New gun possesion issues in the Netherlands

Vlim · 04-20-2004, 09:09 AM

Hi Guys,

Just read a discomforting message. The Dutch parliament is discussing stricter (yep, it's possible) gun laws as the result of 2 shooting incidents in the last year.

Both incidents involved people who had access to handguns as the result of shooting club membership and killed several relatives as the result of personal relationship problems.

Some propositions that were launched event went as far as keeping the guns on the club, rather than at home. As this creates a whole new security issue (gun club building as target for criminals stealing weapons), it also creates a number of additional logistical problems.

We have very good basic measures that sort out the good from the bad but it's nearly impossible to sort out people who 'crack' emotionally as the result of some personal problems.

Add to that, that these 2 incidents, some 8 victims in total are caused by about 0,005 percent of the gun owning sports shooting community. More people get killed attending football games here.

I'm very worried that the sports shooting scene will again be used as a 'quick win' for some not-too-bothered politicians. In fact, I wrote one of them and invited him to come and take a look to see how things really work so he can form himself a better opinion.

As info, the current rules:
-Membership of a gun club means registering and handing over a 'good behaviour proof'. This proof can be requested from the authorities and is connected to a crime sheet (must be non-violent).
-First year of membership means no personal possesion of fire arms.
-Only after one year of membership, a minimum number of registered shooting turns, good behaviour, one can purchase his first gun from a registered dealer or registered fellow-member.
-Gun possession is limited to this one gun the second year.
-After the second year and after a minimun of 12 shooting turns one can own up to 5 guns.
-Every year, the shooting register and the gun permit must be handed over to the local police. They will do an additional background check and if all is well, you get your permit for the next year.
-Full-automatic guns are prohibited. Military rifles are permitted, as long as the full-auto mode is permanently disabled. Gun stock must be fixed, non-collapsable.

If that isn't safe, I don't know what is. And the most disturbig part is, if someone reaches a certain level of emotional instability, how sure can you be that he will not find another object with leathal possibilities (kitchen-knives, car, baseball bat, metal pipe, etc....).

Perhaps an annual check of 'emotional stability' is the only way to prevent nutters from doing their nutty deeds?

jamese · 04-20-2004, 09:42 AM

Gerben,
Not even a Ã¢??emotional stability Ã¢?? every year is going to prevent someone from doing something like this. An exam is only good for the moment itÃ¢??s done. An hour later something can snap in anyone.

I think you hit the nail on the head; people have been killing people long before the gun was ever invented. By removing guns from society it only disarms the people that need guns the most.

How else are we to protect ourselves from the nuts who want to kill us and a government that wants to control us.

Jim

panda · 04-20-2004, 09:49 AM

The current rules seem already to be a disgrace to the good & honest Dutchman... And what comes next? UK standards? I wouldn't want to live in a country in which I'm a presumed criminal unless I can prove my innocence. People who draft such laws do not make (or even know) the difference between an honest person and a criminal. It's shameful. This is no democracy.

Michael Zeleny · 04-21-2004, 03:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by panda:
The current rules seem already to be a disgrace to the good & honest Dutchman... And what comes next? UK standards? I wouldn't want to live in a country in which I'm a presumed criminal unless I can prove my innocence. People who draft such laws do not make (or even know) the difference between an honest person and a criminal. It's shameful. This is no democracy.<hr /></blockquote>Democracy is the source of these problems. As enacted by the Parliament, the UK firearms law accurately reflects the will of the majority of their electorate, even as it betrays their inalienable individual rights. What they need is a written constitution to protect them from the tyranny of the majority.

panda · 04-21-2004, 12:38 PM

"the UK firearms law accurately reflects the will of the majority of their electorate"

I would seriously question this statement, in view of the latest UK-surveys on the right to possess guns. In addition to this, the UK firearms is an ideological piece of legislation which has demonstrated its complete ineffectiveness.

"What they need is a written constitution to protect them from the tyranny of the majority"

I don't see what a written constitution changes. See the written constitutions of Japan, France, Germany and even the USSR. No point in having any constitution in any form when men in charge do not follow it.

Ron Smith · 04-21-2004, 09:49 PM

The problem is that the men incharge are in charge because the people don't want to be. The sooner that people realize that they were elected to do the will of the "absolute majority" of the people. The better off they'll be. And while I'm on this soapbox!

Every person who has been in the military. Swore an oath to protect the constitution against enemies, both foriegn AND Domestic. Anyone who subverts, tries to alter, or change the constitution. Becomes the enemy we need to defend against. The oath isn't just some words they made you say. It's for life, cannot be recinded or deniged.You'll take it to the grave!
And those who try to twist the meaning are as guilty. For instance,"A well regulated militia" , means every U.S. male between the ages of 18 and 46, as per Websters dictionary. The age bracket is only set to identify those deemed youthfull enough to be required, to carry on a prolonged engagement. So consequently, a true translation and enforcement of the constitution and bill of rights, would require every man in the country to keep and bear a firearm of some sort.
In other words. Every household in the country would be required to have a firearm in it.

I shut down a Mega Liberal/anti-gun, University of Oregon college proffessor with this same argument. I challenged him to give me a valid alternate translation. He could'nt and backed off. I beat him out with my 20yrs of education!(I was in the tenth grade twice.)

panda · 04-22-2004, 05:43 AM

I coudn't agree more with you Ron and I would even add to your statement:

<<The sooner that people realize that they were elected to do the will of the "absolute majority" of the people. The better off they'll be.>>

Unfortunately, the will of the "absolute majority" of the people seems to be confined to having access to some debilitating TV-shows or the like. (I don't have anything against these shows but there are more important things in life that require attention as well.) Democracy presupposes that a significant part of the people have some form of real interest in political issues and get beyond the child's level of dependency. Otherwise, democracy remains a purely intellectual concept, an old fool's dream!

A society without political opinions is a blank check for the government. Such a society diserves dictatorship and obtains it!

Michael Zeleny · 04-22-2004, 11:50 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by panda:
"the UK firearms law accurately reflects the will of the majority of their electorate"

I would seriously question this statement, in view of the latest UK-surveys on the right to possess guns. In addition to this, the UK firearms is an ideological piece of legislation which has demonstrated its complete ineffectiveness.<hr /></blockquote>The latest UK-surveys on the right to possess guns were not at issue in the firearms restrictions enacted in response to the Dunblane massacre. Headlines make for good excuses to infringe rights.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />"What they need is a written constitution to protect them from the tyranny of the majority"

I don't see what a written constitution changes. See the written constitutions of Japan, France, Germany and even the USSR. No point in having any constitution in any form when men in charge do not follow it.[/qb]<hr /></blockquote>Unenforced laws are indeed meaningless. But their enforcement is nowise restricted to "men in charge". Even Stalin's constitution served in good stead the Soviet dissidents of the Sixties, who bravely fought the systematic abuses of human rights by demanding that the government abide by its own written rules. The same principle applies much better in societies responsive to the will of their electorate.

panda · 04-23-2004, 07:49 AM

Dear Mr. Tac,

I agree with you.

But please, if you want to quote me, quote me correctly, and don't put s.o. else's statments (I don't agree with) into my mouth (in this case Mr. Michael Zeleny's 4th post above).
Thank you.

Michael Zeleny · 04-23-2004, 08:40 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tacfoley:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by panda:<hr /></blockquote><hr /></blockquote>No, that was my statement.
 <blockquote>quote:<hr /> <blockquote>quote:<hr />As enacted by the Parliament, the UK firearms law accurately reflects the will of the majority of their electorate, even as it betrays their inalienable individual rights. What they need is a written constitution to protect them from the tyranny of the majority.<hr /></blockquote>Dear Mr Panda - your comment above needs some clarification from a sufferer under those laws, I think. UK firearms law most certainly does NOT reflect the will of the majority of the electorate since the issue has NEVER been put to a vote. No has it EVER been put to a vote of any kind. Legislation in THIS democracy is imposed on the population by the government. The people are not asked if they think it's a good idea, they are TOLD that it is a good idea.
Democracy? Yeah.........<hr /></blockquote>The British system of parliamentary sovereignty is the very definition of representative democracy.
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />As for inalienable individual rights, the right to bear arms is NOT part of the constitution that we do not have. You can be certain that if we DID have such a constitution, the right to bear arms would most certainly NOT be part of it. It's all very well and good for you ALL to pontificate at great lengths about the way it is where YOU all live, how great it is to have fireams [as we all know], and how it is the right of every person to defend themselves by force of arms. But it simply does not apply here in UK. I have never had to have four or five weapons stashed around my house to ensure my personal survival if the goblins got in, never had to carry a firearm to protect myself on the streets, or where I live, in the winding country lanes. I am 58 years old, and I have never seen a person who has been shot dead or even injured by a firearm, except in Northern Ireland, where circumstance have been made very different by a bloody war of terrorism over the last 30 of years. Most of you on this site seem to have either had to defend yourselves from the acts of criminals by either shooting or threatening to shoot them, almost on a daily basis. That is the American Way of life. Here in UK it is NOT the UK way of life. Please accept that things ARE different here, and let it go. I am getting tired of trying to justify my continued reason for not going more public and screaming the place down to get my guns back, and demanding that the government returns the many guns it took away from me and my shooting colleagues. It will never happen. Ever. As one poster stated most graphically - ALL the handguns taken from us are less then the number of guns in his small county of Texas. Our pathetic little collection of handguns, probably less than 250,000 in total, get lost every day in the USA without anybody noticing. Why? Because there nearly 'everybody' has a gun. Here, hardly ANYBODY at all had a gun. Of any kind. Ever.
People like me, who do have guns, are rare. 1 in 1500 or so, if you want quoteable figures. This present government, or any future government here would be more than happy to see that figure change to 1 in a million, or even better, none in 63 million. Then only the criminals would have guns.
Live with it. I do. In our particular circumstances, leaving here is not an option.<hr /></blockquote>I must be blunt, because life is brief. You appear to know next to nothing about the traditional rights of British subjects. My time is running short, so I can only offer a reading suggestion in lieu of providing personal explanations. Read Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. If a trip to the library is too much trouble, a more or less accurate synopsis is available online at http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/It_Isn't_About_Duck_Hunting.htm

John Sabato · 04-23-2004, 10:17 AM

To All,

This IS the general discussion forum and as such, all discussions are welcome, provided they do not exceed the boundaries of good manners... so far, I believe that is the case.

Permit me to strongly encourage you to keep it that way even, in the discussion of this very volatile and emotional topic... that is near and dear to all of our hearts.

kind regards,

John S

unspellable · 04-23-2004, 01:24 PM

The statistics here in the US show that your physician is several thousand times more dangerous to your life than your neighbor with a firearm. But his swimming pool is 40 times more dangerous to his kids than his firearm. Bicycles are more dangerous than motorcycles. Unfortunately, smoke, mirrors, and emotion seem to count for more than cool reason.

But here on this forum we should leave the heated emotion to the anti-gunners.

Vlim · 04-23-2004, 02:07 PM

Tac,

You had my rolling on the floor with laughter. If the discussion comes up again over here, I will try to find suitable examples like the ones you gave.

One of the ideas was to store all firearms at the range. We have some 400 members, each possessing some 3 guns on average. This means our little range would have to store some 1000 to 1200 guns including ammo (say, 1000 rounds per gun, makes about one million rounds of ammo).

So a club house, in the middle of nowhere, with over 1,000 guns and over 1,000,000 rounds of ammo is the national idea of 'safe and responsible' over here....

Interesting at best, but safe?

Michael Zeleny · 04-23-2004, 02:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tacfoley:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Michael Zeleny:
I must be blunt, because life is brief. You appear to know next to nothing about the traditional rights of British subjects. My time is running short, so I can only offer a reading suggestion in lieu of providing personal explanations. Read Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. If a trip to the library is too much trouble, a more or less accurate synopsis is available online at http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/It_Isn't_About_Duck_Hunting.htm
<hr /></blockquote>Dear Mr Zeleny - thank you for your advice. I have taken it and read this excellent article on the historical rights of the British people to bear arms. As for knowing nothing about the traditional rights of the British citizen, unlike you, I am not a highly-paid foreign lawyer,who can easily pontificate from 3000 miles away and deliver snide asides about my lack of legal knowledge - such cheap jibes, Sir, are neither gentlemanly nor warranted, especially on a public forum such as this. If you wish to abuse my ignorance, have the decency to do it on the private e-mail, where you will find that I can be as scathing and belittling in my attacks on you as you have been to me on this public forum.
Not having had the benefit of your legal education, I am not privy to the machinations of the legal poobahs who reign over us in the big house on the thames, but nevertheless I have to live with the results of their decisions. The decisions taken by Oliver Cromwell and other historical figures are as valid today in this country as if they were taken by Micky mouse, especially where the arming of the populace are concerned. This government, and most before it since the end of WW1 in 1918, have been determined to reduce to zero the number of privately-owned weapons in this country, by putting so many obstacles in the way of onwership as to make it difficult, to say the least. But not impossible. I have 16 weapons, proof in itself that we can still own firearms.

I welcome constructive comment, but not destructive aprobation.

I am truly sorry that your 'time is short', perhaps, had you been spared longer, you would have made a friend of me, instead of being remembered as a 'superior being' who deigned to respond to a fellow shooter with scorn.
<hr /></blockquote>We will have to disagree as to what response to expressions of apodictic certainty ungrounded in real knowledge is warranted in a public forum. Nevertheless, I mean neither scorn nor approbation. I am not a lawyer, except in so far as is required by dire legal circumstances beyond my control, which are responsible for the brevity and bluntness of my reply. I simply lack the wherewithal to engage in lengthy dialectics in the service of remedial education. But as sorry as I am that my time is running short, I remain grateful for its extension by my society recognizing the human right to self-defense and ensuring its citizens' access to tools for doing so. I wish you an opportunity to discover the necessity of this social recognition in a more relaxed setting.

John Sabato · 04-23-2004, 02:55 PM

You guys crack me up

panda · 04-26-2004, 11:05 AM

Dear Mr. Tacfoley,

I'm glad to see that there is no bad blood between us. Let's keep it this way.

Michael Zeleny,

If you want to find out who - actually - makes UK laws and who can influence its content, please read this previous discussion about UK political mechanisms:

http://forums.lugerforum.com/lugerfo...=000149#000022

Thus, if you allow me, I would like to complete your previous statement as follows:

"The British system of parliamentary sovereignty is the very definition of representative democracy"
...which comes closest to despotism (with intermittent elections).

As far as I know (now don't get me wrong Mr. Tac, I know that you do live in the UK and I do not (anymore)), the UK PM could (almost) decide - just by himself - to enact death penalty for unlawful gun possession and no one would/could seriously oppose it.

Cheers, Panda

Michael Zeleny · 04-26-2004, 06:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by panda:
Michael Zeleny,

If you want to find out who - actually - makes UK laws and who can influence its content, please read this previous discussion about UK political mechanisms:

http://forums.lugerforum.com/lugerforum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=22;t=000149#00 0022

Thus, if you allow me, I would like to complete your previous statement as follows:

"The British system of parliamentary sovereignty is the very definition of representative democracy"
...which comes closest to despotism (with intermittent elections).

As far as I know (now don't get me wrong Mr. Tac, I know that you do live in the UK and I do not (anymore)), the UK PM could (almost) decide - just by himself - to enact death penalty for unlawful gun possession and no one would/could seriously oppose it.<hr /></blockquote>As far as your foregoing reformulation of my thought is concerned, we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways. As stated in the above referenced thread, since the British Labour party came into power on a wave of anti-gun hysteria, and owed their landslide victory in the most part to a promise to 'take guns off the streets', they are obliged to maintain the farce of being in control of the rapidly-spiralling numbers of gun-related criminality. This is precisely what Tocqueville meant by the tyranny of the majority, in extolling the mechanisms that mitigate the same in the American system of governance. What puzzles me is your dismissal of constitutional guarantees of rights as one of the most effective devices of this sort. It is unfortunate that the British common law tradition originally responsible for instituting the recognition of the citizens' inalienable right to keep and bear arms, is being subverted in the service of its illegitimate gainsaying.

panda · 04-27-2004, 03:29 AM

"the British Labour party came into power on a wave of anti-gun hysteria, and owed their landslide victory in the most part to a promise to 'take guns off the streets'"

I guess Mr. Tac would be in a better position to comment on this. In the meantime, I'd say that the labour party came into power because many people were tired of over 15 years of conservative governments. This has little to do with gun control. (The erosion of conservative support started long before the gun-related events). The same reason applies to Mr. Schroeder beating Mr. Kohl in Germany.

"This is precisely what Tocqueville meant by the tyranny of the majority"

There is no majority ruling in the UK and there has never been. As far as I know, no government ever had more than ~45% of the popular votes.

"What puzzles me is your dismissal of constitutional guarantees of rights as one of the most effective devices of this sort."

OK, let's put it this way: The US Constitution says:

"Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How well does this work out in NY or Washington?

Conversely, Greece has a very heavy legal gun-ban but it is tolerated that people in Crete own guns without even reporting them (and they welcome their own PMs by shooting in the air).

Michael Zeleny · 04-29-2004, 01:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by panda:
"the British Labour party came into power on a wave of anti-gun hysteria, and owed their landslide victory in the most part to a promise to 'take guns off the streets'"

I guess Mr. Tac would be in a better position to comment on this. In the meantime, I'd say that the labour party came into power because many people were tired of over 15 years of conservative governments. This has little to do with gun control. (The erosion of conservative support started long before the gun-related events). The same reason applies to Mr. Schroeder beating Mr. Kohl in Germany.<hr /></blockquote>I do not share your capacity for divining the root causes of political change. To the extent that I can figure out the conjunctions of events, gun bans seem to go hand in hand with "a levelling, rancorous, rational sort of mind" characteristic of Whiggery.
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />"This is precisely what Tocqueville meant by the tyranny of the majority"

There is no majority ruling in the UK and there has never been. As far as I know, no government ever had more than ~45% of the popular votes.<hr /></blockquote>I find little to choose between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the plurality.
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />"What puzzles me is your dismissal of constitutional guarantees of rights as one of the most effective devices of this sort."

OK, let's put it this way: The US Constitution says:

"Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How well does this work out in NY or Washington?

Conversely, Greece has a very heavy legal gun-ban but it is tolerated that people in Crete own guns without even reporting them (and they welcome their own PMs by shooting in the air).<hr /></blockquote>Actually, the Second Amendment works out very well, as witness the effectiveness of preemption laws in forcing any attempts at infringement to the state level. By and large, the legislative process proceeds in the right direction, on which see the changes in the status of concealed carry weapon permit issuance laws. In 1986 8 states had a non-discretionary shall-issue policy, 20 had a discretionary may-issue policy, 21 states had a policy of not issuing any permits to civilians, and 1 state allowed unrestricted concealed carry. In 2003, there were 35 shall-issue states, 9 may-issue, 4 no-issue, and 2 unrestricted. The Clinton assault gun ban is set to expire this September. I'll take this system, warts and all, over yonder Cretans.

Vlim · 05-01-2004, 03:15 PM

Hi all,

Well, a small update. The member of parliament who was very strong about stricter laws was kind enough to reply on the comments I sent him. The Justice department in the mean time has suggested a better screening of new gun club members and a thorough administration of used ammo.

Since both measures will not prevent the incidents that happened the last year from happening again, I'm wondering what the outcome will be, although improvements on both counts are not a bad idea altogether.

The MP did accept the offer of one of the royal dutch shooters association (KNSA) leaders to visit one of the shooting clubs in order to get a better picture of what's going on in reality.

I did send him some comments and suggestions that would make more sense and I'm interested if he will reply again.

I remain opposed to the idea of storing guns and ammo centrally as I am convinced this creates bigger safety issues than it solves. I can live with an ammo prohibition alone, though.

I also pleaded for a better collector's enviroment as collectors are now forced to shoot regularly in order to get and keep gun permits. Mind you, I don't dislike shooting my Lugers

04-20-2004, 09:09 AM	#1
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,041 Thanks: 1,021 Thanked 3,902 Times in 1,190 Posts	New gun possesion issues in the Netherlands Hi Guys, Just read a discomforting message. The Dutch parliament is discussing stricter (yep, it's possible) gun laws as the result of 2 shooting incidents in the last year. Both incidents involved people who had access to handguns as the result of shooting club membership and killed several relatives as the result of personal relationship problems. Some propositions that were launched event went as far as keeping the guns on the club, rather than at home. As this creates a whole new security issue (gun club building as target for criminals stealing weapons), it also creates a number of additional logistical problems. We have very good basic measures that sort out the good from the bad but it's nearly impossible to sort out people who 'crack' emotionally as the result of some personal problems. Add to that, that these 2 incidents, some 8 victims in total are caused by about 0,005 percent of the gun owning sports shooting community. More people get killed attending football games here. I'm very worried that the sports shooting scene will again be used as a 'quick win' for some not-too-bothered politicians. In fact, I wrote one of them and invited him to come and take a look to see how things really work so he can form himself a better opinion. As info, the current rules: -Membership of a gun club means registering and handing over a 'good behaviour proof'. This proof can be requested from the authorities and is connected to a crime sheet (must be non-violent). -First year of membership means no personal possesion of fire arms. -Only after one year of membership, a minimum number of registered shooting turns, good behaviour, one can purchase his first gun from a registered dealer or registered fellow-member. -Gun possession is limited to this one gun the second year. -After the second year and after a minimun of 12 shooting turns one can own up to 5 guns. -Every year, the shooting register and the gun permit must be handed over to the local police. They will do an additional background check and if all is well, you get your permit for the next year. -Full-automatic guns are prohibited. Military rifles are permitted, as long as the full-auto mode is permanently disabled. Gun stock must be fixed, non-collapsable. If that isn't safe, I don't know what is. And the most disturbig part is, if someone reaches a certain level of emotional instability, how sure can you be that he will not find another object with leathal possibilities (kitchen-knives, car, baseball bat, metal pipe, etc....). Perhaps an annual check of 'emotional stability' is the only way to prevent nutters from doing their nutty deeds?

04-20-2004, 09:42 AM	#2
jamese User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: South Florida Posts: 789 Thanks: 0 Thanked 84 Times in 34 Posts	Gerben, Not even a Ã¢??emotional stability Ã¢?? every year is going to prevent someone from doing something like this. An exam is only good for the moment itÃ¢??s done. An hour later something can snap in anyone. I think you hit the nail on the head; people have been killing people long before the gun was ever invented. By removing guns from society it only disarms the people that need guns the most. How else are we to protect ourselves from the nuts who want to kill us and a government that wants to control us. Jim __________________ The "truth" is a matter of Perception

04-21-2004, 03:18 AM	#4
Michael Zeleny Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 525 Thanks: 129 Thanked 138 Times in 76 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by panda: <strong>The current rules seem already to be a disgrace to the good & honest Dutchman... And what comes next? UK standards? I wouldn't want to live in a country in which I'm a presumed criminal unless I can prove my innocence. People who draft such laws do not make (or even know) the difference between an honest person and a criminal. It's shameful. This is no democracy.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Democracy is the source of these problems. As enacted by the Parliament, the UK firearms law accurately reflects the will of the majority of their electorate, even as it betrays their inalienable individual rights. What they need is a written constitution to protect them from the tyranny of the majority. __________________ Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu -- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/ -- 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860 All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. -- Samuel Beckett

04-21-2004, 09:49 PM	#6
Ron Smith User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Orygun Posts: 4,243 Thanks: 118 Thanked 245 Times in 150 Posts	The problem is that the men incharge are in charge because the people don't want to be. The sooner that people realize that they were elected to do the will of the "absolute majority" of the people. The better off they'll be. And while I'm on this soapbox! Every person who has been in the military. Swore an oath to protect the constitution against enemies, both foriegn AND Domestic. Anyone who subverts, tries to alter, or change the constitution. Becomes the enemy we need to defend against. The oath isn't just some words they made you say. It's for life, cannot be recinded or deniged.You'll take it to the grave! And those who try to twist the meaning are as guilty. For instance,"A well regulated militia" , means every U.S. male between the ages of 18 and 46, as per Websters dictionary. The age bracket is only set to identify those deemed youthfull enough to be required, to carry on a prolonged engagement. So consequently, a true translation and enforcement of the constitution and bill of rights, would require every man in the country to keep and bear a firearm of some sort. In other words. Every household in the country would be required to have a firearm in it. I shut down a Mega Liberal/anti-gun, University of Oregon college proffessor with this same argument. I challenged him to give me a valid alternate translation. He could'nt and backed off. I beat him out with my 20yrs of education!(I was in the tenth grade twice.) __________________ I Still Need DWM side plate #49... if anyone runs across a nice one. What ~Rudyard Kipling~ said...

04-22-2004, 11:50 AM	#8
Michael Zeleny Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 525 Thanks: 129 Thanked 138 Times in 76 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by panda: "the UK firearms law accurately reflects the will of the majority of their electorate" I would seriously question this statement, in view of the latest UK-surveys on the right to possess guns. In addition to this, the UK firearms is an ideological piece of legislation which has demonstrated its complete ineffectiveness.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">The latest UK-surveys on the right to possess guns were not at issue in the firearms restrictions enacted in response to the Dunblane massacre. Headlines make for good excuses to infringe rights. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">"What they need is a written constitution to protect them from the tyranny of the majority" I don't see what a written constitution changes. See the written constitutions of Japan, France, Germany and even the USSR. No point in having any constitution in any form when men in charge do not follow it.[/qb]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Unenforced laws are indeed meaningless. But their enforcement is nowise restricted to "men in charge". Even Stalin's constitution served in good stead the Soviet dissidents of the Sixties, who bravely fought the systematic abuses of human rights by demanding that the government abide by its own written rules. The same principle applies much better in societies responsive to the will of their electorate. __________________ Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu -- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/ -- 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860 All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. -- Samuel Beckett

04-20-2004, 09:49 AM	#3
panda User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 148 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	The current rules seem already to be a disgrace to the good & honest Dutchman... And what comes next? UK standards? I wouldn't want to live in a country in which I'm a presumed criminal unless I can prove my innocence. People who draft such laws do not make (or even know) the difference between an honest person and a criminal. It's shameful. This is no democracy.

04-21-2004, 12:38 PM	#5
panda User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 148 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	"the UK firearms law accurately reflects the will of the majority of their electorate" I would seriously question this statement, in view of the latest UK-surveys on the right to possess guns. In addition to this, the UK firearms is an ideological piece of legislation which has demonstrated its complete ineffectiveness. "What they need is a written constitution to protect them from the tyranny of the majority" I don't see what a written constitution changes. See the written constitutions of Japan, France, Germany and even the USSR. No point in having any constitution in any form when men in charge do not follow it.

04-22-2004, 05:43 AM	#7
panda User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 148 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I coudn't agree more with you Ron and I would even add to your statement: <<The sooner that people realize that they were elected to do the will of the "absolute majority" of the people. The better off they'll be.>> Unfortunately, the will of the "absolute majority" of the people seems to be confined to having access to some debilitating TV-shows or the like. (I don't have anything against these shows but there are more important things in life that require attention as well.) Democracy presupposes that a significant part of the people have some form of real interest in political issues and get beyond the child's level of dependency. Otherwise, democracy remains a purely intellectual concept, an old fool's dream! A society without political opinions is a blank check for the government. Such a society diserves dictatorship and obtains it!

04-23-2004, 07:49 AM	#9
panda User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 148 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Dear Mr. Tac, I agree with you. But please, if you want to quote me, quote me correctly, and don't put s.o. else's statments (I don't agree with) into my mouth (in this case Mr. Michael Zeleny's 4th post above). Thank you.

04-23-2004, 08:40 AM	#10
Michael Zeleny Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 525 Thanks: 129 Thanked 138 Times in 76 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by tacfoley: <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by panda:</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">No, that was my statement. <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">As enacted by the Parliament, the UK firearms law accurately reflects the will of the majority of their electorate, even as it betrays their inalienable individual rights. What they need is a written constitution to protect them from the tyranny of the majority.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"><strong>Dear Mr Panda - your comment above needs some clarification from a sufferer under those laws, I think. UK firearms law most certainly does NOT reflect the will of the majority of the electorate since the issue has NEVER been put to a vote. No has it EVER been put to a vote of any kind. Legislation in THIS democracy is imposed on the population by the government. The people are not asked if they think it's a good idea, they are TOLD that it is a good idea. Democracy? Yeah.........</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">The British system of parliamentary sovereignty is the very definition of representative democracy. <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">As for inalienable individual rights, the right to bear arms is NOT part of the constitution that we do not have. You can be certain that if we DID have such a constitution, the right to bear arms would most certainly NOT be part of it. It's all very well and good for you ALL to pontificate at great lengths about the way it is where YOU all live, how great it is to have fireams [as we all know], and how it is the right of every person to defend themselves by force of arms. But it simply does not apply here in UK. I have never had to have four or five weapons stashed around my house to ensure my personal survival if the goblins got in, never had to carry a firearm to protect myself on the streets, or where I live, in the winding country lanes. I am 58 years old, and I have never seen a person who has been shot dead or even injured by a firearm, except in Northern Ireland, where circumstance have been made very different by a bloody war of terrorism over the last 30 of years. Most of you on this site seem to have either had to defend yourselves from the acts of criminals by either shooting or threatening to shoot them, almost on a daily basis. That is the American Way of life. Here in UK it is NOT the UK way of life. Please accept that things ARE different here, and let it go. I am getting tired of trying to justify my continued reason for not going more public and screaming the place down to get my guns back, and demanding that the government returns the many guns it took away from me and my shooting colleagues. It will never happen. Ever. As one poster stated most graphically - ALL the handguns taken from us are less then the number of guns in his small county of Texas. Our pathetic little collection of handguns, probably less than 250,000 in total, get lost every day in the USA without anybody noticing. Why? Because there nearly 'everybody' has a gun. Here, hardly ANYBODY at all had a gun. Of any kind. Ever. People like me, who do have guns, are rare. 1 in 1500 or so, if you want quoteable figures. This present government, or any future government here would be more than happy to see that figure change to 1 in a million, or even better, none in 63 million. Then only the criminals would have guns. Live with it. I do. In our particular circumstances, leaving here is not an option.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I must be blunt, because life is brief. You appear to know next to nothing about the traditional rights of British subjects. My time is running short, so I can only offer a reading suggestion in lieu of providing personal explanations. Read Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. If a trip to the library is too much trouble, a more or less accurate synopsis is available online at http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/It_Isn't_About_Duck_Hunting.htm __________________ Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu -- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/ -- 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860 All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. -- Samuel Beckett

04-23-2004, 10:17 AM	#11
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,150 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,096 Posts	To All, This IS the general discussion forum and as such, all discussions are welcome, provided they do not exceed the boundaries of good manners... so far, I believe that is the case. Permit me to strongly encourage you to keep it that way even, in the discussion of this very volatile and emotional topic... that is near and dear to all of our hearts. kind regards, John S __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

04-23-2004, 01:24 PM	#12
unspellable User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Iowa Posts: 768 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 10 Posts	The statistics here in the US show that your physician is several thousand times more dangerous to your life than your neighbor with a firearm. But his swimming pool is 40 times more dangerous to his kids than his firearm. Bicycles are more dangerous than motorcycles. Unfortunately, smoke, mirrors, and emotion seem to count for more than cool reason. But here on this forum we should leave the heated emotion to the anti-gunners.

04-23-2004, 02:07 PM	#13
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,041 Thanks: 1,021 Thanked 3,902 Times in 1,190 Posts	Tac, You had my rolling on the floor with laughter. If the discussion comes up again over here, I will try to find suitable examples like the ones you gave. One of the ideas was to store all firearms at the range. We have some 400 members, each possessing some 3 guns on average. This means our little range would have to store some 1000 to 1200 guns including ammo (say, 1000 rounds per gun, makes about one million rounds of ammo). So a club house, in the middle of nowhere, with over 1,000 guns and over 1,000,000 rounds of ammo is the national idea of 'safe and responsible' over here.... Interesting at best, but safe?

04-23-2004, 02:26 PM	#14
Michael Zeleny Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 525 Thanks: 129 Thanked 138 Times in 76 Posts	<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by tacfoley: <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by Michael Zeleny: I must be blunt, because life is brief. You appear to know next to nothing about the traditional rights of British subjects. My time is running short, so I can only offer a reading suggestion in lieu of providing personal explanations. Read Joyce Lee Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. If a trip to the library is too much trouble, a more or less accurate synopsis is available online at http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/It_Isn't_About_Duck_Hunting.htm </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Dear Mr Zeleny - thank you for your advice. I have taken it and read this excellent article on the historical rights of the British people to bear arms. As for knowing nothing about the traditional rights of the British citizen, unlike you, I am not a highly-paid foreign lawyer,who can easily pontificate from 3000 miles away and deliver snide asides about my lack of legal knowledge - such cheap jibes, Sir, are neither gentlemanly nor warranted, especially on a public forum such as this. If you wish to abuse my ignorance, have the decency to do it on the private e-mail, where you will find that I can be as scathing and belittling in my attacks on you as you have been to me on this public forum. Not having had the benefit of your legal education, I am not privy to the machinations of the legal poobahs who reign over us in the big house on the thames, but nevertheless I have to live with the results of their decisions. The decisions taken by Oliver Cromwell and other historical figures are as valid today in this country as if they were taken by Micky mouse, especially where the arming of the populace are concerned. This government, and most before it since the end of WW1 in 1918, have been determined to reduce to zero the number of privately-owned weapons in this country, by putting so many obstacles in the way of onwership as to make it difficult, to say the least. But not impossible. I have 16 weapons, proof in itself that we can still own firearms. I welcome constructive comment, but not destructive aprobation. I am truly sorry that your 'time is short', perhaps, had you been spared longer, you would have made a friend of me, instead of being remembered as a 'superior being' who deigned to respond to a fellow shooter with scorn. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">We will have to disagree as to what response to expressions of apodictic certainty ungrounded in real knowledge is warranted in a public forum. Nevertheless, I mean neither scorn nor approbation. I am not a lawyer, except in so far as is required by dire legal circumstances beyond my control, which are responsible for the brevity and bluntness of my reply. I simply lack the wherewithal to engage in lengthy dialectics in the service of remedial education. But as sorry as I am that my time is running short, I remain grateful for its extension by my society recognizing the human right to self-defense and ensuring its citizens' access to tools for doing so. I wish you an opportunity to discover the necessity of this social recognition in a more relaxed setting. __________________ Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu -- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/ -- 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860 All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. -- Samuel Beckett

04-23-2004, 02:55 PM	#15
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,150 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,096 Posts	You guys crack me up <img border="0" alt="[hiha]" title="" src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[hiha]" title="" src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[hiha]" title="" src="graemlins/roflmao.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" /> __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

04-26-2004, 11:05 AM	#16
panda User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 148 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Dear Mr. Tacfoley, I'm glad to see that there is no bad blood between us. Let's keep it this way. Michael Zeleny, If you want to find out who - actually - makes UK laws and who can influence its content, please read this previous discussion about UK political mechanisms: http://forums.lugerforum.com/lugerfo...=000149#000022 Thus, if you allow me, I would like to complete your previous statement as follows: "The British system of parliamentary sovereignty is the very definition of representative democracy" ...which comes closest to despotism (with intermittent elections). As far as I know (now don't get me wrong Mr. Tac, I know that you do live in the UK and I do not (anymore)), the UK PM could (almost) decide - just by himself - to enact death penalty for unlawful gun possession and no one would/could seriously oppose it. Cheers, Panda

04-26-2004, 06:18 PM	#17
Michael Zeleny Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 525 Thanks: 129 Thanked 138 Times in 76 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by panda: <strong>Michael Zeleny, If you want to find out who - actually - makes UK laws and who can influence its content, please read this previous discussion about UK political mechanisms: http://forums.lugerforum.com/lugerforum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=22;t=000149#00 0022 Thus, if you allow me, I would like to complete your previous statement as follows: "The British system of parliamentary sovereignty is the very definition of representative democracy" ...which comes closest to despotism (with intermittent elections). As far as I know (now don't get me wrong Mr. Tac, I know that you do live in the UK and I do not (anymore)), the UK PM could (almost) decide - just by himself - to enact death penalty for unlawful gun possession and no one would/could seriously oppose it.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">As far as your foregoing reformulation of my thought is concerned, we are saying the same thing in slightly different ways. As stated in the above referenced thread, since the British Labour party came into power on a wave of anti-gun hysteria, and owed their landslide victory in the most part to a promise to 'take guns off the streets', they are obliged to maintain the farce of being in control of the rapidly-spiralling numbers of gun-related criminality. This is precisely what Tocqueville meant by the tyranny of the majority, in extolling the mechanisms that mitigate the same in the American system of governance. What puzzles me is your dismissal of constitutional guarantees of rights as one of the most effective devices of this sort. It is unfortunate that the British common law tradition originally responsible for instituting the recognition of the citizens' inalienable right to keep and bear arms, is being subverted in the service of its illegitimate gainsaying. __________________ Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu -- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/ -- 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860 All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. -- Samuel Beckett

04-27-2004, 03:29 AM	#18
panda User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 148 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	"the British Labour party came into power on a wave of anti-gun hysteria, and owed their landslide victory in the most part to a promise to 'take guns off the streets'" I guess Mr. Tac would be in a better position to comment on this. In the meantime, I'd say that the labour party came into power because many people were tired of over 15 years of conservative governments. This has little to do with gun control. (The erosion of conservative support started long before the gun-related events). The same reason applies to Mr. Schroeder beating Mr. Kohl in Germany. "This is precisely what Tocqueville meant by the tyranny of the majority" There is no majority ruling in the UK and there has never been. As far as I know, no government ever had more than ~45% of the popular votes. "What puzzles me is your dismissal of constitutional guarantees of rights as one of the most effective devices of this sort." OK, let's put it this way: The US Constitution says: "Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How well does this work out in NY or Washington? Conversely, Greece has a very heavy legal gun-ban but it is tolerated that people in Crete own guns without even reporting them (and they welcome their own PMs by shooting in the air).

04-29-2004, 01:18 PM	#19
Michael Zeleny Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 525 Thanks: 129 Thanked 138 Times in 76 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Originally posted by panda: <strong>"the British Labour party came into power on a wave of anti-gun hysteria, and owed their landslide victory in the most part to a promise to 'take guns off the streets'" I guess Mr. Tac would be in a better position to comment on this. In the meantime, I'd say that the labour party came into power because many people were tired of over 15 years of conservative governments. This has little to do with gun control. (The erosion of conservative support started long before the gun-related events). The same reason applies to Mr. Schroeder beating Mr. Kohl in Germany.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I do not share your capacity for divining the root causes of political change. To the extent that I can figure out the conjunctions of events, gun bans seem to go hand in hand with "a levelling, rancorous, rational sort of mind" characteristic of Whiggery. <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">"This is precisely what Tocqueville meant by the tyranny of the majority" There is no majority ruling in the UK and there has never been. As far as I know, no government ever had more than ~45% of the popular votes.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I find little to choose between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the plurality. <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">"What puzzles me is your dismissal of constitutional guarantees of rights as one of the most effective devices of this sort." OK, let's put it this way: The US Constitution says: "Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How well does this work out in NY or Washington? Conversely, Greece has a very heavy legal gun-ban but it is tolerated that people in Crete own guns without even reporting them (and they welcome their own PMs by shooting in the air).</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Actually, the Second Amendment works out very well, as witness the effectiveness of preemption laws in forcing any attempts at infringement to the state level. By and large, the legislative process proceeds in the right direction, on which see the changes in the status of concealed carry weapon permit issuance laws. In 1986 8 states had a non-discretionary shall-issue policy, 20 had a discretionary may-issue policy, 21 states had a policy of not issuing any permits to civilians, and 1 state allowed unrestricted concealed carry. In 2003, there were 35 shall-issue states, 9 may-issue, 4 no-issue, and 2 unrestricted. The Clinton assault gun ban is set to expire this September. I'll take this system, warts and all, over yonder Cretans. __________________ Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu -- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/ -- 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860 All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. -- Samuel Beckett

05-01-2004, 03:15 PM	#20
Vlim Moderator Lifetime LugerForum Patron Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Europe Posts: 5,041 Thanks: 1,021 Thanked 3,902 Times in 1,190 Posts	Hi all, Well, a small update. The member of parliament who was very strong about stricter laws was kind enough to reply on the comments I sent him. The Justice department in the mean time has suggested a better screening of new gun club members and a thorough administration of used ammo. Since both measures will not prevent the incidents that happened the last year from happening again, I'm wondering what the outcome will be, although improvements on both counts are not a bad idea altogether. The MP did accept the offer of one of the royal dutch shooters association (KNSA) leaders to visit one of the shooting clubs in order to get a better picture of what's going on in reality. I did send him some comments and suggestions that would make more sense and I'm interested if he will reply again. I remain opposed to the idea of storing guns and ammo centrally as I am convinced this creates bigger safety issues than it solves. I can live with an ammo prohibition alone, though. I also pleaded for a better collector's enviroment as collectors are now forced to shoot regularly in order to get and keep gun permits. Mind you, I don't dislike shooting my Lugers