(August 30, 2012 at 12:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm sure our saner European members will be shocked by this but none of us who live in the Lala-land that the US has become will be surprised.

I'm not sure that we're any more sane on this side of the Shining Big Sea Water, Min. You might find this difficult to believe, but an ancient law that made it legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow in the English north eastern town of Berwick-on-Tweed (except on Sundays) was removed from the statute books only a few years ago. I was much relieved that I could then -- as an Edinburgh-born chappy -- for the first time go to the wee toon any day of the week to pick out a tweed hat without becoming a target for local archery nuts. Neil

You can only kill the Scotsman is he is carrying a bow and arrow. I make sure that I don't take mine with me to York. It is only on the inside of the old city walls though.

Although, I don't think there is actually anywhere in UK law where this is written down. Lots of news sources talk about it, but I don't think any actual law ones do. It is probably a law that was passed down through word of mouth and is now impossible to tell whether it is real or not.

(August 31, 2012 at 7:15 am)Justtristo Wrote:

(August 30, 2012 at 12:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm sure our saner European members will be shocked by this but none of us who live in the Lala-land that the US has become will be surprised.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2012083...NIAO1.html



Apparently they want to give shooters belt-fed machine guns!

They should go further and advocate the legal ownership by civilians such weapons as rocket launchers and tanks.

FYI. Civilian Americans have always been allowed to legally own belt-fed machine guns, rocket launchers and tanks. I don't know how many rocket launchers and tanks civilians own, but there are about 250,000 legally owned machine guns in the homes of American civilians right now.

These types of weapons are more tightly regulated than most, but if you aren't a criminal, can get your local sheriff to sign your form 4 and pass a FBI background check then once you pay the $200 tax you too can legally purchase a machine gun or 155mm howitzer if you can afford it. (subject to state and local regulations)

An interesting fact and something many of you probably don't know is that since the National Firearms Act (NFA) was signed into law in 1934 only one person has been convicted of murder for killing another person in the United States with a legally owned machine gun. In that case an Ohio police officer used his privately owned Mac-11 to murder an informant. No American civilian has been convicted of murdering anyone with a legally owned machine gun in the last 78 years.

(August 31, 2012 at 7:15 am)Justtristo Wrote: They should go further and advocate the legal ownership by civilians such weapons as rocket launchers and tanks.

We -can- own rocket launchers and tanks Tristo..... it's just that the latter is horrendously expensive. Quite frankly, I am appalled at the lack of tank and rocket launcher based violence in this country, especially relative to handguns. I think it's high time that the criminally inclined at least attempt to up their game. As of right now they just seem lazy and inept.
(there's plenty of tape to cut through if you want to own either, legally, and regulations regarding whether or not you have to make the working bits inop. If I ever find myself in the position of being horrendously wealthy I do want to own a Bradley -not technically a tank- but it has a place in my heart.)

That's a relief, Frankie. Thanks for the clarification. I was sure it was on the statute books, but I confess I didn't check before publishing and be-damning myself. I'm pretty certain than Berwick, which declared war on Germany separately in 1914, officially ended the WWI conflict very recently, though ... at least -- my excuse being a twenty-seven-year absence from the UK -- I think so. That correct? I trust you implicitly now, so tell me; is it true that the Pilgrims didn't sail on the 'Mayflower' across the Atlantic from Plymouth at all but on a coal barge called 'Fanny's Folly' up the Leeds-Liverpool Canal from Wigan Pier? Whateverest, chum, I agree with the OP that a clampdown on gunslingers wasn't the worst idea over here since we replaced the Druids with Steeleye Span. I understand the nefarious political advantages of defending or even supporting the right to gun possession and carrying in the US, I just don't catch the morality or common sense in making daily massacre such an easy game to play. N

---

My dad legally owned a tank, Rhythm. He was a Scots lad but, even so, he told me it was perfectly legal. He was even encouraged to conceal the weapon at times. Mind you, they wouldn't let him keep it and take it home with him after the North Africa campaign against Rommel ended during WWII. N

(August 30, 2012 at 12:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm sure our saner European members will be shocked by this but none of us who live in the Lala-land that the US has become will be surprised.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2012083...NIAO1.html

Quote:TAMPA, Fla. (AP) - Republicans have strengthened the pro-gun-rights portion of their party platform, including a new call for unlimited bullet capacities in guns, in a defiant response to criticism that followed recent mass shootings at a Colorado cinema and an Arizona congresswoman's gathering.

Apparently they want to give shooters belt-fed machine guns!

Why use unlimited bullets when you can use a single, destructive one?
Screw machine guns, buy RPG's for your school/workplace shootings!

The voting population of the USA is currently considering -- seriously, mind you -- whether to vote a Mormon into the world's most powerful position, Kilic. With that in mind, do you honestly think that any European is unduly shocked by the idea that folks should also have the right to carry an arsenal in their underpants? N

(August 31, 2012 at 10:35 am)neilmarr Wrote: The voting population of the USA is currently considering -- seriously, mind you -- whether to vote a Mormon into the world's most powerful position, Kilic. With that in mind, do you honestly think that any European is unduly shocked by the idea that folks should also have the right to carry an arsenal in their underpants? N

There was also a time in our country when it was unheard of that a Catholic could ever become president, until John F. Kennedy. You guys need to chill and to keep your noses in your own culture. Our individual rights in the U.S. are none of Europe's business.

I feel that what happens in the most powerful nation on earth is everybody's business. When it comes to who is in power over there, it affects all of us.

(August 31, 2012 at 11:17 am)frankiej Wrote: I feel that what happens in the most powerful nation on earth is everybody's business. When it comes to who is in power over there, it affects all of us.

I'm not talking about our country's policies abroad. Our individual rights in the U.S. is none of Europe's business.