The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Law  % width posts: 1,615

The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland?


ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
24 Mar 2013 #661
ZIMMY is my Heeeero currently

Only currently?

you stated that you want to fight tyranny

I don't want to fight anything. Should a tyrannical form of government take hold and suppress people as well as threaten my and my families lives then I would certainly oppose it and fight if necessary.

Bringing a lot of quotes from a bunch of morally dubious slave owners does not an answer make.

Their answer was a Constitution that eventually created the most prosperous and powerful country in the world. Now, what have you done?

he lack of answers of how to fight a tyrannical government is very telling these gun nut people have no idea what they are talking about.

In previous forums, you've been verbally spanked by me several times before and it seems that you're asking me for "one more please". lol

The fantasy talk of the gun crowd really annoys me i

People have a right to bear arms and to defend themselves. Anything you interject outside of that is your "fantasy".

As to tactics, it would be idiotic to present them in a forum. Besides, you have to ask a specific question as to what "tyranny" means to you. Is it Fascist, Communist, gangster led, or what? Is there an occupying army; are people being shot in the streets en mass? etc. One size does not fit all. I will uphold the U.S. Constitution to the best of my ability and hopefully it will only be through voting and voicing my libertarian opinions as needed.

Illinois is the last state that still has not allowed 'conceal and carry ' but progress is being made (my application is in) and by Autumn the state should join the rest of the nation in this regard. Hypocritically, Illinois politicians are automatically allowed to carry a weapon and those who do are usually the ones who vote against the rest of their fellow citizens having the same right. More irony is the fact that Chicago had the strictest gun laws which seem to have prevented zero shootings. Restrictive gun laws only prevent good people from owning them.
poziomka2 - | 29
24 Mar 2013 #662
Zim as pointed out to you several times on this thread you stated that you want to fight tyranny I asked how and when yet you pretend there is no question that is dishonest.

What tyranny? And why use guns for it? There are better ways to fight tyranny. In Poland we don't fight tyranny with guns, it is only used as the last resort.
Rysavy 10 | 308
24 Mar 2013 #663
Why is it obviously inefficient to have a hunting rifle for defense?

Fair question...

Hunting rifles (which are not the same as long guns or shotguns) are meant for distance as the rifling of the long barrel helps that and in its accuracy (how straight a trajectory), they are unweildy and not good for close quarters. They are best used against an unaware target aka Bambi's mother. they are unconcealable so in open the posible assailant would simply wait to waylay you so you cannot draw a bead. Though if you can at least remove it from back holster you could slam them upside head with the butt end I guess.

Many hunting rifles are smaller calibur like 5.56 which is great for Thumper but not so good for bigger game
They also would not be good with multiple targets like flash mobs in anarchy or the door to door gestapo of a govt gone bad.

If you want to single target or snipe small groups of humans from greater distance a bolt action in a big game calibur is viable as defense in certain situation. Not a good scenario if defending is needing preplaning for a siege...^_^

other longuns...well shoulder sling maybe... sure are not the thing to easily put under your jacket. Unless it is common sight like in open carry states of US, it wil llikely attract as much trouble as it can prevent.

Assault Rifles (aka originally called Sport rifles) have problem in a most likely normal home situation that they overpenetrate. a wild shot can end up being more harmful than the intruder. And ARs for hunting unless you are good shot will likely wound not kill, unless auto (assuming you can hold point of aim and point of impact on the fleeing target after first hit). BTW US Govt calls them Personal Defense Weapons when purchasing AR-15s with tax dollars.

carbines vs shotguns is just matter of choice for a weapons user.

Carbines are also nice all round but usually too small a calibur to be of use in life or death situation unless automatic. They have less recoil and better capacity, easier to learn use of that AK or AR. They are more forgiving to inexperinece or unpractices owners.

Riot guns (short length shotguns) are good all round weapon. Some shotguns have exchangeable choke and available rifled long barrels for riot and hunting. Mossburg 500s are popular as are the Remy 870s (Remy is higher quality tool). A riot gun with magnum load is the point and shoot direction of sound in the dark -hear resulting hit kinda usefulness. (oh let me add they make a lareg hole up close but are better stoppers from 8ft or more)

Pistols still are top for personal protection but can only help you if you have become familiar with it. They are far better than rifles in walk down the urban street scenario... but only if you can actually shoot with it.

In other words as much as I trust mine, for Joe Shmoe? Handguns SUCK. But they are convenient sized and still better than a stick and harsh words. Realistically a two charge tazer is likely a better stopper in the pocket sized man stopper dept.

As the trainer said:
Personal defense with a weapon means when you shoot somebody in self defense, the goal isn't necessarily to kill them, it is to stop them. You want the bad guy to stop doing whatever it is they are doing that caused you go pull a gun in the first place. Live or die is really irrelevant. You want them to leave you alone. Sadly, the best way to make somebody leave you alone is to shoot them in their vital organs, and that often results in the bad guy's death. But that's his problem, not yours. when you are legally justified in shooting somebody, it is normally in a situation where you want them to stop RIGHT NOW. Regardless of method, you want to inflict enough trauma on their body that they have no choice but to quit immediately. Sure there is PT baddie who says carap! victim+defense =too much work/risk and leaves. Then you have guy that talks to the streetpost between recreational drug meals or is just plain crazy evil. That person is the one you are preparing for.The guy that attacks past 2 hits or being tazered 4 times.

In Poland we don't fight tyranny with guns, it is only used as the last resort.

talking modern politics? right? is there a chance of tyranny right now?
if attacked from foreign angle I wonder how supportive EU would be?

And you are saying Poland never overthrew or rose against its govt to get to its present day politics?
(Im sure some know that answer and wil jump to list them or prove they never were)
Not a good endorsement how its worded. Because last run in Poland had with major tyranny it was wiped off map as free country. Before that was wiped off map completely for a century? longer? I dont know if it counts as overthrowing govt when the govt is that of conquerors.

Our first insurrection/revolution was 300 years ago and stayed effective that long we put safeties in place to attempt to make it stick and prevent the need for another. But nothing lasts forever. Our second was internal and enforced a singlar nation a century ago. So we are due another in 30-60 yrs if history repetition has any cycle.

Not saying that Poland should be as suspicious as we US citizens are..or that Poland SHOULD have open gun laws even.
Tyranny is why Americans hold their right to bear arms. Poland's reasons should be Polish if they decide something.
jon357 66 | 16,960
24 Mar 2013 #664
People have a right to bear arms and to defend themselves

In Poland?

No. They don't. Nor is there any mass movement wanting such 'rights'.
peterweg 37 | 2,321
24 Mar 2013 #665
And you are saying Poland never overthrew or rose against its govt to get to its present day politics?

Well of course theier was a long guerrilla war against the Russians, but even what was reasoble well trained and armed soldiers it didn't stand a chance against an army with tanks and unlimited weaponry.

Iraq demonstrated that at whole country armed with AK-47's, RPG and large amounts of explosive could not evict an occupying army. You cannot win against F-16's, Bradleys and armored Humvee's .

The idea that a civilian population, even armed with assault rifles, could stand up to an American dictatorship is fantasy. Try shooting down a drone with a AR-15.

Hand guns are even more obviously irrelevant to freedom
Barney 15 | 1,477
24 Mar 2013 #666
In previous forums, you've been verbally spanked by me several times before and it seems that you're asking me for "one more please". lol

Zim, you only post links to dubious conspiracy sites to support your brainwashed corporate shill "arguments", don't be making this all about you and your deluded fantasy. Just try to address the issue instead of cutting and pasting quotes that have nothing to do with the topic.

It's crystal clear that you cannot explain how you expect a lightly armed bunch of people to defeat an army, its not going to happen it is just pub talk, neither of the things in that scenario are going to happen.
AmerTchr 4 | 201
24 Mar 2013 #667
Well of course theier was a long guerrilla war against the Russians. Hand guns are even more obviously irrelevant to freedom

You have an interesting version of history and make the same glaring mistakes as most of the antis. The smarter ones don't push this theory since it destroys their own argument as they present their "facts". I particularly love your "Try shooting down a drone with an AR-15" fantasy.

Facts are that every generation believes it is different, Hitler presented arguments that society had progressed to the point where individuals could trust the state for protection as did Stalin, Mao and conquerors since the dawn of time. History is full of rulers (not always despots) who had faith in their armies and secret police. The vast majority of these attempted to disarm their populations.

The facts are that Afghans, Libyans, Syrians, Viet Cong, Laotians, Iranians and countless other populations have rebelled or held out against these all-powerful forces you claim exist. Drones, tanks, F-18's, A-10's, artillery, etc. are far less useful in urban warfare against non-uniformed personnel who don't conveniently stand around in formations waiting to be attacked or move through the countryside in precise columns along known roads to little fortresses scattered around the area of operations.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have indeed worn out the US military. Our people are tired, dispirited, divided and nearly broke from fighting that war. You may think they "failed to evict" but the reality is that the army left and the people are still there, armed by the way.

Your scenarios make no mention of the facts that rebellions almost always involve defecting forces from the armies and other branches (better go back and read up on Libya and Syria for instance). Neither do they allow for the effect of a high percentages of well-trained combat veterans in the population who have trained not only on the weapons they use, but also on the weapons they would be up against. Like many ignorant individuals, you continue to ignore the dispersion of thousands of armored units, tanks, helicopters, aircraft, command vehicles, communications equipment and heavy weapons throughout our territory. The President doesn't keep the keys to those thousands of vehicles under his pillow at night. BTW, handguns are very effective in CQB situations, unless of course overwhelming numbers are pouring through the door. As a tool for insurgency, counter-insurgency, assassination and terrorist operations they are pretty effective. You might want to read up on the Fort Hood shootings for instance. LA had to mobilize dozens of police officers to take down two criminals with AKs. Other armed personnel, in large numbers and body armor stopped that situation. There's a reason the military organizations of the world still issue millions of handguns to their personnel. But hey, write your country's armed forces and tell them how stupid they are for issuing such "ineffective" weaponry in this modern age.

Finally, while many Europeans just cannot grasp the concepts of political reality, it would behoove you to read up on the percentages of red/blue, liberal/conservative, pro/anti and other likely dividing factors. This might give you the picture that, God forbid the US suffer another Civil War, it will divide the country nearly in half ideologically. You should also read up on how the military feels about the current administration. While the nanny governments have successfully cowed their populations into a "accept our decrees, resistance is futile" mindset, things in the US just may not be as pat as you think they are based on your societies and ill-conceived fantasies.

Hence, the importance of the Second Amendment.
Barney 15 | 1,477
24 Mar 2013 #668
You have an interesting version of history and make the same glaring mistakes as most of the antis.

Your own view of history is not factual.

Name one successful rebellion that did not rely upon outside help.
Ironside 50 | 10,934
24 Mar 2013 #669
When fighting a tyrannical gov decisions will have to be made to shoot some poor fellow in the back of the head or decide that he is still a target when off duty taking the kids to the cinema and so on.

Not if weaponry is owned by the majority of citizen and they just resist enforcement of tyrannical law.

On the other hand defending your home and area is a very different question.

If you have no weapon then your options are limited. I'm afraid it is very much the same qestion.

The fantasy talk of the gun crowd really annoys me its just pub talk they have exactly zero idea what they are talking about, their ignorance is staggering and extremely dangerous. They may live in a cowboy movie but the rest of us live in the real world.

what is fantasy? That if most of citizens own guns they can easier defend themselves than without guns.

Iraq demonstrated that at whole country armed with AK-47's, RPG and large amounts of explosive could not evict an occupying army.

You are talking about invasion onto territory of foreign country - it is not quite the same thing.
Alas we are not talking about wining battles, maneuvers and offensives but about resistance against usurping body. If they cannot effectively enforce their laws they are done for it. They cannot enforce them if citizens have practical means to defend against force.

They cannot be everywhere at the same time.
Say they want arrest some dude (no guns) they send three to 12 troopers and even if some people protest they are in and out no problem. Law enforced.

Now there are guns in the neighborhood - they would have to send at last four times the number with armored cars and possible air support to arrest the guy.

Now, they have million or two such people to arrest they cannot do that, not at the sometime, they have no enough personnel to do that. And not all military or police people would support government in such scenario.

I afraid you have fallen for the Borg propaganda - all resistance is futile- no it is not.

Anyway it is not only about resisting tyranny. It is about being citizen with the right to self-defense.
Ktos 17 | 456
24 Mar 2013 #670
talking modern politics? right? is there a chance of tyranny right now? if attacked from foreign angle I wonder how supportive EU would be?

I agree with Barney, when time comes we will stand up and defend ourselves, if we have enough of tyranny we will overthrow it, and we don't need guns for that, government guns wouldn't stop us if we really wanted to take government.

As for the comment by Rysavy all I can say is that Polish people can defend themselves better than any other group of people I know.Normally we say this with modesty but I see that on this forum it does not work, most western people misinterpret Polish modesty as incompetence. So I say again, we are always well equipped to defend ourselves well. We are not French, we don't listen to our government and watch our country fall down and not do anything, in crisis we rise as a nation together and no one needs to tell us what to do because we know what needs to be done, we need to defend our nation, with any means possible. Owning a gun by Polish civilians has got nothing to do with our ability to defend ourselves against foreign powers.

There are different ways of fighting tyranny. Take the banking system for instance, those who own banks have the world's politicians in their pocket, the best way to weaken their influence over governments is to stop using the banking system, withdraw many from the bank, deprive them of income and those greedy filthy creatures will not have a foot to stand on. Besides, the most powerful enemies of people are the invisible ones, those who hide in the shadows, many bank owners belong to that group as well as rich families who own media, estates and financial sectors around the world, in most cases they are Jewish but not only. Many Polish businessmen as well as politicians and Polish Jews belong to those invisible groups. I bet they come out of shadows when public raises and then they make mistakes, we don't need guns to flash them out, just smart ideas.

ZIMMY: People have a right to bear arms and to defend themselvesIn Poland?No. They don't. Nor is there any mass movement wanting such 'rights'.

Jon is right but he put it rather awkwardly; we, Polish people, have a right to defend ourselves but whether it is this type of weapon or another does not make a difference, as I explained in my previous post. Besides, we don't have a history of people running around with guns on the streets, it would awake killing instincts in many people, it would also make police work that much dangerous, what a stupid idea. There is no movement in Poland postulating any gun ownership rights, we are not interested, we never were. So those of you who keep ranting about it, get a grip, we do not need to all a sudden copy everything others do, this gun owning nonsense included.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
24 Mar 2013 #671
Why is it obviously inefficient to have a hunting rifle for defense?

Come on, it's too heavy, too long, needs to be reloaded after each shot, It'd useless to be carried around on a daily basis.
Barney 15 | 1,477
24 Mar 2013 #672
Not if weaponry is owned by the majority of citizen and they just resist enforcement of tyrannical law.

This is circular, we are back to who makes the decision that the government is tyrannical and is that self appointed cabal tyrannical? If only there were some way to test public opinion.

There are "shooting people" decisions to be made even if everyone is armed when you decide to reject the ballot box and go down the road of rebellion.

If you have no weapon then your options are limited. I'm afraid it is very much the same qestion.

Not really, defending your home in a fundamentally unequal and artificially created political entity is a matter of survival. More guns means more guns on both sides which means more death. Having weapons would not solve the base problem.

what is fantasy? That if most of citizens own guns they can easier defend themselves than without guns.

The fantasy is that the talk of fighting tyranny has zero perspective of how and what it would look like. If everyone had weapons the result is the same though with more death.

This goes for fighting any government Communist, Fascist and so on. The Stalin and Hitler stuff is just nonsense.
Ironside 50 | 10,934
24 Mar 2013 #673
This is circular, we are back to who makes the decision that the government is tyrannical and is that self appointed cabal tyrannical?

A General consensus?

Not really, defending your home in a fundamentally unequal and artificially created political entity is a matter of survival. More guns means more guns on both sides which means more death. Having weapons would not solve the base problem.

Well weapons can only help with self-defense or hunting they are not meant to solve other problems. More deaths in the short run in the long run it maybe mean less deaths and suffering.

The fantasy is that the talk of fighting tyranny has zero perspective of how and what it would look like. If everyone had weapons the result is the same though with more death.

Maybe, maybe not it is up to citizens to decide. After all making decisions for others IS tyrannical.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
24 Mar 2013 #674
Zim, you only post links to dubious conspiracy sites to support your brainwashed corporate shill "arguments",

My, my, I assert Second Amendment rights granted by a great document and you go 'off the reservation' again. "Conspiracy sites"?
Please post one. You seem to be the type of person who imagines fictional scenarios out of other peoples' beliefs; This sort of "Chicken Little"

thinking is "no way to go through life, son."

we don't have a history of people running around with guns on the streets,

Except for German Nazi and sometimes Soviets. In the old days, the partitioned country had foreigners running around with guns, lances and swords.

There is no movement in Poland postulating any gun ownership rights, we are not interested, we never were.

Not even during the years 1939-1945? That's surprising...

....making decisions for others IS tyrannical.

That is the ultimate truth. Sadly, it is one which is too logical for those who prefer to be ruled.

.
Barney 15 | 1,477
24 Mar 2013 #675
You seem to be the type of person

There you go again Zim that is several times in the one thread, if you cannot debate the point don't bother. I suppose when you have nothing to copy/paste all you are left with is personal attacks so I will yet again have to forgive you ........

If your comprehension was up to the mark you would realise that my response above was a direct counter to your boast that you are great etc. I'll make it clear to you, Zimmy you never have an argument that has not been passed to you by an other person. You cut and paste from conspiracy sites, my personal favourite was the site that claimed Canada was governed by a giant pineapple. You are going to have to up your game considerably before you will be taken seriously.

The constitution of the US has nothing to do with Poland its irrelevant here. This thread is about whether Poland should relax its gun laws. The short answer is that no it should not, if you need a gun in Poland as in much of Europe you get one.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
24 Mar 2013 #676
The short answer is that no it should not, if you need a gun in Poland as in much of Europe you get one.

Not true. It is extremely difficult to legally posses a gun in Poland, especially If you are not a hunter...

whether Poland should relax its gun laws.

Besides, I'm personally not so much in favour of Poles having millions of guns, however what is really wrong in Poland is that you may get a license or... not, even If you fulfill all the requirements... simply because... no.

In my opinion all the adult, healthy citizens without criminal record should be allowed to posses guns If... and here goes a long list of requirements, long enough to discourage all the people who don't need it badly, however once one fulfill all of them... one just get a license, just like in case of a driving license and so on. Obvious stuff really, unfortunately not in Poland.
Palivec - | 380
25 Mar 2013 #677
Well weapons can only help with self-defense or hunting they are not meant to solve other problems. More deaths in the short run in the long run it maybe mean less deaths and suffering.

Less death and suffering? LOL.
I love all this fantasising about self-defense. Against whom? Criminals here in Europe usually don't carry weapons. If they break into your house you turn on the light and they leave. If you feel unsafe with the light switch as your weapon get a dog. Problem solved.

No one in Europe misses this kind of freedom. What I would miss would be drinking alcohol in public, "bad" words on TV, the freedom to get naked in the park or on the beach if I want or having to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".
AmerTchr 4 | 201
25 Mar 2013 #678
So much for rationality.

People on this forum who are "in Europe" both as citizens and as expats have repeatedly posted about their wish that the laws were relaxed so your assertion that "no one" misses it is patently false. There went your credibility.

It's pretty clear who lives in a fantasy world. Enjoy the butterflies.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,163
25 Mar 2013 #679
the freedom to get naked in the park or on the beach if I want

Gerries...
AmerTchr 4 | 201
25 Mar 2013 #680
Yeah, I meant to mention that there are nude beaches all over Europe. Maybe he's not really in Europe?
jon357 66 | 16,960
25 Mar 2013 #681
Gerries...

There are at least 4 such beaches in Poland and have been for many years.

People on this forum who are "in Europe" both as citizens and as expats have repeatedly posted about their wish that the laws were relaxed so your assertion that "no one" misses it is patently false

Perhaps you can try to cite any sort of mass movement in PL for the present laws to be changed.
poziomka2 - | 29
25 Mar 2013 #682
Why don't you hunt tigers and lions but on a more equal grounds, that is without guns, so that the animal has a chance to strike back at you, otherwise all you lot obsessed with guns look like cowards,who hunting animals for fun in an unequal challenge, sorry but you do come across as cowards and sadists in that regard.
Polson 5 | 1,771
25 Mar 2013 #683
It's pretty clear who lives in a fantasy world. Enjoy the butterflies.

Let us enjoy the butterflies, amigo. We may not want to live in a world of fear like you do.
As Palivec said, if you're scared, get a dog. And an alarm system.
Long live to the butterflies.
Barney 15 | 1,477
25 Mar 2013 #684
People on this forum who are "in Europe" both as citizens and as expats have repeatedly posted about their wish that the laws were relaxed so your assertion that "no one" misses it is patently false.

There is no call for widespread gun ownership and associated slaughter in Europe.

The laws we have are just fine that's why Europeans are safe. If the laws are to be relaxed to allow people access to guns who don't really need them major restrictions will still be in place to ensure public safety.

There is no cowboy myth in Europe guiding social and political policy but primarily used to sell stuff....

Who said: "I've always acted alone like the cowboy ... the cowboy entering the village or city alone on his horse ... He acts, that's all"?
Henry Kissinger to Oriana Fallaci in 1972, that's who.

Let me quote you the reduction ad absurdum of this myth, which dates back to 1979: "The West. It's not just stage-coaches and sagebrush. It's an image of men who are real and proud. Of the freedom and independence we all would like to feel. Now Ralph Lauren has expressed all this in Chaps, his new men's cologne. Chaps is a cologne a man can put on as naturally as a worn leather jacket or a pair of jeans. Chaps. It's the West. The West you would like to feel inside yourself."

Source. Its a good read
guardian/books/2013/mar/20/myth-of-the-cowboy?INTCMP=SRCH
Ironside 50 | 10,934
25 Mar 2013 #685
Who are you to telling me I cannot have a gun if I want one - legally.

There are at least 4 such beaches in Poland and have been for many years.

yes but he would like to stroll naked about a town and in the park.As he said Germans are strange.
jasondmzk
25 Mar 2013 #686
Who are you to telling me I cannot have a gun if I want one - legally.

I don't want you to have one legally. I don't want you to have one at all.
jon357 66 | 16,960
25 Mar 2013 #687
yes but he would like to stroll naked about a town

Really?

Who are you to telling me I cannot have a gun if I want one - legally.

Can you have one legally as a non-resident?

I don't want you to have one legally. I don't want you to have one at all.

Spot on.
Ironside 50 | 10,934
25 Mar 2013 #688
I don't want you to have one legally. I don't want you to have one at all.

so what?
AmerTchr 4 | 201
25 Mar 2013 #689
jasondmzk: I don't want you to have one legally. I don't want you to have one at all.
so what?

What you see in this sort of exchange is the truth of the matter. It's not about safety or security, it's about controlling people and the fears of those wanting to control you.
jasondmzk
25 Mar 2013 #690
It's about controlling guns that shoot bullets into people that don't want them. That's what I want to do. I want to keep bullets away from people. Your answer? "Put bullets in the right people faster." Your method doesn't work, hasn't worked, and will not work.


Home / Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.