# Self defense in UK



## SHOOT-N-STAB (May 23, 2009)

This is why our founding fathers put in place the second admendment. For self protection and protection from the government. And, our current leaders aka the Democratic controlled congress and Whitehouse, think we need to be more like Europe. Bush had plenty of faults, but this was not one of them. He saw the need for the second admendment and let the Clinton assult rifle ban expire. Just wait til this adminstration turns it's focus towards gun control.


----------



## BigBirdVA (Nov 5, 2002)

Looks like they're finally down to only using harsh language on criminals. That's unbelievable. Well no look at where we're going today. :thumbs_do


----------



## e-manhunt (Sep 14, 2004)

Looks like Illinois, new jersey and maryland are are filing amicus curiae briefs in support of a federal court ruling that the 2nd Amenedment only applies to the federal government and not to the states. i.e. states will be allowed to enact whatever gun bans they see fit.

I have only read a brief synopsis' of the arguments, but see nothing overly favorable in support of their contentions. Of course, I am not a liberal, so i might be missing the finer points.


----------



## EnglishKev (Aug 8, 2009)

Welcome to my worldukey::angry:ukey:

Kev


----------



## I like Meat (Feb 14, 2009)

Seems that a Monty Python skit should apply here ?? ...........:tongue:


----------



## corpralbarn (Jan 21, 2009)

e-manhunt said:


> Looks like Illinois, new jersey and maryland are are filing amicus curiae briefs in support of a federal court ruling that the 2nd Amenedment only applies to the federal government and not to the states. i.e. states will be allowed to enact whatever gun bans they see fit.
> 
> I have only read a brief synopsis' of the arguments, but see nothing overly favorable in support of their contentions. Of course, I am not a liberal, so i might be missing the finer points.


Well i would like the fact that the federal government cant makegun laws. But that might just be because im from kentucky? and our governner is from my neck of the woods were hunting is big along with owning guns.


----------



## bjr86 (Sep 3, 2009)

Gun owners are in some real trouble...check out what's hidden in the health care bill. Google HR-45


----------



## karlsmith (Jan 13, 2010)

bjr86 said:


> Gun owners are in some real trouble...check out what's hidden in the health care bill. Google HR-45


what are you talking about ? what is the trouble happening to gun owners ?
Is the tax or permit price is going high ? tell me, I have a gun too ukey:


----------



## e-manhunt (Sep 14, 2004)

BigBirdVA said:


> Looks like they're finally down to only using harsh language on criminals. That's unbelievable. Well no look at where we're going today. :thumbs_do


My wife is from England and i have traveled there a bit. Everyone seems fairly sensical, but i admit we spend most of our time outside of London. I suppose it logically follows that if no one has a gun, then you should have no real fear for your life, and therefore any attack on on criminal is meant to protect property over life.

is a woman not allowed to take a course of action in her home to prevent a rape, or does she need to allow the physical attack to commence before using an "offensive" weapon? Or, has the English gov't determined all together that the social detriment of rape is less than the social value of the rapist?

Omne thing is clear: the gov't is more adept at catching criminals than preventing crime in the first place. Moreover, their success in catching criminals in this country is dismal; about 30% overall for murders if my recollection is correct.

I don't know, but I sort of believe that once a criminal has acted, he has made the risk/benefit analysis that his life is worth less than whatever gain he might be seeking.


----------

