quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
...what we who live here have to put up with on an almost daily basis. No other body of sportsmen/women has to go through the hoops that we do in order to pursue our sport. We open our past and present lives to the authorities, give assent to our medical histories being open to perusal if necessary, are bound by so many laws, rules and regulations regarding the use and secure storage of our firearms, that it's hard to see why we bother at all.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
Coming on this site for the last sixteen years or so might have been one of the biggest mistakes I ever made, as some here have reminded me from time to time, but back then, it was to put right a comment that here in UK we are all nothing but a bunch of 'sheeple', 'panty-waisted cowards' and 'yellow-bellies', content to bow our heads to the PTB in order to have our few guns. At that time we were in the middle of a war in the Middle East, with over fifty thousand British military personnel right there with you, so I felt a mite aggrieved to read stuff like that on a forum like this.

Thankfully, most here know that is far from the truth, but that is mainly down to the 40 -50 per cent of my posts that try and correct the ignorance of those who post this stuff.

I'll tell you now, again, that for the average politician here in UK, the matter of gun ownership is not any kind of an issue - it is simply so far outside their remit as to be a sport that happens 'in another country'. Shooting sports are hardly ever mentioned here, unless somebody has won a medal in some games.

I'll continue to post here, correcting any misconceptions that I am able to, but I'm now saying that henceforth ANY shitty remarks heading my way will be ignored. I'm not here to get shat on by anybody, but will gladly share gun stuff within my limited accessiblity.

A very few here have actually met with me here in England, and know from first hand experience what it's like for those of us who shoot for fun and relaxation. One of them likened shooting here to simultaneously firing off a gun and tearing up twenty dollar bills whilst also tearing your hair out in frustration.

I guess that about sums it up.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
Tac, let me be plainly clear, my comments were not directed at you specifically...or those Brits who support the right to own a gun and enjoy shooting...in fact, while Great Britain's laws regarding gun ownership are certainly one example of the tyranny that I was referring to, I wasn't specifically referencing guns at all but the point of this topic was a British citizen who lost a government issued license due, not to any action he took, but simply due to his thoughtful remarks on a tragic event on social media. He lost, what many consider a right, simply because the British overlords disliked his position. This isn't just a "gun" issue...this is a freedom of speech issue...a government that removes a citizen's "privilege" with no due process, no appeal simply because they disagree with what is thought or said...

...and this is not an isolated incident...from the Alfie Evans tragedy to other Brits who have been arrested for their social media posts, this over reach is systemic...and sadly it is accepted by fellow Brits. The fact that a government tries to squash unpopular thought through censorship or rescinding privileges, sadly, doesn't surprise me...but the fact that citizens accept this, often with little or no protest does surprise me.

I can't fathom why even those Brits that don't like guns aren't taking to the streets in protest over Long-Collins, a fellow citizen's loss of a privilege based solely on thoughtful speech and ideas.

I can't fathom why the streets aren't filled with Brits in protest over several of these government over-reach...the gates to Buckingham Palace should be shaking from the masses...but the fact that they aren't indicates a pacified public contendedly complacent to accept what privileges their government doles out to them and just happy that the loss of a privilege happened to someone else and not themselves...

...and yes, I believe, to some extent, this is also observed in the U.S.

Or, more succinctly, it is popular to blame politicians for over-reach but I believe that citizens get the government (and over-reach) they allow to govern them.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
Coming on this site for the last sixteen years or so might have been one of the biggest mistakes I ever made, as some here have reminded me from time to time, but back then, it was to put right a comment that here in UK we are all nothing but a bunch of 'sheeple', 'panty-waisted cowards' and 'yellow-bellies', content to bow our heads to the PTB in order to have our few guns. At that time we were in the middle of a war in the Middle East, with over fifty thousand British military personnel right there with you, so I felt a mite aggrieved to read stuff like that on a forum like this.

Thankfully, most here know that is far from the truth, but that is mainly down to the 40 -50 per cent of my posts that try and correct the ignorance of those who post this stuff.

I'll tell you now, again, that for the average politician here in UK, the matter of gun ownership is not any kind of an issue - it is simply so far outside their remit as to be a sport that happens 'in another country'. Shooting sports are hardly ever mentioned here, unless somebody has won a medal in some games.

I'll continue to post here, correcting any misconceptions that I am able to, but I'm now saying that henceforth ANY shitty remarks heading my way will be ignored. I'm not here to get shat on by anybody, but will gladly share gun stuff within my limited accessiblity.

A very few here have actually met with me here in England, and know from first hand experience what it's like for those of us who shoot for fun and relaxation. One of them likened shooting here to simultaneously firing off a gun and tearing up twenty dollar bills whilst also tearing your hair out in frustration.

I guess that about sums it up.

Tac, again, my comments were not directed at you specifically...and I'm sorry you feel that joining the forum was a mistake. From where I stand I don't believe it was a mistake. I've read and enjoyed your posts for years and appreciate your input. I hope you will continue to participate.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
First of all, let me thank ALL of you for your posts here - I'm sure that Callum, if he was a member here, would be equally grateful for the comments made in his support.

@MDS - I didn't wrote that coming here was a mistake, I wrote that it might have been a mistake, since there is no doubt in my mind that although it has given me a lot of grief over the years, that is outweighed by the good feelings.

As for why nobody is in the streets crying for justice for Callum, it's because, as I've pointed out countless times, the average Joe here knows NOTHING about shooting, or those whose sport it is. they really could care less, and that's a fact. Going to Buckingham Palace might seem a good idea to you, but the prime minister of the government lives in Downing street, about a mile away. The queen is the titular head, but in fact rubber-stamps government-made decisions. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, not a monarchial dictatorship. The last monarch who tried THAT one on with parliament got his head chopped off in 1649.

And I never mentioned leaving, unless Para kicks me out for sedition.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
First of all, let me thank ALL of you for your posts here - I'm sure that Callum, if he was a member here, would be equally grateful for the comments made in his support.

@MDS - I didn't wrote that coming here was a mistake, I wrote that it might have been a mistake, since there is no doubt in my mind that although it has given me a lot of grief over the years, that is outweighed by the good feelings.

As for why nobody is in the streets crying for justice for Callum, it's because, as I've pointed out countless times, the average Joe here knows NOTHING about shooting, or those whose sport it is. they really could care less, and that's a fact. Going to Buckingham Palace might seem a good idea to you, but the prime minister of the government lives in Downing street, about a mile away. The queen is the titular head, but in fact rubber-stamps government-made decisions. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, not a monarchial dictatorship. The last monarch who tried THAT one on with parliament got his head chopped off in 1649.

And I never mentioned leaving, unless Para kicks me out for sedition.

You keep mentioning how the average Brit knows nothing about guns and the sport of shooting...but surely they must understand how their speech is not only being restricted by their government but the perilous road they go down when they concede privileges for nothing more than than speaking their minds. Today one Brit might lose a privilege for speaking out on the "unthinkable" topic of defending one's self with a weapon...tomorrow the government will abrogate another citizen's privilege for what? Advocating for tobacco use or home schooling on social media? At what point do Brits unite and cry out against the infringement of speech or thought...even if it happens to someone else and not themselves?

I had always considered the UK relatively free and had assumed that, while not identical, that Brits and Yanks held similar values Perhaps I'm wrong though and Brits place little value in ideals like free speech and thought and couldn't care less if a fellow citizen's privilege is rescinded without due process or appeal? Perhaps it is just "business as usual" and nothing to fret about...after all, I have been wrong before.

I was aware that the UK is a constitutional monarchy and only mentioned Buckingham Palace as citizens in protest often choose the highest symbolic leadership to demonstrate their anger against. I would be equally impressed if Brits chose to unite in protest in Parliament or the Prime Minister's front door...or Big Ben...or just about anywhere else.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
First of all, let me thank ALL of you for your posts here - I'm sure that Callum, if he was a member here, would be equally grateful for the comments made in his support.

@MDS - I didn't wrote that coming here was a mistake, I wrote that it might have been a mistake, since there is no doubt in my mind that although it has given me a lot of grief over the years, that is outweighed by the good feelings.

As for why nobody is in the streets crying for justice for Callum, it's because, as I've pointed out countless times, the average Joe here knows NOTHING about shooting, or those whose sport it is. they really could care less, and that's a fact. Going to Buckingham Palace might seem a good idea to you, but the prime minister of the government lives in Downing street, about a mile away. The queen is the titular head, but in fact rubber-stamps government-made decisions. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, not a monarchial dictatorship. The last monarch who tried THAT one on with parliament got his head chopped off in 1649.

And I never mentioned leaving, unless Para kicks me out for sedition.

You keep mentioning how the average Brit knows nothing about guns and the sport of shooting...but surely they must understand how their speech is not only being restricted by their government but the perilous road they go down when they concede privileges for nothing more than than speaking their minds. Today one Brit might lose a privilege for speaking out on the "unthinkable" topic of defending one's self with a weapon...tomorrow the government will abrogate another citizen's privilege for what? Advocating for tobacco use or home schooling on social media? At what point do Brits unite and cry out against the infringement of speech or thought...even if it happens to someone else and not themselves?

I had always considered the UK relatively free and had assumed that, while not identical, that Brits and Yanks held similar values Perhaps I'm wrong though and Brits place little value in ideals like free speech and thought and couldn't care less if a fellow citizen's privilege is rescinded without due process or appeal? Perhaps it is just "business as usual" and nothing to fret about...after all, I have been wrong before.

I was aware that the UK is a constitutional monarchy and only mentioned Buckingham Palace as citizens in protest often choose the highest symbolic leadership to demonstrate their anger against. I would be equally impressed if Brits chose to unite in protest in Parliament or the Prime Minister's front door...or Big Ben...or just about anywhere else.

GB does not have constitutionally protected free speech, I have read stories about people being charged for saying things (not inciting violence or call to arms), no specifics come to mind. Tac, what are the rules and limitations on free speech? Also you mentioned lack of interest and low participation in shooting sports. Is this a recent trend, or has interest in guns always been low? I ask because I wonder if limitations are allowed because no one cares, or if no one cares due to the limitations. Sort of a chicken/egg question.

Also Tac, please keep it up, even if we annoy you at times with our preconceived notions or misinformation about GB. I truly wish you guys had a similarly constitutionally guaranteed right to guns/self protection and free speech.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:
First of all, let me thank ALL of you for your posts here - I'm sure that Callum, if he was a member here, would be equally grateful for the comments made in his support.

@MDS - I didn't wrote that coming here was a mistake, I wrote that it might have been a mistake, since there is no doubt in my mind that although it has given me a lot of grief over the years, that is outweighed by the good feelings.

As for why nobody is in the streets crying for justice for Callum, it's because, as I've pointed out countless times, the average Joe here knows NOTHING about shooting, or those whose sport it is. they really could care less, and that's a fact. Going to Buckingham Palace might seem a good idea to you, but the prime minister of the government lives in Downing street, about a mile away. The queen is the titular head, but in fact rubber-stamps government-made decisions. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, not a monarchial dictatorship. The last monarch who tried THAT one on with parliament got his head chopped off in 1649.

And I never mentioned leaving, unless Para kicks me out for sedition.

You keep mentioning how the average Brit knows nothing about guns and the sport of shooting...but surely they must understand how their speech is not only being restricted by their government but the perilous road they go down when they concede privileges for nothing more than than speaking their minds. Today one Brit might lose a privilege for speaking out on the "unthinkable" topic of defending one's self with a weapon...tomorrow the government will abrogate another citizen's privilege for what? Advocating for tobacco use or home schooling on social media? At what point do Brits unite and cry out against the infringement of speech or thought...even if it happens to someone else and not themselves?

I had always considered the UK relatively free and had assumed that, while not identical, that Brits and Yanks held similar values Perhaps I'm wrong though and Brits place little value in ideals like free speech and thought and couldn't care less if a fellow citizen's privilege is rescinded without due process or appeal? Perhaps it is just "business as usual" and nothing to fret about...after all, I have been wrong before.

I was aware that the UK is a constitutional monarchy and only mentioned Buckingham Palace as citizens in protest often choose the highest symbolic leadership to demonstrate their anger against. I would be equally impressed if Brits chose to unite in protest in Parliament or the Prime Minister's front door...or Big Ben...or just about anywhere else.

GB does not have constitutionally protected free speech, I have read stories about people being charged for saying things (not inciting violence or call to arms), no specifics come to mind. Tac, what are the rules and limitations on free speech? Also you mentioned lack of interest and low participation in shooting sports. Is this a recent trend, or has interest in guns always been low? I ask because I wonder if limitations are allowed because no one cares, or if no one cares due to the limitations. Sort of a chicken/egg question.

Also Tac, please keep it up, even if we annoy you at times with our preconceived notions or misinformation about GB. I truly wish you guys had a similarly constitutionally guaranteed right to guns/self protection and free speech.

I was aware that Great Britain doesn't have protected speech, but not knowing what the laws regulate I'll rely on Tac to answer that question. Like you though, I've read various accounts of British citizens being arrested for simply speaking on issues they were warned not to speak on. It has been almost exactly one year since the Alfie Evans outrage and at that time the Merseyside Police posted a social media warning that they were monitoring citizen's social media accounts and could possibly "take action".

Regarding your question on whether the lack of interest and participation in the shooting sports in Great Britain is a recent trend, my take (as an outsider) is that it is a reflection of over 100 years of incremental and progressively more strict gun control laws that have essentially removed public exposure or interest in guns and shooting for most Brits.

Many years ago I read an account that pointed out that over a 100 years ago the British Empire was at its height and widely regarded as a great civilization to be admired and as it had started to adopt gun control measures several other countries, including the U.S., followed suit thinking that all 'civilized' nations should do so.

Although I can't find the cite now, I once read an account that suggested that New York City's Sullivan Act was either inspired or modeled after Great Britain's first gun control law in 1903.

A Brief History of British Gun Control (or, How to Disarm the Law Abiding Populace by Stealth)


By the time WWII started Great Britain had enacted several gun control laws (including licensing and registration). There were government owned and run firearms manufacturers but citizens were largely disarmed or relegated to shotguns and antique guns. The British government, expecting the Germans to invade, knew that they would have to rely on their citizens to defend the country. The government firearms manufacturers were busy cranking our what guns they could to supply the British military and so they put out a call for various supplies and guns. The U.S. government supplied some military guns but these were supplemented by ordinary Americans who sent over tons of privately owned guns to arm their British cousins to defend their country.

The lesson I always took from this moment in history was how gun control had literally left a disarmed populace unable to defend their homeland.

From where I stand I believe that the Brits have faced over 100 years of gun control and many (not all) have been "conditioned" to not use, rely, or enjoy firearms.

I can't help but wonder if this same conditioning extends to their acceptance of limits on their speech as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
The U.S. government supplied some military guns but these were supplemented by ordinary Americans who sent over tons of privately owned guns to arm their British cousins to defend their country.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
The U.S. government supplied some military guns but these were supplemented by ordinary Americans who sent over tons of privately owned guns to arm their British cousins to defend their country.

And what happened to those guns? They weren't sent back to the US with a thank you note attached, the British gov't destroyed them.

Sadly true...with one notable exception and one of my favorite stories from WWII. For the life of me I can't recall the officer's name or the rifle he used, but there was a U.S. Army officer who was a member of the U.S. Olympic rifle shooting team years before WWII started. The U.S. team took the Gold medal that year and the officer kept the rifle he competed with and had a medallion commemorating the event inserted into the butt stock.

When WWII started, but before the U.S. entered the war, the Army officer felt it was his duty to do his part to aid the British citizens in the defense of their homeland against German invasion and so he sent his beloved rifle as part of one of the arms shipments to the Brits. Some time after the war his rifle was shipped backed to him no worse for wear. He assumed that the Brits, seeing the excellent condition of the rifle and the medallion indicating what had been accomplished with it, probably chose to never issue that particular rifle and it probably sat out the war in a British armory...

...but yes, the other donated guns were destroyed rather than returned to their American owners.


***[slightly changing topics]***

Have you ever wondered how to turn a weak enemy into a strong enemy?

You take that party, and you take everything away from them.

A person with nothing to lose only has the world to gain.

By taking away Callum's firearms, he now has nothing to lose by speaking out. They could still throw him in jail for threatening language or something like that, but more than likely, he's prepared and willing to make that sacrifice or at least take the risk.

The first rule of influence is maintaining leverage. Once Callum's current permit is up and he has to divest of all his firearms, he will have no incentive to keep quiet. Quite the opposite, he will be in a uniquely powerful position to advocate on behalf of British gun owners with eloquent abandon.