John Pearson Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 A real bit of stupidity has just occured to me, bit late to use it to convince MP's but I thought I would put it down here. As you know, the bill will make it legal to continue to own de-acts but not to acquire or dispose of them. It is my intent to leave my collection to my children when I shuffle off this mortal coil and hopefully they will pass them on to their children, four of whom are already here. To focus in on just three vehicles, the Valentine Mk IXDD tank, Saladin and Dingo. The tank has a deact 6pdr so my sons will not be able to inherit that but they can inherit the Saladin because it has a live 76mm gun, so long as they pay £50 to get a firearms licence. The Dingo has two weapons, a deact bren and an SMLE which has been bored to .410 shotgun. Son can have the Lee Enfield (if he gets a licence again) but can not have the bren. Now I am absolutely certain that there are no records of a deact 6pdr nor a deact bren ever being used in the furtherance of crime but he can't have them but he can have two genuine fireable firearms. Is this insane or is it just me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeEnfield Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Just shows what a knee jerk reaction, this bill is, John. Isn't it about time the government did something positive, for all us law abiding Taxpayers,.....or are we too much of a soft touch. I mean, if I was bent upon robbing anyone, I'm sure I'm going to be law abiding, in the first place................................. When you can,(if you want to,)buy a hand held cross-bow, from the local market, which, if anyone's used one, with a little addaption, can become a quite effective Quiet weapon, or 'guns', that are reallistic enough to cause panic and fright, to the majority of the population, as far as I can see, will not be affected. As you, quite rightly asked, when was a deact 6pdr, bren, or Lee Enfield .303, or, indeed, any of a range of weaponary,currently fielded as a typical Mil Rally, or re-enactment. ?? :? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Pearson Posted November 21, 2005 Author Share Posted November 21, 2005 While there are some sensible points in the bill, there is no point at all in the aspect of banning replicas etc in the planned bill: it used to be popular to hold up banks with 'double barrel shotguns' which were actually two pieces of pipe sellotaped together and held so you could only see the ends. What will the Government do next? Ban plumbing? So far as I know, conversion of deacts to fire and the use of anything 'gun like' to committ a crime is already illegal so what is the reason for this part of the act? Passing new laws does not reduce crime, it is enforcement that counts. I still think that I would prefer to be threatened by an airsoft/deact/replica than the real thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karoshi Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Ah but there you go John that's the sensible view. Most of our representative's don't actually go to the cash machine at night and expose then selves to real street risks. Best they can do is respond to a perceived threat, its how they imagine it might be. Funny they didn't ban plumbing a few years ago when there was a mortar attack on no 10. Or ban garden sprays when some body filled one with chlorine. Funny too that Mark Thatcher pissed off to SA and a comfortable life after dealing in the real things. But what would I know. I'm only a potential terrorist with a plastic gun. Lucky we've got a democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts