not saying this to say that the UK rioters were better morally than criminals. What I am saying is that the intentions of the groups are totally different. Most criminals are convenience-seeking animals, they break the law when it is convenient for them and when it is less work than a real job. That is the reason the possibility of you owning a gun will make them think things twice or thrice. And hence why quite a part of being a robber is to know how to choose targets.

An angry mob though, is acting on anger. Threatening them with guns makes them angrier. That's the reason the UK police had so many issues with them. If you and your gun were to stood against an angry mob, maybe you would be able to kill a couple of them before getting steam rolled.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 26 Nov 2011, 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, your point is flawed because actual real life incidence differs.



Those Korean shop owners there are on the roof of their store defending their store from the rioters during the Rodney King riots.

This what happened to the stores where they didn't have guns.


The situation during the LA riots was so bad the National Guard had to come and the police were damned near powerless.

[img][800:761]http://baggyparagraphs.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rage01.jpg[/img]
Reason I show Koreans in particular was because blacks thought Koreans were rude/racist, and would destroy their stores first.

Last edited by 1000Knives on 26 Nov 2011, 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So did the cops not have guns?
cuz if they did that car would not have been toppled.

I simply ask this: Who is doing better, the DRC or Cuba? Singapore or the USA? The whole "gun rights" debate is nonsense for many reasons, this is just one of them.

Never seen a Moonie before?

Wow, that's hilarious. You got 2 totalitarian governments, one state that had civil wars and clashes with it's neighbors, and USA which has pretty average crime rates overall. I'd much rather any day of the week take USA over Singapore, least I won't get hanged for having an ounce of weed or something silly like that here in America. Oh, no caning either or having the world's highest per capita execution rate either here in USA. Frankly your comparison is simply appalling.

And that's correct, never seen a Moonie before.

First of all, Cuba is authoritarian, not totalitarian; this is an important difference. Cuba has a higher literacy rate, lower infant morality, and equal life expectancy, a lower murder rate and a higher vaccination rate than the USA.

Secondly, the DRC has is clearly far worse off than Cuba with its HIV/AIDS epidemic, mass use of child soldiers by all significant political parties, horribly low rate of literacy and vaccination, among the globe's worst corruption and sexual violence worse than anywhere else on Earth.

Singapore has free and fair elections, is among the best country on Earth with regards to corruption, education, wealth and sanitation, all despite having no natural resources and a population about the size of Kentucky. I would love to move to Singapore from here in Northern California, because I would not do stupid things and get canned.

And, let us not forget the liberal democracies of Iceland, the country with the lowest GINI coefficient on Earth, Germany, the 4th largest economy on Earth, Luxembourg, the richest country on Earth per capita, and Denmark, regarded by many as the happiest country on Earth when we talk about "gun rights."

I'm a cold dead hands type of guy personally, but I don't particularly feel like re-fighting this particular battle at the moment.

To the best of my knowledge, there is little or no evidence to support these statements, and a lot of evidence to the contrary. To the extent that "angry mobs" can prevail against someone with guns, it would be in situations where almost the entire civilian population is against the state --- think egypt or lybia. Oh wait. They finally got guns before prevailing. Well, how about .... hmmm.... well, I am sure it has happened somewhere. In any case, it does not happen when civilians are standing against other ARMED civilians. Unless, of course you can cite evidence to the contrary.

To the best of my knowledge, there is little or no evidence to support these statements, and a lot of evidence to the contrary. To the extent that "angry mobs" can prevail against someone with guns, it would be in situations where almost the entire civilian population is against the state --- think egypt or lybia. Oh wait. They finally got guns before prevailing. Well, how about .... hmmm.... well, I am sure it has happened somewhere. In any case, it does not happen when civilians are standing against other ARMED civilians. Unless, of course you can cite evidence to the contrary.

Which would explain why so many from the US risk their lives fleeing here to go to Cuba

Is anybody here familiar with racist facts; Like white men can't jump? If you remove non whites, & non asians from all the comparisons that people make of the US with other countries we move from the bottom to the middle and top depending on what statistics that you use. This does not mean that blacks or hispanics are somehow genetically inferior. It does mean that, for whatever reasons, white cultures are measurably better by most standards. (Check the numbers in the country in various states along with how 'white' or 'asian' they are.) It may be that, as a result of how whites have dealt with blacks and hispanics, their cultures have become toxic. I do not know.

It should be noted that Latin countries also have "gun control", for example Mexico. But the places that have low crime are almost always white or asian.

For those who come up with exceptions to the above. I am aware that ll generalizations are false including this one.