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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Paranoia is an irrational fear. Protecting ones self from possible harm or uninvited intrusion in ones home is not irrational.

---

Therefore, would you believe that, were I to live in a country where gun ownership was permitted to such an extent as it is in the USA, I would be 'irrational' were I not to invest in such a weapon as a means of protection?

Again, we come back to a point I have made many, many times before. I just do not get the notion of a fear of crime that is so deep-rooted as to make people think that gun ownership is even desirable, let alone necessary. I have never lived anywhere so dangerous as to even make me wish for a second that I could be armed. This includes South London, where, if one were to believe certain sections of the press, gun crime is everywhere. This is why many of us Europeans talk about paranoia in this regard. Those who argue in favour of gun ownership seem so afraid, so insecure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DexDexter

It's not about the right, it's about the need. Yours is a sad society if it functions so poorly that you feel you need to have a weapon (which you probably don't know how to use properly) in order to feel safe.

---

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.
Never in the USA have I had to use it. In the other 3 I have had to draw it....So much for paranoia...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

Paranoia is an irrational fear. Protecting ones self from possible harm or uninvited intrusion in ones home is not irrational.

---

In some Banana Republics without working law-enforcement and justice systems that fear could be classified as rational, but I'm sure in most parts of North America and Europe it's more or less irrational.

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.

---

Was it legal for you to carry it 'throughout Europe'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Never in the USA have I had to use it. In the other 3 I have had to draw it....So much for paranoia...

---

Tell us why you had to draw it in Spain, and what happened, otherwise I will be tempted to believe that this is just an example of your anti-European hyperbole and that the incident never actually occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

There has never been a king of 'GB' called 'Henry the Eight'.

---

england, britain or whatever you want to call your chunk of the island, as in who cares. Read up on ole Henry, started off great and than slimed off into the deep end, really bad. One of the worst all time paranoid, crazy, grossly fat, despotic murderer....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Do you guys seriously sit and worry about your homes being invaded by criminals and defending yourself against government policies you don't agree with packing a piece under your beds?? Should the fourth horseman of the apocalypse ever show up and take away your freedom, I doubt a few landmines and a few carefully locked away guns will do you any good.

---

I only worry about somone dialing a wrong number and opps. If that happens, well....."there goes the neighborhood"

Besides I do think a big part of it is all about defending heritage on both side. Still have not figured out, except for heritage, why you have not dumped all those royals in some garbage pit by now.....time to move on

And then of course setting aside the paranoia of your current leaders, one might ask, why are all of you so paranoid and/or insecure about law abiding people in a country several thousand miles away, owning guns....... is there such a fear of your fellow citizens? Not talking your criminal element, just regular citizens, no different than those members of the Swiss population keeping their machine guns, missles and grenades at home...? Strikes me a bigger fear/insecure factor is at play against gun ownership.

As in not trusting anyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

england, britain or whatever you want to call your chunk of the island, as in who cares.

---

It is with statements like that that you render yourself hard to take seriously on matters relating to anywhere other than the USA, because they prove that you know little about the countries in question. The distinction is important, and really not that difficult to get right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Read up on ole Henry, started off great and than slimed off into the deep end, really bad. One of the worst all time paranoid, crazy, grossly fat, despotic murderer....

---

Yes, so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Still have not figured out, except for heritage, why you have not dumped all those royals in some garbage pit by now.....time to move on

---

I quite agree, but I'm not about to lead a popular armed revolution against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It is with statements like that that you render yourself hard to take seriously on matters relating to anywhere other than the USA, because they prove that you know little about the countries in question. The distinction is important, and really not that difficult to get right.

?

---

If you want to talk merits, fine, otherwise spare me the sly personal insults. As to the royals, yep, duck out on that one too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

If you wan to talk merits, fine, otherwise spare me the sly personal insults.

---

It wasn't meant in any way as an insult, but as a genuine point which I think you might be well advised to take on board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It wasn't meant in any way as an insult, but as a genuine point which I think you might be well advised to take on board.

---

i will leave form, grammer, insults and other trivial matters to you as you have a special talent for such things; and instead worry over substance rather than form. Speaking of such, I have had enough of trivial matters and shall now log out for the day. Have fun you'll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

i will leave form, grammer, insults and other trivial matters to you as you have a special talent for such things; and instead worry over substance rather than form.

---

I am honestly not trying to insult you on this point; rather, to make you realise the problem I and, it seems, other more internationally-minded individuals here have with your views on other countries. This is very definitely a matter of substance, in that such errors make us doubt your depth of knowledge of nations other than the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I quite agree, but I'm not about to lead a popular armed revolution against them.

---

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.

I absoultely believe in the rule of law, and I abide by it, however a significant portion of society does not. Law in and of itself does not protect me, nor does it deter many.

Are you irrational for not choosing to use a firearm to protect yourself? Not at all, however that is YOUR choice, not mine. You can sit back and rely on the police to respond to your call for assistance after the fact. You admit, you have not lived anywhere where YOU felt the need to arm yourself. I have, and that was NOT irrational. The fact is, criminals have guns in this country and that will not change. I will therfore continue defend myself against that reality as I am allowed and fight for the right to do so where it is currently restricted. I do not accept that I should sit back and allow that to occur and merely rely on police to react to an event after it has happened.

I'll be clear here, I am not a proponent of totally unregulated gun ownership,


The discussion is about the right and freedom to do so if one should so choose. There are many places in this country where that need to protect ones self IS a distinct reality, as unfortunate as that may be. There are many places where break-ins, physical assult, etc, is an every day occurence.

There are also many places in this country where the ability of law enforcement to provide "protection" from those that do not choose to abide by the law is not immediate or timely. In general, we are not a "police state". In many jurisdictions, the extent and presence of law enforcement is deliberately minimal BECAUSE there is an expectation and or a desire of the populace to provide a level of self-protection. MANY people abhorr such a government presence, and hold little faith in the governments' ability to provide that protection in the first place. Personally, I tend to fall in the middle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

In some Banana Republics without working law-enforcement and justice systems that fear could be classified as rational, but I'm sure in most parts of North America and Europe it's more or less irrational.

---

It is not. PERIOD. I live here, you do not. I see what happens where people cannot defend themselves in this country. They frequently die. It is fact. Within walking distance of the US capitol, not the wilderness of Alaska.

I have two close relatives that were car-jacked at gunpoint by A repeat violent offender in Houston. Their assalant IS dead. My family members are not. They defended themselves with a legally carried firearm. The LAW did not defend them. AM I biased? You're effin right I AM and in this country I have a RIGHT to be, just as I have a RIGHT to defend myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

It is not. PERIOD. I live here, you do not. I see what happens where people cannot defend themselves in this country. They frequently die. It is fact. Within walking distance of the US capitol, not the wilderness of Alaska.

I have two close relatives that were car-jacked at gunpoint by A repeat violent offenders in Houston. Their assalant IS dead. My family members are not. They defended themselves with a legally carried firearm. AM I biased, you're effin right I AM and in this country, I have a RIGHT to be, just as I have a RIGHT to defend myself.

---

This is all symptomatic, surely, of a much wider malaise. Still, gun crime exists in both my home country, the UK, and the country where I currently live, and still I would consider it an over-reaction to possess a gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

This is all symptomatic, surely, of a much wider malaise. Still, gun crime exists in both my home country, the UK, and the country where I currently live, and still I would consider it an over-reaction to possess a gun.

---

I do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

I absoultely believe in the rule of law, and I abide by it, however a significant portion of society does not. Law in and of itself does not protect me, nor does it deter many.

---

Again, this tells me there are wider societal problems at play, and I consider it genuinely sad that you feel this way — not, absolutely not, because one would wish to live in a police state, but because if you really feel the need to be armed, this is something to worry about, not to celebrate as a demonstration of 'freedom' as many seem to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

You can sit back and rely on the police to respond to your call for assistance after the fact.

---

Yes, though frankly this doesn't concern me for one moment, because the possibility of a situation arising where being armed would be an advantage is statistically extremely remote, and given that it's a risk I'm prepared to run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

I will therfore continue defend myself against that reality as I am allowed and fight for the right to do so where it is currently restricted. I do not accept that I should sit back and allow that to occur and merely rely on police to react to an event after it has happened.

---

And I would never be prepared to live somewhere where those means were replaced by gun-wielding civilians. Frankly, the attitudes displayed on this board tells me that those most enthusiastic about gun ownership (and I don't, yet, include you in this category) are the sort of individuals I would least like to mete out justice as they saw fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

In general, we are not a "police state". In many jurisdictions, the extent and presence of law enforcement is deliberately minimal BECAUSE there is an expectation and or a desire of the populace to provide a level of self-protection. MANY people abhorr such a government presence, and hold little faith in the governments' ability to provide that protection in the first place. Personally, I tend to fall in the middle.

---

In general, neither are those nations in which gun ownership is not permitted in this way police states. Do you consider them — the UK, France, Germany, etc — to be? I do hope you won't say 'yes' based purely on the fact that we don't have widespread gun ownership. I think what we do in Europe is have a healthy disregard for the authorities at the same time as having a stronger disregard for the notion of gun-wielding civilians dispensing justice as they see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

I do not.

---

So you believe we would all be better off being armed in Europe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigelred5

I provide and protect MYSELF,and if I feel the best means of providing myself that protection as a law abiding citizen is through the possession of a firearm, that is my RIGHT and I will continue to do so.

---

That's where we differ. I feel it's my RIGHT that the government protects me and provides me with a safety net if things go bad and I will continue to do so.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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".

---

No, it means your average (insert whatever englander) has no meaningful right whatsoever, because its government does not trust its citizens and knows what is best for them.
If you are happy, then so be it. Persoanlly I could care less, as long as no one in my family gets their butt shot off trying to protect you guys on some future date.

and I have thoroughly gone through what a meaningless mess your stats are and how they are so meaningless in the other closed thread.

it still amazes me the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by others who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

bottom line, you englanders keep doing the bowing and scraping to the royals "with the reverent genuflection afforded to them even now in some quarters."

And I will do the same with the founding fathers and their principles.

meanwhile, try to relax from the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by you guys who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

I would say "pray" but some of you being atheists, well just keep hoping it will remain that away and that many years from now, you will die an old man, sleeping your beds, without some harness strapped to your back and such

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

it still amazes me the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by others who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

---

Never heard of successive US governments funding the IRA, the organisation responsible for the greatest numbers of deaths on UK soil since World War Two, have you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

bottom line, you englanders keep doing the bowing and scraping to the royals "with the reverent genuflection afforded to them even now in some quarters."

And I will do the same with the founding fathers and their principles.

---

What on earth do you mean by 'you Englanders'? This, beyond all doubt, proves your level of knowledge of countries other than your own. Some people do, you're quite right. Many, including myself, are supremely indifferent to the whole thing and would not mourn were they to suddenly cease to exist. You, though, seem to have taken fully on board the notion — shared by many of your countrymen — that we all adore the Royals and are obsessed with their every move. Like a fair few Americans, in fact, if you haven't noticed.

Like I said, just try to breathe and relax from the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by you guys who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

I would say "pray" but i recall you being an atheist, well just keep hoping it will remain that away and that many years from now, you will die an old man, sleeping your beds, without some harness strapped to your back and such other places

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

Like I said, just try to breathe and relax from the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by you guys who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

---

Yes, 'like you said' indeed. Did you even deign to read what I wrote before about the USA's role in propping up IRA violence for many years, or did this mysteriously pass you by because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notions? In this instance, your nation was far from 'playing world cop'. It was supporting a terrorist organisation which was responsible for far more loss of life on British shores than any current threat has yet achieved. For many, the fear of IRA violence was genuine — far more so than is the fear of gun crime you seem desperate for us Brits to have instilled in us to the point where we all need to go around armed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

I would say "pray" but i recall you being an atheist, well just keep hoping it will remain that away and that many years from now, you will die an old man, sleeping your beds, without some harness strapped to your back and such other places

---

Yes, being a rational person rather than one who believes in what are in effect myths and legends, I am indeed an atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

---

The fact of us having received no answers to our questions on this matter suggests, as I thought might be the case, that anthonyvop's possession of a firearm on his travels 'throughout Europe' is an invention for his rhetorical purposes. If he didn't do as you say, surely an offence was committed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

The fact of us having received no answers to our questions on this matter suggests, as I thought might be the case, that anthonyvop's possession of a firearm on his travels 'throughout Europe' is an invention for his rhetorical purposes. If he didn't do as you say, surely an offence was committed?

---

no like me, he probably got bored and went to sleep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Never heard of successive US governments funding the IRA, the organisation responsible for the greatest numbers of deaths on UK soil since World War Two, have you?

---

no, amazing. i had no idea that "succesive us government (were) funding the IRA". Me, I fund my IRA every year, as much as those IRS folks will let me.

You got some valid link to these actions of the USA government funding all these revolutionaries who might be attacking and killing?? or is this some paranoia........ :confused:


Besides I thought you were saying you all are so asleep and safe over there, and had no worries like I , old paranoid, was mentioning....... :rolleyes:

But I had forgot about your friends who had greatly discriminated against the catholics in Northern Ireland, oppressing them and turning them into second class citizens for hundreds of years.....who once again, to protect themselves from oppresion after the 1968 failure of your government to treat them on an equal basis and negiotate fairly.....took arms to protect themselves with a result of one big bloody mess, but in the absence of those actions, would still be living with their noses to the ground

well, you don't need a weatherman,
to tell you which way the wind blows,
esp when you been seeding the whirlwind....

but like i said,

Quote:

---

Like I said, just try to breathe and relax from the overly wrought paranoia, fear and insecuirty that is expressed here over americans owning guns by you guys who have them outlawed in their country, who still have crime issues, and live thousands of miles away, and who are naive enough to think that just cause you have had no such threats in the last few years (again thanks to the USA playing world cop) that it will continue to be such for some infinite future time.

I would say "pray" but i recall you being an atheist, well just keep hoping it will remain that away and that many years from now, you will die an old man, sleeping your beds, without some harness strapped to your back and such other places

---

i could care less, if you prepare yourself for harsh winters that may be a coming to visit you as long as I don't have to see my breathen dying for it.....and at my age, I doubt that I will live long enough to see such. But you might
:D

Just don't want you imposing your views here n this country, not one bit of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

---

Nope....My rights supersede anything that some silly European politicians can come up with.