The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Law  % width posts: 1,651

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


convex 20 | 3,978
20 Oct 2010 #121
First check it out and then make statements.

I already have, that's why both of those pistols will never cross the border into Poland.
nott 3 | 594
20 Oct 2010 #122
Didn't someone here mention a movement to only permit blunt nose kitchen knives? Maybe this was in UK?

I did. In the UK. There's no Constitution here...

nott:I have an air-gun... :)

Me too. I use it to get the darn squirrels off the bird feeder. I give it one or two pumps so it only stings them without hurting them. But they still come back. >:

Well, kill'em. Or like'm.

I use it to make holes in a cardboard target, indoors. Legally, I can't take it out. Toys that look like firearms are illegal in public. Even plastic imitations, true boys' toys.
jwojcie 2 | 763
20 Oct 2010 #123
jwojcie If you quote me I would ask you to not put YOUR words in my posts , you got that chump.

Well, sorry, I didn't quote you but convex... I have no idea how your nickname managed to jump there because I didn't find your input interesting ;)
trener zolwia 1 | 939
20 Oct 2010 #124
There's no Constitution here...

Funny how one old document can make all the difference. It shouldn't even take this to keep society free. :s

Toys that look like firearms are illegal in public. Even plastic imitations, true boys' toys.

Then they should outlaw girls' dollies too! You know, for equality sake. ;)
They haven't outlawed toys here yet but there is pressure to make them un-PC.

I didn't quote you but convex... I have no idea how your nickname managed to jump there

Sometimes in haste one will highlight someone's words then accidentally click the 'quote' below another's post. That's how this happens.
jwojcie 2 | 763
20 Oct 2010 #125
Anyway, lets rationalize this beast a little bit.
There is one leg of dispute: war time and resistance, some of that I find rational
and there is second leg: peace time and selfdefence, where statistics which I found so far seem to prove that stricter gun control means less violent crimes (ie. homocide) per capita which count the most among the crimes... So I really don't understand (from this second leg of dispute at least) why we need any change in that matter? I mean everyone who really want to have a gun (but not machine gun...) and do proper paper process with Police probably will get it. If someone wants to run in the forest and hunt, then there is the Hunters Organization when he can sign up, pay and shot... If someone want be a soldier and run and shot on military training ground then he can sign to National Reserve Defence... I don't see an issue here really...

Well, some data regarding crime in Europe, it would be nice if someone would post something similar about USA (broken by state maybe, isn't there different regulations in different states?):

epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/b/b7/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police_-_Homicide.PNG

epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Urban_rankings#Crime_rate

epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_trends_in_detail

epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_statistics

previously posted comparision:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide

Last but not least, law regarding guns in Poland is no issue in Poland so why all of a sudden is an issue for foreigners?
f stop 25 | 2,513
20 Oct 2010 #126
That they felt the need to single out guns and include them as an amendment tells us how important they felt guns were.

The framers of the Constitution did not explain specifically what they meant by this amendment. But at the time of its adoption, every state had a "militia." This was a part-time military force made up of ordinary white male citizens. They were "well-regulated" in the sense that they trained and participated in exercises away from their homes. The militiamen supplied their own firearms. The firearms were not for individual 'home' use.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
21 Oct 2010 #127
The framers of the Constitution did not explain specifically what they meant by this amendment.

They did not believe they had to. It was understood.

thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2603-the-second-amendment-the-states-and-the-people

From the link: "The Amendment did not purport to create, for the first time in 1789, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," though. Instead, it recognized that right's prior existence,in order to guarantee its future exercise. Indeed, the original Constitution actually required both the General Government and the States, not just to protect, but also affirmatively to promote, that exercise. This is because the original Constitution incorporated within its federal structure "the Militia of the several States."

"...the term "Militia," its meaning must be drawn from antecedent American law- in particular, from the great mass of pre-constitutional Colonial and State Militia statutes that regulated the Militia of the Colonies and then the independent States from the 1600s through the late 1700s. ...what the Second Amendment later described as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" was first and foremost a duty. Yet it was a right as well.

Opponents of the "right to bear arms" ignore the precedents of the word "militia" which were well understood at that time. Students in todays' universities are not taught these basics by their liberal professors. So they 'debate' the understood meaning.
f stop 25 | 2,513
21 Oct 2010 #128
by their liberal professors.

And you just could not help yourself, huh?
Lots of useless quotes, that fail to explain the crucial leap from militia to the people.
Ironside 50 | 11,061
21 Oct 2010 #129
Is target shooting a sport there?

Yes it's ! You can go to practice range and shoot from a few firearms.You can buy and own without restriction black powder muzzle loaders :)

Cannot a private citizen own guns for hunting?

Yes, but he have to become a member of Hunters Association and pay for the privilege !

Are there no gun shops where one can buy guns and ammo?

there are but not many for the obvious reason .....

Does anyone have a permit to carry?

Some do !

Can they keep sidearms in their homes?

need a permit for it !

What are the penalties if one runs afoul of the no gun laws?

I think, five years imprisonment for possessing gun without permit !

Any guns at all in society?

Sure there are .....and you can buy guns quite easy, money and know how is enough.
Thats the one of the reasons that I would support the right to owns guns in Poland. I think that people opposing the right aren't aware how easily you can buy a firearms ......
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
21 Oct 2010 #130
Lots of useless quotes, that fail to explain the crucial leap from militia to the people.

The point was (that) there was no leapand the link pointed this out using precedent law, both common and official.

you just could not help yourself, huh?

Pointing out historical facts is always troublesome to those to 'feel' that everything is 'relative'.

Lots of useless quotes,

Some are from the American Constitution which are "useless" to those bent on promoting a nanny state.
trener zolwia 1 | 939
21 Oct 2010 #131
The militiamen supplied their own firearms. The firearms were not for individual 'home' use.

Lol. What, did they promise not to use their own guns at home? Lol. Do you even see how ridiculously contradictory your sentences are?

Pointing out historical facts is always troublesome to those to 'feel' that everything is 'relative'.

That's the truth. :s

Some do !

Sure there are .....and you can buy guns quite easy, money and know how is enough.

So some peeps can indeed buy/ own/ carry guns?
I still don't have a full picture of the gun ownership situation there. Convex says no, absolutely not, and you make it sound all mysterious, black market-y. What up??
Ironside 50 | 11,061
21 Oct 2010 #132
So some peeps can indeed buy/ own/ carry guns?

yes but you need a permit, not that easy to obtain for an average citizen.

black market-y.

you can buy gun illegally on black marked, a few years back quite easy, EU and all clamped it down a bit, but it is still possible, not many peeps are going for it because if caught you may got five years behind the bars

nothing mysterious about it :)
trener zolwia 1 | 939
21 Oct 2010 #133
yes but you need a permit, not that easy to obtain for an average citizen.

Like who can? Banker? Business owner? Must one have firearm training or prior military experience? What determines these special folks who can own and/ or carry a gun and the ones who are not permitted to?
Ironside 50 | 11,061
21 Oct 2010 #134
Must one have firearm training

basic only and rules of using firearms

Banker? Business owner?

yeah

What determines these special folks who can own and/ or carry a gun and the ones who are not permitted to?

money and/or connections, theoretically: good reason/need for owning a gun, health, mental health bill cleared by a specialist, and financial stability ...
trener zolwia 1 | 939
21 Oct 2010 #135
Well then gun ownership in P-Land is sounding more and more like gun ownership in some of our states, only a little more strict. So what's this talk about legislation then? Peeps just want to ease the restrictions?
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
21 Oct 2010 #136
Just for chuckles;
youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY
Chicago Pollock 7 | 504
21 Oct 2010 #137
I don't think that US founding fathers meant to give us a constitutional right to run around with guns.

F-Stop how were the colonists going to settle the country without guns? At the time of the Revolution America only extended to the Alleghenies's. How were they supposed to settle all the wilderness from the Alleghenies to the Pacific Ocean? Without guns?

Anyway, lets rationalize this beast a little bit. There is one leg of dispute: war time and resistance, some of that I find rational and there is second leg: peace time and self-defence,

Wars happen faster than one can raise an army. Look what happened to Georgia and their little incident with Russia. What would Poland do? What could Poland do, If Russia decided to invade? A bunch of unarmed citizens who have no background in shooting a gun.
Ironside 50 | 11,061
21 Oct 2010 #138
Well them gun ownership in P-Land is sounding more and more like gun ownership in some of our states, only a little more strict. So what's this talk about legislation then? Peeps just want to ease the restrictions?

well, you may qualify but at the end of a day, decision maker in your case, would decide that your reason for owning a gun are not sufficient and deny you the right !

So, yes peps wants to ease the restriction because policy in that matter is really excluding !
f stop 25 | 2,513
21 Oct 2010 #139
ok, one more time:
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
21 Oct 2010 #140
Those who ignore 'who' commits crimes miss the point about gun ownership. Chicago had the strongest anti gun laws and yet the city had more murders per month than soldiers killed in Iraq. States with the most lenient gun laws have fewer gun crimes.

According to Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute; "In every American city, the disproportionate black illegitimacy rate is matched only by the disproportionate black crime rate. In Chicago, blacks...commit 76% of all homicides, whites....commit 4%. In New York City, blacks...commit 80% of all shootings; whites .....commit less than 2% ... The black illegitimacy rate in New Your is more than 78%; the white illegitimacy rate is 7%. The national rate of homicide commission for black males ...is 10 times higher than that of whites into which category the federal government puts the vast majority of Hispanics [who also have a higher crime rate using weapons].

What does this mean? It's the culture, a large part being young males and females growing up without a father.
trener zolwia 1 | 939
21 Oct 2010 #141
Those who ignore 'who' commits crimes miss the point about gun ownership. Chicago had the strongest anti gun laws and yet the city had more murders per month than soldiers killed in Iraq. States with the most lenient gun laws have fewer gun crimes.

The gun-fearing folks just can't get this through their childish heads. While the grabbers want everyone to pretend it's not true.

According to Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute

Killer stuff, puts in stark terms the racial differences we're dealing with. Funny how this never makes it to print in the mainstream Media... because reality runs counter to their approved racial narrative and endless, misdirected, racial scoldings.

Guns... race... on and on... Libs hate it when you hit them with unassailable facts and stats that run counter to their feelings.

Anyway, without the black problem to deal with like we have over here, I'm sure making guns more available to peeps in P-Land wouldn't bring many problems.
Stu 12 | 522
21 Oct 2010 #142
Funny how you two don't comment on the graph fstop shows. It's obvious, isn't it? In those countries were gun possession is legal, you'll find the highest number of gun deaths. Pure and simple. But that fact is obviously an inconvenient truth for you. If you can't buy guns (or it is prohibitively expense), legally or on the street, you don't have gun deaths. I live in the Netherlands ... look were you find it in the graph. And while you are at it ... look were the US and Switzerland are. Get the drift?
trener zolwia 1 | 939
21 Oct 2010 #143
you two don't comment on the graph fstop shows. It's obvious, isn't it?

No, it's not. As has been explained in this thread and in the real world many times, there is much more to consider in the gun debate than mere 'fire arm deaths'. That's too simplistic.

And what's up with the Swiss being so high on the scale?...
f stop 25 | 2,513
21 Oct 2010 #144
Zimmy, you're just proving that guns should not be so easily available. And, as expected, taking the opportunity to throw in some right wing crap.
Stu 12 | 522
21 Oct 2010 #145
the real world many times

Your "real" world is a little warped, matey. It sure as hell ain't mine. Stop these pathetic discussion techniques! I am too intelligent for that.

There is nothing simplistic about it. Guns means people get shot. Pure and simple. Look at the graph! You need someone to explain it to you?
convex 20 | 3,978
21 Oct 2010 #146
That's true, that's what they're for. But that's not what the debate is about. Most Americans support gun ownership because at the end of the day, they don't trust their government to defend them...neither against people or ahem, the agents of the government itself.
trener zolwia 1 | 939
21 Oct 2010 #147
There is nothing simplistic about it. Guns means people get shot. Pure and simple.

Automobiles kill far more people than guns. Shall we ban them next? Going by your simplistic reasoning we should.
See, it isn't that simple.
Ironside 50 | 11,061
21 Oct 2010 #148
Automobiles kill far more people than guns

but guns are scary and make bang bang !
:D
f stop 25 | 2,513
21 Oct 2010 #150
Most Americans support gun ownership because at the end of the day,

... they are scared. The NRA campagns have them completely brainwashed.


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.