Advice on my options ( in a serious social collapse)

[Hamradioop]

Capt Kirk does Gun Control

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KvO-8IvoCI

[SoCal92057]

that's may be the case Briggs2, but post SHTF when its WROL all bets are off, and any body breaking in will get what they deserve? one less burglar/raider to worry about!

As may be, however because currently we have ROL its advisable that any preps we admit to on a public (but privately owned) forum conform to those laws.

To any US visitors, I'd love to have UK gun laws as liberal as California's ..... Read into that what you may

I doubt that ForgeCorvus is in disagreement with me when I say ROL won't help when someone is coming at you with the intent of causing you injury or death. The individual, must have the first responsibility and right to defense. To have it any other way is a sure indicator of a government that cares less about their citizens and more about their power over them. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. When your life is threatened, you must be allowed to use sufficient force to end the threat. A criminal does not care about ROL. He operates outside the ROL or he would not be a criminal. The ROL guides the good people who obey the law. Criminals have contempt for the law and are the wolves among the sheep. I have an American perspective on this and I hope to provide food for thought. My focus is on the individual having the maximum individual liberty and the government being limited in their power. I suggest you check out the link I have provided to gain more insight into the American perspective on this subject.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

[SoCal92057]

Hello Briggs 2.0. I have some knowledge of the UK laws on firearms. I also have family from the UK who visit here every few years. I take them shooting and to a firearms store. They are amazed. A disarmed population is a necessary prelude to enacting social policies that the political elite think is best for all the rest. No rebellion without firearms you know. Not even a concern to the political class as they have the police. Remember, government believes the number one duty of a government is to itself. To continue to exist. It is not to the people. Take the firearms away and turn the people into sheeple and then the "I know what is best for you" political class can do to you whatever they wish. I am a proponent for the maximum individual liberty that is possible. I also believe in individual accountability for ones actions, and that my government not think of me as untrustworthy and incapable of making those decisions that are best for myself. When a government makes the ownership of firearms illegal or so difficult as to be effectively illegal, then they no longer trust the people. Firearms ownership is alive and well in the US. We are winning most of the political battles and where we lose those we win in court due to our Constitution that guarantees the individual right to own a firearm. Resistance to government authority is an ingrained American attribute. The government here dare not push too far or there will be a push back. This happened in the 1990's at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho and has recently happened again in Nevada. Thankfully, there was no lose of life in Nevada, but both federal agents and civilians were killed at the other battles. Life here in the US is dynamic and sometimes violent but not so much as is often portrayed in the news. Remember, we have over 300 million people and a country that spans about 3,000 miles from sea to sea. We also have over 200 million firearms in the hands of civilians. The US cannot be occupied by another country as there would be millions of patriots ready to fight back. By the way, AR15's are for sale at WalMart for about $850 to $1,100 depending upon the model. The problem is how to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Neither class of person is likely to care about the law. In the last 10 years, firearms ownership in the US has skyrocketed, but the violet crime rate has fallen. Could it be that the criminals are concerned about what they may come up against? I think so, especially since all states now allow some form of carry concealed. I am attaching a video that is from a very popular TV series of a few years ago. Although only a fictional TV show, I think it expresses the attitude of many Americans about the right to self defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KvO-8IvoCI

Thank you for your reply and the insight into the gun laws in the US. As a UK resident, on an open forum, it's not all that wise for me to comment in too great a detail about gun ownership in the UK. Here, we put our faith in a front-line police force that is unarmed, which then relies upon a rapid, armed police response team for gun-related crime. I often wonder in amazement how our unarmed officers deal with gun-related incidents. In my opinion, I'd rather see a police officer with a sidearm than a criminal with one, so on the whole, I'm all for arming our police force. As for allowing gun-ownership to UK citizens, it would need thorough vetting and management and I can't foresee the authorities ever loosening the current gun law here.

As the population of the UK becomes less and less homogeneous, and immigrants bring with them their own cultural values about how to respond to police authorities, I suggest the unarmed UK front-line police officer will in some near time become but a memory. As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." That also goes for the police response to a police call for help. Regrettably, one day several of the officers may get in over their collective heads and the armed response will not be able to arrive in time to help. I think that may change the current policy. I live in a sparsely populated state where the police response time is just under an hour as most communities do not even have a local police department. When they arrive they are armed. The need to call the police to respond to an immediate threat is almost zero as in this state, there are no restrictions on the carrying of a concealed firearm. Usually the police arrive and make out the report of what happened.

Semper Fidelis

[Plymtom]

that's may be the case Briggs2, but post SHTF when its WROL all bets are off, and any body breaking in will get what they deserve? one less burglar/raider to worry about!

As may be, however because currently we have ROL its advisable that any preps we admit to on a public (but privately owned) forum conform to those laws.

To any US visitors, I'd love to have UK gun laws as liberal as California's ..... Read into that what you may

Very clever FC at least we haven't banned .50cal target rifles yet, not many places we can shoot them, but unlike California we can still ave em

[Plymtom]

Hello Briggs 2.0. I have some knowledge of the UK laws on firearms. I also have family from the UK who visit here every few years. I take them shooting and to a firearms store. They are amazed. A disarmed population is a necessary prelude to enacting social policies that the political elite think is best for all the rest. No rebellion without firearms you know. Not even a concern to the political class as they have the police. Remember, government believes the number one duty of a government is to itself. To continue to exist. It is not to the people. Take the firearms away and turn the people into sheeple and then the "I know what is best for you" political class can do to you whatever they wish. I am a proponent for the maximum individual liberty that is possible. I also believe in individual accountability for ones actions, and that my government not think of me as untrustworthy and incapable of making those decisions that are best for myself. When a government makes the ownership of firearms illegal or so difficult as to be effectively illegal, then they no longer trust the people. Firearms ownership is alive and well in the US. We are winning most of the political battles and where we lose those we win in court due to our Constitution that guarantees the individual right to own a firearm. Resistance to government authority is an ingrained American attribute. The government here dare not push too far or there will be a push back. This happened in the 1990's at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho and has recently happened again in Nevada. Thankfully, there was no lose of life in Nevada, but both federal agents and civilians were killed at the other battles. Life here in the US is dynamic and sometimes violent but not so much as is often portrayed in the news. Remember, we have over 300 million people and a country that spans about 3,000 miles from sea to sea. We also have over 200 million firearms in the hands of civilians. The US cannot be occupied by another country as there would be millions of patriots ready to fight back. By the way, AR15's are for sale at WalMart for about $850 to $1,100 depending upon the model. The problem is how to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Neither class of person is likely to care about the law. In the last 10 years, firearms ownership in the US has skyrocketed, but the violet crime rate has fallen. Could it be that the criminals are concerned about what they may come up against? I think so, especially since all states now allow some form of carry concealed. I am attaching a video that is from a very popular TV series of a few years ago. Although only a fictional TV show, I think it expresses the attitude of many Americans about the right to self defense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KvO-8IvoCI

Thank you for your reply and the insight into the gun laws in the US. As a UK resident, on an open forum, it's not all that wise for me to comment in too great a detail about gun ownership in the UK. Here, we put our faith in a front-line police force that is unarmed, which then relies upon a rapid, armed police response team for gun-related crime. I often wonder in amazement how our unarmed officers deal with gun-related incidents. In my opinion, I'd rather see a police officer with a sidearm than a criminal with one, so on the whole, I'm all for arming our police force. As for allowing gun-ownership to UK citizens, it would need thorough vetting and management and I can't foresee the authorities ever loosening the current gun law here.

As the population of the UK becomes less and less homogeneous, and immigrants bring with them their own cultural values about how to respond to police authorities, I suggest the unarmed UK front-line police officer will in some near time become but a memory. As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." That also goes for the police response to a police call for help. Regrettably, one day several of the officers may get in over their collective heads and the armed response will not be able to arrive in time to help. I think that may change the current policy. I live in a sparsely populated state where the police response time is just under an hour as most communities do not even have a local police department. When they arrive they are armed. The need to call the police to respond to an immediate threat is almost zero as in this state, there are no restrictions on the carrying of a concealed firearm. Usually the police arrive and make out the report of what happened.

Semper Fidelis

Lee Rigby and you can bet there are many many more cases here in the UK where properly trained armed officers would be saving lives.