Starting on June 4th, the following will get you five years in prison, in the former "Great" Britain:
No - Not for engaging in track and field competition (though that may come latter in the ever more powerful Nanny State), but for owning one of these:
That's right, blank-firing starter pistols will soon be outlawed in The United Kingdom under Section 5 of the 1968 Firearms Act. But what if you currently possess one and use it at track meets?
Don't worry, the the British Association of Chief Police Officers has launched an amnesty which will run until 4 June and will allow anyone to take any of these "scary" looking guns to their local police station without fear of prosecution.
Because you know, anyone that shoots these, is a vicious blood-thirsty criminal:
Read the article: HERE
Boq
No - Not for engaging in track and field competition (though that may come latter in the ever more powerful Nanny State), but for owning one of these:
That's right, blank-firing starter pistols will soon be outlawed in The United Kingdom under Section 5 of the 1968 Firearms Act. But what if you currently possess one and use it at track meets?
Don't worry, the the British Association of Chief Police Officers has launched an amnesty which will run until 4 June and will allow anyone to take any of these "scary" looking guns to their local police station without fear of prosecution.
Because you know, anyone that shoots these, is a vicious blood-thirsty criminal:
Read the article: HERE
Boq
Spiff
the converted starter pistols are very popular among the Russian criminals, too... The gov't is now talking about making them subject to the same sale requirements as a regular firearm.
And zip guns are already illegal.
If the Brits keep down this road, in ten years it will be illegal to own a pen, because someone will get stabbed with one in a schoolyard. Or the kids will figure out how *we* made zip guns out of them.
LenningradianSaint Petersburgess, but without success.victimvolunteer.And cheese.
But the only good food is at the foreign restaurants.
Don't eat the native stuff.
Well, except for fish and chips perhaps.
I was looking for you, too :o) I could not make the Friday events but I was there on Saturday morning, left for work right after MG Hogg event and came back for the evening festivities. I did spend some time with AW1Tim before the food arrived :o) If you were there on Saturday night, I was the one who won the first RangerUp bag/t-shirts in a raffle :o)
unfortunately, even fish & chips is a crapshoot - please, never try it at the Shakespear (sp?? I know LOL) by the Victoria Station - horrible; however, in some chain restaurant with an American sounding name by the Paddington, it was very good...
So far, the best fish & chips I ate was at the Assault & Battery - a tiny hole in a wall in NYC right by the St.Vincent Hospital - the ex-part owner was featured on the Throwdown with Bobby Flay and won :o)
I am very happy that I was able to tour Britain while it was a part of western civilization. There really isn't much outside of th National Army Museum at Chelsea, or RAF Ducksworth worth visitng these days.
It's still our patrimony, even if the Brits don't seem to want it anymore.
I used to be proud of the fact that I am British.
Now I'm not so sure there's much to be proud of.
Not all starter pistols will be banned. Just one that is apparently easy/fashionable to convert into a (barely) functional weapon: the "Olympic .38BB" .
It's quite encouraging. The criminals in Britain are having difficulty getting real guns and have been forced to adopt a cheap Bruni replica that's almost as dangerous to the user as the intended target. Doubtless they will eventually find something else. But so what?
Matt - thank you for the update. As for the "So what?"
At what point does the illusion of safety (more accurately defined as the assertion by the leadership that we've "Done Something!" regardless of downstream consequence) become an affront to actual freedom?
When does the restriction of the law-abiding, which serves to only discomfort the non-law-abiding but briefly, become onerous?
After all, if cars were banned, drink-driving offenses would drop dramatically, though the 'walking while drunk" offense would sky-rocket.
Just because the restriction perhaps does not affect you personally at the moment doesn't make it offensive to the concept of liberty.
When does the ability of the leadership class to legislate against some putative harm that might be suffered become an affront to freedom?
I.e., where is it written that "Nothing Bad Shall Happen."
Except, of course, to well-behaved persons whose options continue to be limited because of the actions of those who choose to exercise no restraint?
Is there a limit? If so, where is it?
One can argue the eaches of anything - but the overall gestalt is still that of restricting the many because of the actions of the few.