Texas poised to become 2nd state allowing concealed handguns on university campuses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

I have lived in other countries besides the USA. Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and Spain. And in every instance I possessed and carried a Firearm. Traveling throughout Europe during my time in Spain I always had my sidearm.

---

Did you sit through the psychological testing in Spain to get your FAC? I take it that you also had a European Firearms Pass (which you always carried) and had the weapon proofmarked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Theres also nothing that irks Brits more than people from other countries referring to the UK as 'England'. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if your geography is not up to scratch, but next time you meet a Welshman or a Scot don't call him English. ;)

---

why? Do i Need a gun or else, gonna get my old broke down butt beat???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

why? Do i Need a gun or else, gonna get my old broke down butt beat???

---

They will come at you like a buzzard! There can be no greater insult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

You don't need to. Cromwell did in 1642. Then after the restoration there was a thing called the "Glorious Revolution" as a result of which the Bill of Rights Act in 1689 was passed, limiting the power of the monarch and granting rule to the monarch only with the express consent of the parliament.
Then again markabilly doesn't appear to know this aspect of history.

---

did not discuss that period, nor intended. But now that you mention it, you do not seem to know this aspect of history, as to the common beginngs of the right to keep arms, as there was the same movement at the time, though limited, to "permit" englishmen, (protestants only of course) to keep weapons to protect aganist the reassertion of power of monarches....did not matter as the royalist types still managed for while afterwards to get the upper hand and keep the mob and anarchists (those who were not royalty worshippers) in place..
even Blackstone,regarded private arms as the only solid means by which people might vindicate their rights if their other rights were suppressed.....(1 Blackstone 139 et seq.)

as to the justification to keep weapons to be used against the government, by english people (protestants of course)

Quote:

---

But all those privileges of the People, considered in themselves, are but feeble defences against the real strength of those who govern. All those provisions, all those reciprocal Rights, necessarily suppose that things remain in their legal and settled course: what would then be the recourse of the People, if ever the Prince, suddenly freeing himself from all restraint, and throwing himself as it were out of the Constitution, should no longer respect either the person, or the property of the subject, and either should make no account of his conversation with the Parliament, or attempt to force it implicitly to submit to his will?--It would be resistance . . . the question has been decided in favour of this doctrine by the Laws of England, and that resistance is looked upon by them as the ultimate and lawful resource against the violences of Power

---

J. De Lolme, The Constitution of England 227 (New York 1793). (D'Israeli later referred to De Lolme as "the English Montesquieu.)


time flies by and sooner or later some prince may come along, and ........

oh well i waste my time here, and really need to be doing other things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

They will come at you like a buzzard! There can be no greater insult.

---

dam, :eek:

hope they dont group up more than six at a time; else i will need one of them big clip guns that holds 40 rounds...goona need several of them European Firearms Passess and FACs also someone to take the shrink test,....Maybe I could get eki to take it for me....if he can get away from his job at taco bell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

did not discuss that period, nor intended. But now that you mention it, you do not seem to know this aspect of history, as to the common beginngs of the right to keep arms, as there was the same movement at the time, though limited, to "permit" englishmen, (protestants only of course) to keep weapons to protect aganist the reassertion of power of monarches....did not matter as the royalist types still managed for while afterwards to get the upper hand and keep the mob and anarchists (those who were not royalty worshippers) in place..
even Blackstone,regarded private arms as the only solid means by which people might vindicate their rights if their other rights were suppressed.....(1 Blackstone 139 et seq.)

as to the justification to keep weapons to be used against the government, by english people (protestants of course)



J. De Lolme, The Constitution of England 227 (New York 1793). (D'Israeli later referred to De Lolme as "the English Montesquieu.)


time flies by and sooner or later some prince may come along, and ........

oh well i waste my time here, and really need to be doing other things.

---

I don't think you do waste your time here as a rule — however, your bringing into this discussion a period of English history so far in the past adds no relevance whatsoever, for, let's face it, things have moved on somewhat. Comparisons with the time of Henry VIII are largely irrelevant in the modern world, just as the principles laid down by the Founding Fathers ought to be ripe for reassessment at the very least, rather than the reverent genuflection afforded to them even now in some quarters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I don't think you do waste your time here as a rule — however, your bringing into this discussion a period of English history so far in the past adds no relevance whatsoever, for, let's face it, things have moved on somewhat. Comparisons with the time of Henry VIII are largely irrelevant in the modern world, just as the principles laid down by the Founding Fathers ought to be ripe for reassessment at the very least, rather than the reverent genuflection afforded to them even now in some quarters.

---

tell that to the jews lined up against the wall in the warsaw ghetto.

tell that to the chinese about to get run over by the tanks in the square

tell that to the moslems about to be shot in serbia when it was cleansing time iin the 1990's

tell that to people trying to escape east germany in 1989


and tell that to the english people the next time a charles I or a charles II shows up and there is no Cromwell to keep him in his place.....odd how the royalists dug his dead body up and chopped off his head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

did not discuss that period, nor intended. But now that you mention it, you do not seem to know this aspect of history, as to the common beginngs of the right to keep arms, as there was the same movement at the time, though limited, to "permit" englishmen, (protestants only of course) to keep weapons to protect aganist the reassertion of power of monarches....did not matter as the royalist types still managed for while afterwards to get the upper hand and keep the mob and anarchists (those who were not royalty worshippers) in place..
even Blackstone,regarded private arms as the only solid means by which people might vindicate their rights if their other rights were suppressed.....(1 Blackstone 139 et seq.)

as to the justification to keep weapons to be used against the government, by english people (protestants of course)

---

May I remind you of the wording of the law?

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
- Bill of Rights Act 1689.

The right exists but there are qualifiers on that right. Specifically to do with the operation of the law, and since both English Statue and Common Law has evolved, then the rule of law also changes to evolve with society.
There have of course been several changes in law following the Bill of Rights 1689, including "night poaching" acts as well as the Pistols Act 1903 and four subsequent Firearms Acts. All of which define what is "suitable to conditions" and "allowed by law".

What this actually says is that British Law has tried to keep up to date with society, whereas American law has not. Consequently the UK has homocide rates by firearms of 4% that of the United States. If anything, all you've successfully proven is the failure of American law to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

tell that to the jews lined up against the wall in the warsaw ghetto.

tell that to the chinese about to get run over by the tanks in the square

tell that to the moslems about to be shot in serbia when it was cleansing time iin the 1990's

tell that to people trying to escape east germany in 1989

---

OK, I'm convinced, the US in 2011 is like Poland in 1941, East Germany in the 1970s, China in 1989 and Bosnia in 1993. Doesn't make me want to visit the US any time soon. Maybe Hondo should write an open letter to foreign nationals in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

tell that to the jews lined up against the wall in the warsaw ghetto.

tell that to the chinese about to get run over by the tanks in the square

tell that to the moslems about to be shot in serbia when it was cleansing time iin the 1990's

tell that to people trying to escape east germany in 1989

---

Your use of these instances as comparisons is another example of what I said earlier about your perspectives on foreign affairs. Don't for one moment suggest that I would be anything other than deeply respectful and supportive of such movements as you list. Your suggestion that I am not merely on the grounds that I do not agree with your views on gun laws is insulting and utterly inaccurate. So too, I'm afraid, is your knowledge of history. How many of the people who escaped East Germany for the West did so as a result of their possession of personal weapons? The comparison does not hold up, and your hyperbolic references to these events as a means of backing up your support for US gun laws is, I would suggest, disrespectful to those involved. I don't think the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, the protesters in Tiananmen Square, the Bosnian Moslems (your mention there of Serbia is incorrect — you mean Bosnia, where the Serbs were doing the ethnic cleansing; no wonder a BBC correspondent reported that a counterpart at one of the US networks had been instructed to keep his reporting of the Balkans wars simple in order not to confuse the viewers back home) and the East Germans were fighting for freedom in order to be able to possess weapons lest they have to do it all over again. Freedom does not only come, and is not only desired, in the sense in which the notion is treasured by the American right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

and tell that to the english people the next time a charles I or a charles II shows up and there is no Cromwell to keep him in his place.....odd how the royalists dug his dead body up and chopped off his head.

---

But, no matter how much I dislike the Royal Family, this is simply never going to happen, so is not something worth worrying about unless one is perpetually scared of what the future may hold.