View Full Version : Gun Pride Parade - Self Defense Illegal in England

Right Edition
06-08-2015, 09:16 AM

Gun Pride Parade - Self Defense Illegal in England

The Machine Gun Shoot is a bi-annual event, typically held on the second weekend of April and October. The next Machine Gun Shoot takes place on October 9, 10 & 11 2015.

Click here to view the Machine Gun Shoot schedule The participants are machine gun dealers, collectors and enthusiasts from all over the country. The Machine Gun Shoot itself consists of three days of machine gun shooting, dealer displays, shooting competitions and a spectacular Saturday Night Shoot. The machine gunners are shooting at a wide variety of used appliances, abandoned vehicles, and barrels of fuel with pyrotechnic charges attached. The pyrotechnic charges are painted orange for the shooter to see. The charges are set off by the impact of the bullets, creating large mushroom clouds and fireballs from hell! (Click here to see a video of one of our machine gun shoots) Their objective is to destroy everything down range. A wide variety of rare and exotic weaponry will be on display for all to see, such as Water Cooled Brownings, Mini-guns, AK-47’s, MG-42’s, Tommy Guns, M-16’s, Vickers belt fed, Uzi’s, MP5’s & many others too numerous to mention. A big thank you to our sponsors.

Self Defense Illegal in England

The United Kingdom has been moving politically to the Left for some time now, but even in our wildest dreams, never could we have imagined that it would become illegal to protect yourself there.

As reported by The New American, British subjects seeking advice about what are and are not permissible self-defense instruments found some recently on a police web site. It is sponsored by the British government's Police National Legal Database.

Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?

The police answer:

The only fully legal self defence product... is a rape alarm.

Now, the site goes on to say that there may be other products, but those have yet to be fully tested and that "if you purchase one you must be aware... there is always a possibility that you will be arrested and detained until the product, it's [sic] contents and legality can be verified."

That's not very reassuring, so in an effort to further reduce anxiety about "other" self-defense products, the site points out that any product a British citizen purchases other than a rape alarm "must not [be] a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury." Anyone possessing "such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law."

No, this isn't a joke – it's real

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049963_sel...

06-08-2015, 09:31 AM
...the site points out that any product a British citizen purchases other than a rape alarm "must not [be] a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury." Anyone possessing "such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law."

Pathetic. They are brainwashing people into believing that only barbarians resort to violence, even in self defense. Makes for a nice, docile public - pleasant little worker bees - wouldn't you agree? And some people just lap this stuff up.

06-08-2015, 10:46 AM
That country is going downhill fast. Hopefuly the people their will get their heads out of their asses and defend themselves from their government.:la:

06-08-2015, 04:43 PM

England a while ago:

Evans v Hughes [1972]

[Mistake - any threat must be "imminent" before it could ground a reasonable excuse]

D carried an offensive weapon (a short metal bar) in the street, for self-protection. He had been set upon by three men about seven days before and wanted to be prepared if he was attacked again.
Held: The bar was an offensive weapon

For the defence of reasonable excuse to be successful there had to be an imminent particular threat, not the constant carriage of an offensive weapon on account of some enduring threat or danger.

Not guilty (the case was borderline but it did not create an authority for carrying offensive weapons)

-- http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_65_gen_def_mistake.htm

USA a long while ago:

"Speaking of assured and continual danger to life, this court, in the case in 2 Duvall, defined the principle of self-defense as follows: "Like the sword of Damocles, the threatened danger is continually impending every moment and everywhere. The threatened man may be waylaid or otherwise attacked unawares without the possibility of defense or of escape, and may never, day or night, feel safe, or actually be so, while his enemy lives, who whenever he may see him or wherever he may find him may be anxious and able to kill him. And does either human or divine law require such prolonged agony and peril; or can the best and most prudent men suicidably forbear to strike for riddance, if they have the courage to defend themselves, in the only way of secure and lasting escape?"
-- Carico v. Commonwealth, an 1870 Kentucky ruling on self-defense:

06-08-2015, 05:01 PM
It appears to me that liberal molly codling of criminals and the continuing desire to prosecute victims of crime leaves only one viable choice. Carry a weapon that you are comfortable with and if attacked, leave the assailant either dead or crippled. Then turn yourself in and claim you were the one who started the assault with the intent of robbery. You are now entitled to the liberal mindset that society failed you, obtain legal aid, get all the self righteous bleeding hearts on your side and then be convicted with a sentence that would be less than if you claimed self defense. Keep your assets at arms length and you will not be financially ruined defending yourself.

The other option is the 3 S's.

06-08-2015, 05:34 PM
There is a substantial amount of money and a significant number of people employed by the tax-payer to assist the victims of crime.
The victim industry needs victims just like the courts need criminals; one hand soils the other.