Brits scared of 3 inch toy rifle

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
True, i don't get that those who sell legally to criminals today wouldn't risk being charged by selling illegally to criminals then.

Most of all, i think it has more to do with people just selling their guns and not caring rather than selling their guns specifically to criminals but perhaps i think too highly of US gun owners?

Any person that sells a gun is going to record a bill of sale and drivers license number of the buyer. This proves their age and state of residency which clears you mostly from selling to somebody that can't own/posesses a firearm.

The reason is that gun is REGISTERED/TRACEABLE TO ME. As a law abiding citizen that gun is mine lawfully. I would like to keep my right to own arms by not committing a felony and selling to somebody that couldn't own a firearm, I could lose that right forever if I did.

If I don't record the drivers license and bill of sale I open myself up to a whole world of shit should that gun be used in a crime because if it is, that crime is going to come back to me and I need to prove I sold the weapon.

You keep thinking the worst about gun owners, in my experience it's prudent to think of them as really not wanting to break the law so they can continue to own firearms instead of being stripped of that right for life. Law abiding citizens are just that, they obey the law.
 
Last edited:

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
True, i don't get that those who sell legally to criminals today wouldn't risk being charged by selling illegally to criminals then.

Most of all, i think it has more to do with people just selling their guns and not caring rather than selling their guns specifically to criminals but perhaps i think too highly of US gun owners?

Here's the thing, it's illegal for the government to keep a registry of who has what firearm, with the exception of Class III items (machine guns, suppressors, SBS's, SRS's, DD's and AOW's), so even if there were a requirement to go through a FFL so that a check could be done, for people that didn't want to do the check for whatever reason there's no way to track it. If someone couldn't pass the check they would just do a straw purchase like they do now. The only way to do it is to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, and it still won't stop the criminals. If there was a way to stop the criminals without infringing the rights of the law-abiding, the law-abiding would be all over it.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Any person that sells a gun is going to record a bill of sale and drivers license number of the buyer. This proves their age and state of residency which clears you mostly from selling to somebody that can't own/posesses a firearm.

The reason is that gun is REGISTERED/TRACEABLE TO ME. As a law abiding citizen that gun is mine lawfully. I would like to keep my right to own arms by not committing a felony and selling to somebody that couldn't own a firearm, I could lose that right forever if I did.

If I don't record the drivers license and bill of sale I open myself up to a whole world of shit should that gun be used in a crime because if it is, that crime is going to come back to me and I need to prove I sold the weapon.

You keep thinking the worst about gun owners, in my experience it's prudent to think of them as really not wanting to break the law so they can continue to own firearms instead of being stripped of that right for life. Law abiding citizens are just that, they obey the law.

If you report the firearm was stolen before the crime, than you are fine.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Any person that sells a gun is going to record a bill of sale and drivers license number of the buyer. This proves their age and state of residency which clears you mostly from selling to somebody that can't own/posesses a firearm.

The reason is that gun is REGISTERED/TRACEABLE TO ME. As a law abiding citizen that gun is mine lawfully. I would like to keep my right to own arms by not committing a felony and selling to somebody that couldn't own a firearm, I could lose that right forever if I did.

If I don't record the drivers license and bill of sale I open myself up to a whole world of shit should that gun be used in a crime because if it is, that crime is going to come back to me and I need to prove I sold the weapon.

You keep thinking the worst about gun owners, in my experience it's prudent to think of them as really not wanting to break the law so they can continue to own firearms instead of being stripped of that right for life. Law abiding citizens are just that, they obey the law.

Yeah, but then again, you just file the serial number off and it's an illegal gun, not traceable and not a part of the statistics regarding legal guns used to commit crimes but rather an illegal gun. Those guns make up the statistics people use to ensure that legal guns get sold.

I'm willing to bet my house that the overwhelming majority of the "illegal guns" were sold legally in the US.

I don't think the worst about gun owners, apparently i think to highly of them because i would believe that most gun owners would welcome everything that keeps guns in the hands of lawful citisens and away from criminals.

BTW, you have a habit of leaving loaded firearms lying around, don't you? You've said as much in many threads before.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Here's the thing, it's illegal for the government to keep a registry of who has what firearm, with the exception of Class III items (machine guns, suppressors, SBS's, SRS's, DD's and AOW's), so even if there were a requirement to go through a FFL so that a check could be done, for people that didn't want to do the check for whatever reason there's no way to track it. If someone couldn't pass the check they would just do a straw purchase like they do now. The only way to do it is to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, and it still won't stop the criminals. If there was a way to stop the criminals without infringing the rights of the law-abiding, the law-abiding would be all over it.

I don't think we'll get much further into this debate before we start swinging at each other so all i'm going to say now is that our nation has different heritage and different laws, you agree with the freedom you have and i am thankful we don't have it like that in the UK because i realise the problems it would bring in places like where i grew up, Brixton.

I don't think we are going to get much further without unneccessary name calling and neither of us will ever change our minds on the issue anyway.

So. Have a good one.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Yeah, but then again, you just file the serial number off and it's an illegal gun, not traceable and not a part of the statistics regarding legal guns used to commit crimes but rather an illegal gun. Those guns make up the statistics people use to ensure that legal guns get sold.

I'm willing to bet my house that the overwhelming majority of the "illegal guns" were sold legally in the US.

I'm willing to bet that the number of legally purchased firearms with the serial numbers removed falls within the margin of error.

I don't think the worst about gun owners, apparently i think to highly of them because i would believe that most gun owners would welcome everything that keeps guns in the hands of lawful citisens and away from criminals.

We do, now come up with a way that doesn't infringe our our rights that effectively gets them out of criminals hands.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
I don't think we'll get much further into this debate before we start swinging at each other so all i'm going to say now is that our nation has different heritage and different laws, you agree with the freedom you have and i am thankful we don't have it like that in the UK because i realise the problems it would bring in places like where i grew up, Brixton.

It's possible, or, if law-abiding citizens of Brixton were allowed to own and carry firearms, maybe the thugs wouldn't be so quick to commit crimes knowing they could get blown away.

I don't think we are going to get much further without unneccessary name calling and neither of us will ever change our minds on the issue anyway.

So. Have a good one.

Same to you :)
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Quoted for proof of my earlier statement. Thanks!

:awe:

Why don't you post a real response instead of trolling with rabid nationalism? Are you denying that the Queen is the head of state? Or are you denying that the position passes through an inbred bloodline? Or both?

It's really sad how little peasants are taught about their own country.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Why don't you post a real response instead of trolling with rabid nationalism? Are you denying that the Queen is the head of state? Or are you denying that the position passes through an inbred bloodline? Or both?

It's really sad how little peasants are taught about their own country.

It's really sad how fat americas aren't taught what basic words mean like "peasants";

A peasant is an agricultural worker who generally owns or rents only a small plot of ground. The word is derived from 15th century French païsant meaning one from the pays, or countryside, ultimately from the Latin pagus, or outlying administrative district (when the Roman Empire became Christian, these outlying districts were the last to Christianise, and this gave rise to "pagan" as a religious term).[1] The term peasant today is sometimes used in a pejorative sense for impoverished farmers. - Wikipedia
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
It's really sad how fat americas aren't taught what basic words mean like "peasants";

Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia's listing for the history of the word peasant is to be used as the sole source for the modern-day usage of a term? Think a bit more critically here.

I think one reason why limeys have such difficulty debating on the Internet with foreigners is because monarchy encourages a single-view of things. I wish that you could break free from this bondage.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Why don't you post a real response instead of trolling with rabid nationalism? Are you denying that the Queen is the head of state? Or are you denying that the position passes through an inbred bloodline? Or both?

It's really sad how little peasants are taught about their own country.

You need to remember that the monarchy and the Queen Bitch is an integral part of the British Identity. How are the peons to react when someone dares to speak against the barbaric institution symbolized by the Queen Bitch? They need a bloodline to worship and follow, even if it's barbaric, sexist, and discriminates from other religions.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
You need to remember that the monarchy and the Queen Bitch is an integral part of the British Identity. How are the peons to react when someone dares to speak against the barbaric institution symbolized by the Queen Bitch? They need a bloodline to worship and follow, even if it's barbaric, sexist, and discriminates from other religions.

Well if it isn't the lost son from Iceland, the Mongolian who has come to put his tounge right up COW's arse just as he always does.

Have you ever had an independent thought or do you take orders from COW every time you post?

Lemme guess, you have a special bond, when he posts, you know about it and feel the need to go into that thread to join him in his idiocy.

Just as an aside, barbaric? How? Sexist? How? Discriminates from other religions, well i'll give you that one.

But the Queen is a woman, the King is a man, how is that Sexist? Is that more sexist than a nation like the US that has never had a woman as a President? Less sexist? Don't know? Too stupid to think? And religion, heh, if you are not Christian and express that you are then you'll never become president of the US, i suppose that is actually an expression of how it works in society today rather than of tradition as with our Monarch, right? Which is worse?

You might want to ask COW how to respond to this before you respond so you know how he wants you to respond to this post.

Best of luck, Icelandic Mongolian.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
You need to remember that the monarchy and the Queen Bitch is an integral part of the British Identity. How are the peons to react when someone dares to speak against the barbaric institution symbolized by the Queen Bitch? They need a bloodline to worship and follow, even if it's barbaric, sexist, and discriminates from other religions.

That's true. Their identity has taken such a beating in the 20th century that they've grown a strong attachment to the barbarism. What else do they have? I wouldn't be surprised if they're next proud over their lack of teeth. It's not too much of a leap if they're proud of their monarchy.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
But the Queen is a woman, the King is a man, how is that Sexist? Is that more sexist than a nation like the US that has never had a woman as a President? Less sexist? Don't know? Too stupid to think? And religion, heh, if you are not Christian and express that you are then you'll never become president of the US, i suppose that is actually an expression of how it works in society today rather than of tradition as with our Monarch, right? Which is worse?

Ah, the defender of barbarism is back.

The Queen Bitch is a woman and soon the British sheep will worship Prince Charles as their Overlord, but the line of succession itself is sexist. It's a sexist institution that is imposed upon the people.

Look at your posts. It's all about general population, not the government itself. Maybe it is sexist that the US hasn't had a female president, but then I guess the UK is racist for not having a racial minority as its PM, not to mention that its head of state can only be of one religion. But, really, we all know that the UK is pretty racist anyways.

You follow a barbaric institution that is inherently sexist, racist (according to your own logic), and discriminates from other religions. This institution is imposed by the government, we're not even talking about the people's wishes, which is probably worse since the UK population is incredibly racist.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
That's true. Their identity has taken such a beating in the 20th century that they've grown a strong attachment to the barbarism. What else do they have? I wouldn't be surprised if they're next proud over their lack of teeth. It's not too much of a leap if they're proud of their monarchy.

They're a pretty backwards people. I don't know how anyone can defend such a barbaric institution.

I guess if you're the country that basically raped the entire world 100 times over and are now a rapidly diminishing influence on the world, then that country's people may cling to the 'glory' of the past, like worshiping some old hag and soon to be idolizing her idiot son. King Charles or whatever it will be, LOL.
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
Ah, the defender of barbarism is back.

The Queen Bitch is a woman and soon the British sheep will worship Prince Charles as their Overlord, but the line of succession itself is sexist. It's a sexist institution that is imposed upon the people.

Look at your posts. It's all about general population, not the government itself. Maybe it is sexist that the US hasn't had a female president, but then I guess the UK is racist for not having a racial minority as its PM, not to mention that its head of state can only be of one religion. But, really, we all know that the UK is pretty racist anyways.

You follow a barbaric institution that is inherently sexist, racist (according to your own logic), and discriminates from other religions. This institution is imposed by the government, we're not even talking about the people's wishes, which is probably worse since the UK population is incredibly racist.

Sorry WE are the ones who are sexist :rolleyes: your president wise and beautiful woman is always a Male president wise and beautiful woman because you have no capacity to vote for a woman. <---Sexism

On a side note you keep mentioning discriminating against religion!?! Who gives a shit religion is just a stain on the planet and is completely irrelevant. We don't give a shit about religion unlike you. We've grown out of it.
 

tommo123

Platinum Member
Sep 25, 2005
2,617
48
91
can i say that this entire thread has now grown to retarded proportions!

this should be in OT, not politics and news if you crazy people want to rant and bitch at each other ffs.

ok, i'm a brit and a lot of us (most everyone i know in fact) couldn't give a fuck about the "royal" family. they are inbred cretins keeping the UK in the 19th century in some ways. i personally couldn't care any less if they all died in a terrorist attack.

some brits have never bothered with braces and so have bad teeth, others have. it's as valid a comment as saying that every american is fat. they are stereotypes as there is some basic truth to it ffs
 

HAL9000

Lifer
Oct 17, 2010
22,021
3
76
can i say that this entire thread has now grown to retarded proportions!

this should be in OT, not politics and news if you crazy people want to rant and bitch at each other ffs.

ok, i'm a brit and a lot of us (most everyone i know in fact) couldn't give a fuck about the "royal" family. they are inbred cretins keeping the UK in the 19th century in some ways. i personally couldn't care any less if they all died in a terrorist attack.

some brits have never bothered with braces and so have bad teeth, others have. it's as valid a comment as saying that every american is fat. they are stereotypes as there is some basic truth to it ffs

We know. But some of us like the royal family but few care enough to actually want them removed, most just don't care one way or the other.