Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

[Web Rider]

Point is, it's better to receive training in self-defense than to simply brandish a gun.

 

I disagree. Self-defense teaches exactly that, self defense. Assuming the person is only after you're valuables, it quickly raises the legal question: why did you attempt to use force to stop them, if you weren't threatened. Of sure there's an argument for "well they might become a threat" but unless you're President, the "pre-emptive strike" argument tends to fall flat.

 

Fact of the matter is, to incapacitate someone invading your home, even when trained in self-defense(assuming we're talking some sort of martial arts here), requires a high level of skill, or a strong desire to hurt the person. Either of which can put the defender in jail or under the microscope of the law to find out exactly why you went to such lengths. Since the law clearly fails to understand that a single kick is unlikely to stop an invader.

 

A gun on the other hand, succeeds in that area of "lack of training". People who are well-versed in guns will generally tend to not use them. They are aware that the threat of a gun is greater than it's use. However, for everyone else, you have the argument "he was in my home, I grabbed my gun, and shot." And it plays right into that lack of know-how. You are not well versed with it enough for people to be able to say "you should have known better!"

 

Sadly, this is because it's not so simple as to just kick the invader's butt and have them run away. In some places, the law works fine just like that. In other places, it's not so simple. Guns leave a wide variety of forensic evidence that allow investigators to find out if you actually shot Invader-Man in your home, or if you shot him outside and drug him in. Self-defense however, does not. There is no evidence left(assuming you don't beat him to a bloody pulp), that you actually were defending yourself inside your home.

 

I agree people should get self-defense training(in a non-military-lead manner), and that people should be required to annually or bi-annually submit to gun-use and gun-safety tests if they own one(or more)(though in the US that will raise 2nd Amdenment questions). But then, the people invading homes are people would would probably take these classes as well. There is no greater guarantee that knowing kung-fu would give you any advantage over an invader who also knows some form of martial arts. While guns can be acquired illegally, they are still expensive, even more so illegally, and they are an expense that many robbers do not take. As well, if the invader owns the gun legally, it can be easily traced. Where a person learned karate from cannot.

 

So, while I agree that people need to be trained to defend themselves better, I think that there is great value in "brandishing" a gun in self defense. Particularly within your own home. An invader may or may not be scared of any supposed "martial skill", but they can recognize a gun, and they know what it can do. Some guy in a funny pose threatening to "kick his ass" if he doesn't leave, that's a bluff people will readily call.

[Tommycat]

@Web Rider: Not to mention anyone can claim to know 17 forms of martial arts. Few know them. But the racking of a pump action shotgun makes it pretty obvious that you have a deadly weapon and it's ready to use.

[Web Rider]

@Web Rider: Not to mention anyone can claim to know 17 forms of martial arts. Few know them. But the racking of a pump action shotgun makes it pretty obvious that you have a deadly weapon and it's ready to use.

 

Exactly, not to mention that in this day and age, knowing some form of "martial arts" is "cool" and "hip" and lots of people who know none of them often claim to know some. See: Napoleon Dynamite.

[Darth Avlectus]

And how many first time people shooters have the skill or nerve to shoot from down a hallway?

 

...yet going back some...

 

As for criminals thinking twice about shooting, wrong, as criminals tend to live by a do or die ideal. Not to mention they'll have less hesitation in killing someone than the average citizen.

 

 

If they live by do or die ideals, they don't care and ought to have all the nerve in the world to muster--even against all reason. If they are lacking in nerve and resolve then they will hesitate.

 

It can't be both ways at once.

 

Which is where the whole surprise attack part comes in to play. Not saying it's a matter of every time, but then neither is reacting to gun violence with more gun violence.

 

Neither is close range martial arts or melee effective all the time either. Neither is waiting for the cops every time. Neither is surrender always viable.

With so many unknowns, we can't know exactly.

 

 

 

Point is, it's better to receive training in self-defense than to simply brandish a gun.

 

Part of self defense is about perception, deception, and intimately knowing that which you will combat. Self defense against guns requires the subject to be familiar with them in all aspects which would include usage against another armed with the same.

 

You aren't the only one, BTW, who has had contact with law enforcement--and an uneasy relationship at the same time.

[Tommycat]

Haha its been that way for a long time. Heck even when I was in elementary everyone "knew" Karate.

 

Add on top of it that many people actually ARE in some form of training for some random MMA competition, even knowing some form or another isn't protection. An 80 year old gramma isn't going to be able to take on a guy that's been training for <insert local MMA competition>. The gun is an equalizer. The gramma can point a shotgun in the general direction of someone breakin into her home a lot easier than she could beat him down.

 

Oh and at least one recent story

Shotgun blasts stop home invasion

This is the type of crime I advocate having a firearm as defense against. Again, it doesn't exactly justify having a Barrett .50 cal or SAW. BUT it lends credence to ownership.

 

The 50 cals I have are for hunting rabbits What... You don't hunt rabbits with .50 cal Armor Piercing Incendiary rounds?

[jonathan7]

This has been said about the rapper culture for years in America. Interesting.

 

It's a lyric from a UK song of the same name; "Guns don't kill people, rappers do!" Unfortunately the lyrics are not appropriate for a PG-13 Forum, so couldn't post a link to the song.

 

Quite frankly I'm highly amused how the American contingent has managed to this into a discussion about how they should be allowed guns and how it's effective against burglary.

 

Perhaps so, but as this thread is about UK and not America, I'm not quite sure how the point is pertinent. Suffice to say, from a statistical standpoint the UK is a far safer society to live in you are statistically less likely to be murdered, robbed and burgled. (Though, I still prefer the States to here... Not entirely sure I count though, as some of my American friends have commented that I'm a "closet American"). Regardless the statistics don't lie, the opposite question is also, does having a fire-arm give a burglar added confidence in committing his crime?

 

Generally I find your point that having guns equalises things spurious, A shot gun is a big weapon and not easily manoeuvred especially as old age weakens an individual, and is hardly an ideal weapon for indoors combat.

 

I spent two years living in the poorest estate in the UK - various people there had guns, indeed one of the main drug dealers lived on my street and his house was raided at least 5 times by armed police.

 

Regardless however, I never had any problems, nor did the elderly couple who lived next door. Neither of us had guns and we coped just find. I again also am amused that guns are an "equaliser" someone training in fire arms is going to be an awful lot more proficient with a gun than someone who just owns one. The fact is guns still take a lot of skill to use (even shot guns) and they just increase the lethality factor.

 

If the majority of Americans want guns that's cool, but you do frankly keep throwing out some considerably silly arguments.

 

For instance having guns to keep the government in check? Seriously, do you really think with today's military the American people could stop them? If you do you have been watching far too many films. This entirely ignores the fact that prior to Nazi Germany all Germans were allowed guns, and further more peaceful protests have always proved far more effective than violent ones. And you don't need weapons to scare governments - just ask the French government about lorry drivers.

[JediAthos]

I will say this...I live in America...and I own a gun. I bought it while I was in the military primarily because I like to target shoot at the gun range, and while I hope it never comes to it, but if it ever helps me defend my family and home then great.

 

At the same time, frankly, if I was told some day that firearms were no longer legal to own in this country and everyone had to turn their weapons into the police I don't know that I'd be upset either. If that makes me "unamerican"(which is a ridiculous term in the first place) then so be it. I am of the opinion that there is too much armed violence in this country and there are several incidents that could and have been pointed to in this thread that support my opinion and of course there is the most recent tragedy at Fort Hood as well.

 

@original topic: I understand that this gentleman exercised extremely poor judgment...and that he broke the law..but I do still think that 5 years in jail is a bit much. I would say perhaps 1 year would be more along the lines of what I would give him, but then I don't live in the U.K. and I'm not the judge

[ForeverNight]

Quite frankly I'm highly amused how the American contingent has managed to this into a discussion about how they should be allowed guns and how it's effective against burglary

 

Which is why I've stayed out of the discussion. As an American I would've ended up joining in that, well, the first part at least.

 

Anyway, yeah, the guy was stupid to bring it in w/o declaring it, but I don't think that is deserving of a minimum of 5 years. I just think that the law is stupid if a guy can earn a minimum of 5 years in jail/prison for just possessing a firearm for ~a day afte finding it in his yard w/ intent to turn it in.

 

But, well, I'm not able to influence the decision, just jeer from the sidelines w/o knowing everything.

 

....Still think it's a stupid law ...

[Ping]

Wow, I actually agree with everything j7 said, and yet, I'm American (that must make me a "closet Britain" ). Some of the gun arguments are very silly. To keep the government in check? Really? I doubt a bunch of shotgun and rifle toting citizens with little or no combat training could take on a government. And look at the plus side to not having guns. Last time I was in England (I visited England about two or three years ago, so this stat probably isn't that accurate) I learned that the homicide rate in London was eight a year. Eight. And now look at the homicide rate in America. Way higher. Why? Because of guns.

[Web Rider]

Quite frankly I'm highly amused how the American contingent has managed to this into a discussion about how they should be allowed guns and how it's effective against burglary.

I'm highly amused at how the Brits keep letting their government take away their rights, but you don't see me ragging on it.

 

Perhaps so, but as this thread is about UK and not America, I'm not quite sure how the point is pertinent. Suffice to say, from a statistical standpoint the UK is a far safer society to live in you are statistically less likely to be murdered, robbed and burgled. (Though, I still prefer the States to here... Not entirely sure I count though, as some of my American friends have commented that I'm a "closet American"). Regardless the statistics don't lie, the opposite question is also, does having a fire-arm give a burglar added confidence in committing his crime?

I believe it is Stalin who gave us the wonderful quote about statistics and tragedies. If we keep reducing people to numbers, then life is irrelevant. A million dead in China? Who cares, there's a million more in India who were just born. I'd like to see those statistics BTW.

 

Generally I find your point that having guns equalises things spurious, A shot gun is a big weapon and not easily manoeuvred especially as old age weakens an individual, and is hardly an ideal weapon for indoors combat.

You're thinking of a rifle-style shotgun. Shorter shotguns, which are readily available, are very easy to maneuver. Besides, guns are really a point-and-click weapon, you're not going to have awesome matrix-meets-rambo vs the terminator moves while trying to get a guy out of your home. The likelyhood is that neither of you know how to do that and you're going to take the cowboy route and step into plain sight and shoot. "indoors combat" is something trained professionals do, not homeowners and sub-par burglar.

 

Regardless however, I never had any problems, nor did the elderly couple who lived next door. Neither of us had guns and we coped just find. I again also am amused that guns are an "equaliser" someone training in fire arms is going to be an awful lot more proficient with a gun than someone who just owns one. The fact is guns still take a lot of skill to use (even shot guns) and they just increase the lethality factor.

The argument "I never had any problems...." is not a good one. It only means YOU didn't have any problems.

 

If the majority of Americans want guns that's cool, but you do frankly keep throwing out some considerably silly arguments.

Most arguments are silly. It's generally just contradiction.

 

For instance having guns to keep the government in check? Seriously, do you really think with today's military the American people could stop them?

Would NOT having them make the situation better? I don't think a karate-chop is going to stop a soldier any more than some redneck's 9-mil.

 

If you do you have been watching far too many films.

We do have Hollywood after all.

 

 

This entirely ignores the fact that prior to Nazi Germany all Germans were allowed guns, and further more peaceful protests have always proved far more effective than violent ones.

Goodwin's Law, sorry. You've just invalidated your argument. Seriously, kidding. And what was the first thing the Nazi's did after taking over? take all the guns away. Nazi Germany was in a serious depression, and most people living there voted FOR the Nazi party. They really did believe that they would help pull Germany out of it's hole. And to some degree, they did, only to dig it deeper later. The people were not in a position to organize much less fight, not to mention that WWI which took place barely a decade earlier, had obliterated most of the male population(from young to old), and women weren't trained in the use of firearms. In short: bad comparison.

[Darth Avlectus]

It's a lyric from a UK song of the same name; "Guns don't kill people, rappers do!" Unfortunately the lyrics are not appropriate for a PG-13 Forum, so couldn't post a link to the song.

 

I thought you were being more serious than just a song.

(one type of sarcasm misses another )

 

Perhaps so, but as this thread is about UK and not America, I'm not quite sure how the point is pertinent.

Which is why I have kept away from how it works for Americans.

 

Suffice to say, from a statistical standpoint the UK is a far safer society to live in you are statistically less likely to be murdered, robbed and burgled.

I never disputed it.

 

Something on the order of we can live with it.

 

(Though, I still prefer the States to here... Not entirely sure I count though, as some of my American friends have commented that I'm a "closet American").

What? Odd. You never really struck me as such, and on occasion you seem more a proud Englishman that you are not American.

 

Regardless the statistics don't lie, the opposite question is also, does having a fire-arm give a burglar added confidence in committing his crime?

Depends on the burglar in question. Some don't need a gun to be deadly as they have the art of "shanking" down quite well.

 

Generally I find your point that having guns equalises things spurious, A shot gun is a big weapon and not easily manoeuvred especially as old age weakens an individual, and is hardly an ideal weapon for indoors combat.

My point? Shotguns are big, but where did I specifically ever say anything about a shotgun here? I reiterate your laws work for you so you probably are just fine there. Since handguns are far more maneuverable but illegal there in the UK, then I guess that's just the way for your people.

 

That you aren't really saying America needs to ban guns anyway, yet I'm not sure why you keep implicitly pointing in the direction of this particular subdebate. Or are you trying to avoid admission of guilt to derailing a thread and goading Americans to cover your tracks?

 

I spent two years living in the poorest estate in the UK - various people there had guns, indeed one of the main drug dealers lived on my street and his house was raided at least 5 times by armed police.

 

Really? The police actually cared enough to respond in a timely manner? (I'm being serious, too.) There's some places in America where the police come hours later if at all. Sounds like they were coming primarily just for the guns, and drugs only being the cover story.

 

Just b/c they are drug dealers does not necessarily make them violent. Paranoid, yes, but if they are reasonably rational and they get no threat from you, they typically leave you alone unless you want to do business.

 

And the Poorest? I wonder. Was where you were living largely without power and running water? (Heat being an optional luxury, yes that includes for water). Was all of the living quarters indoors or is some of it outside? Were there walls uninsulated and/or falling away? Leaks? (Just comparing 'poorest' from one area's definition to another and yet still another.)

 

If the majority of Americans want guns that's cool, but you do frankly keep throwing out some considerably silly arguments. For instance having guns to keep the government in check? Seriously, do you really think with today's military the American people could stop them?

 

If you do you have been watching far too many films.

 

If it's really cool, then you shouldn't care one way or the other. I'm not sure what everyone else here keeps pounding on this whole thing for, 'if it were in America' though. Since it was about the UK.

 

As they say "let the chips fall where they may", that is about the extent of the government's care for people who live out in the middle of nowhere. Or I guess in the middle of "floodsville". Think hurricane Katrina for modern example. Government who can't (or won't) reach out to you, and after a while doesn't care about saving/punishing you (whatever your predicament) means fending for yourself. So what if out in the boonies we have guns? They want to take that away? That's just flexing its muscles--screw that.

 

I'll admit other gun enthusiasts are perhaps a little whacky in the instance of keeping the government in check. Then again with so many laws and political correctness, it's a wonder the military can do anything at all sometimes.

 

Anachronistic types and gun advocates are more of the attitude that should the government become fascist, they won't care what happens to us. We wouldn't fight toe to toe with them, that'd just be suicide. More let it starve and collapse upon itself. It'd be more about attrition and survival. Granted, most people are not myself, living out in the middle of bum-freaking nowhere. Just saying for what validity I can recognize even if it is not across the board. While most people are too tame to be this (your point is well taken) that doesn't mean nobody is this either.

[Web Rider]

And look at the plus side to not having guns. Last time I was in England (I visited England about two or three years ago, so this stat probably isn't that accurate) I learned that the homicide rate in London was eight a year. Eight. And now look at the homicide rate in America. Way higher. Why? Because of guns.

 

It isn't. And really, to be fair to BOTH nations, it's hard to compare them. The US has empty space larger than the entire United Kingdom. It's hard to police all that, and the police are often under-funded and over-worked. Though to be honest, it's difficult to balance a police force large enough to be effective, without having them being so big that everyone feels like they are under surveillance.

 

According to this article: http://www.londonnet.co.uk/news/2009/mar/london-murder-rate-not-going.html the number stands at 170 for London as of 2008.

According this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/04/25/2009-04-25_city_crime_still_falling.html New York City was at 116 as of 2008.

 

I am unclear if either article refers to London proper or NYC proper(somewhat smaller population), however, as you can see, there is either a lack of reporting, or an actual drop in crime. Probably a bit of both. In any case, the numbers are rather close.

[jonathan7]

....Still think it's a stupid law ...

 

No-ones really disputing the fact the wording of the law need to be changed, or that this is a silly case

 

Wow, I actually agree with everything j7 said, and yet, I'm American (that must make me a "closet Britain" ). Some of the gun arguments are very silly. To keep the government in check? Really? I doubt a bunch of shotgun and rifle toting citizens with little or no combat training could take on a government. And look at the plus side to not having guns. Last time I was in England (I visited England about two or three years ago, so this stat probably isn't that accurate) I learned that the homicide rate in London was eight a year. Eight. And now look at the homicide rate in America. Way higher. Why? Because of guns.

 

It depends what you classify as London, and as WR has pointed out, the homicide rates of London and New York are similar - though, I imagine if you took areas like Harlem and Croydon out of the survey the number of murders would vastly going down.

 

I'm highly amused at how the Brits keep letting their government take away their rights, but you don't see me ragging on it.

 

What rights? I had a meeting with my MP about erosion of civil liberties, on the other hand, I don't think owning a gun is a right I need.

 

I believe it is Stalin who gave us the wonderful quote about statistics and tragedies. If we keep reducing people to numbers, then life is irrelevant. A million dead in China? Who cares, there's a million more in India who were just born. I'd like to see those statistics BTW.

 

Statistics show more than that, and I stated my point that if you want guns that's your decision, but spare NRA arguments about how it reduces deaths.

 

You're thinking of a rifle-style shotgun. Shorter shotguns, which are readily available, are very easy to maneuver. Besides, guns are really a point-and-click weapon, you're not going to have awesome matrix-meets-rambo vs the terminator moves while trying to get a guy out of your home. The likelyhood is that neither of you know how to do that and you're going to take the cowboy route and step into plain sight and shoot. "indoors combat" is something trained professionals do, not homeowners and sub-par burglar.

 

I'm not an expert in guns, however it seems a matter of logical course to me that a young person with gun, is going to be more proficient in using and weilding it, than an elderly grandma, as per an earlier example.

 

The argument "I never had any problems...." is not a good one. It only means YOU didn't have any problems.

 

Why not? I've seen an awful lot of apparent talk of gangs wielding guns, by individuals I doubt have walked in many rough streets.

 

Would NOT having them make the situation better? I don't think a karate-chop is going to stop a soldier any more than some redneck's 9-mil.

 

Why is it you think I'm advocating violence at all? I would pretty much better if there was a civilian peaceful protest the military would not fire live rounds at them. Where as I'm pretty sure if a bunch of red-necks started shooting at the military, there would only be one result. Indeed it seems to me that peaceful protest has achieved a considerably amount more than armed protest. Especially over the course of the latter 20th century.

 

Goodwin's Law, sorry. You've just invalidated your argument. Seriously, kidding. And what was the first thing the Nazi's did after taking over? take all the guns away. Nazi Germany was in a serious depression, and most people living there voted FOR the Nazi party. They really did believe that they would help pull Germany out of it's hole. And to some degree, they did, only to dig it deeper later. The people were not in a position to organize much less fight, not to mention that WWI which took place barely a decade earlier, had obliterated most of the male population(from young to old), and women weren't trained in the use of firearms. In short: bad comparison.

 

Perhaps, you'd like to review history; the Nazi's didn't ammend the gun control act until 1938 - which in actuality reduced a lot of the regulation and it's basic terms only lowered the age you could own a weapon, introduced permits, and as with pretty much all Nazi legislation being horrifically predictable didn't allow the Jews fire arms. That's all the Gun act really did; so I fail to see how that undermines my point.

 

Furthermore Germany lost 15% of it's male population because of World War 1, and while a significant figure, I wouldn't say that had obliterated Germanies Male population.

 

What? Odd. You never really struck me as such, and on occasion you seem more a proud Englishman that you are not American.

 

Please do NOT ever call me English! I am WELSH! And trust me, I am not "proud" of Britain, I am more than anything a citizen of the world.

 

That you aren't really saying America needs to ban guns anyway, yet I'm not sure why you keep implicitly pointing in the direction of this particular subdebate. Or are you trying to avoid admission of guilt to derailing a thread and goading Americans to cover your tracks?

 

I am not guilty of anything, nor am I guilty of derailing a thread. Perhaps you'd care to review the start of the thread to see where it "went wrong".

 

I've already stated that I don't think a gun ban would work in America due to the number of guns already in the system. Nor have I attacked American legislation, aside from pointing out, you may well need some reform. Some of your fellow Americans kicked this all off; I have merely provided evidence against the position that guns = freedom; which I entirely disagree with, or that citizens need guns to "scare their government".

 

Really? The police actually cared enough to respond in a timely manner? (I'm being serious, too.) There's some places in America where the police come hours later if at all. Sounds like they were coming primarily just for the guns, and drugs only being the cover story.

 

I can't comment on American police responce times, and I dare say as Sherlock Holmes once did "I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". So I don't think you can have anything to say about British police motives in going in there.

 

And the Poorest? I wonder. Was where you were living largely without power and running water? (Heat being an optional luxury, yes that includes for water). Was all of the living quarters indoors or is some of it outside? Were there walls uninsulated and/or falling away? Leaks? (Just comparing 'poorest' from one area's definition to another and yet still another.)

 

I used the word "Estate" - to clarify that is "Council Estate" - which is government provided housing, and some of the houses did have the above issues with them. (We didn't run heating during the winter as we couldn't afford it).

 

If it's really cool, then you shouldn't care one way or the other. I'm not sure what everyone else here keeps pounding on this whole thing for, 'if it were in America' though. Since it was about the UK.

 

Why on earth do you equate anything of what I said relating to America. How many times do I have to state America is a democracy and your free to have guns if you want them?

 

As they say "let the chips fall where they may", that is about the extent of the government's care for people who live out in the middle of nowhere. Or I guess in the middle of "floodsville". Think hurricane Katrina for modern example. Government who can't (or won't) reach out to you, and after a while doesn't care about saving/punishing you (whatever your predicament) means fending for yourself. So what if out in the boonies we have guns? They want to take that away? That's just flexing its muscles--screw that.

 

Here, you don't have to fend for yourself, and the UK governmental response is pretty good in when responding to disasters. I don't know enough about Katrina to comment.

 

It isn't. And really, to be fair to BOTH nations, it's hard to compare them. The US has empty space larger than the entire United Kingdom. It's hard to police all that, and the police are often under-funded and over-worked. Though to be honest, it's difficult to balance a police force large enough to be effective, without having them being so big that everyone feels like they are under surveillance.

 

Agreed, my only points are that more guns in circulation means you will have more deaths, and that citizens do not need to be armed to be "empowered"; a well informed citizen, is a far more dangerous weapon against tyranny than an armed one.

 

According to this article: http://www.londonnet.co.uk/news/2009/mar/london-murder-rate-not-going.html the number stands at 170 for London as of 2008.

According this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/04/25/2009-04-25_city_crime_still_falling.html New York City was at 116 as of 2008.

 

I am unclear if either article refers to London proper or NYC proper(somewhat smaller population), however, as you can see, there is either a lack of reporting, or an actual drop in crime. Probably a bit of both. In any case, the numbers are rather close.

 

I'd imagine the numbers would be pretty close; and it does depend on the jurisdictions you take as to what are the city limits. NYC has done a wonderful job over the last 20 years of cleaning it streets up, and I dare say the NYPD has played a large role in that.

 

However if you refer to some of my earlier posts I had posted homicide rates; and the U.S. has the highest of any Western Nation.

[Totenkopf]

No-ones..........Western Nation.

 

Just two things, really. One, you might understand had you been a German jew circa the 1930s. You might have died anyway, but you'd probably have made them pay for your life rather than died in a camp. Also, we're a republic and NOT a democracy (otherwise, your point is basically taken). Seems a lot of these posts could be pruned and put into a thread about the effects.....good and/or bad....of gun ownership.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Just two things, really. One, you might understand had you been a German jew circa the 1930s. You might have died anyway, but you'd probably have made them pay for your life rather than died in a camp. Also, we're a republic and NOT a democracy (otherwise, your point is basically taken). Seems a lot of these posts could be pruned and put into a thread about the effects.....good and/or bad....of gun ownership.

i will remember this in case hitler comes back from the dead and revives the 3rd reich, thanks

 

hitler thought he could impose his final solution on god's chosen people..... this march, one man will prove him wrong..... this march, sylvester stallone is...... rambostein

[Totenkopf]

@Bart--There was more than 1 Jew in Germany in the 30s, so 10s-100s of thousands of armed Jews would have been a considerable headache for the Nazis. Then again, maybe you're the type that would prefer passively walking to your doom rather than stand up for yourself.

[mimartin]

Yes, there was more than one Jew, but owning a simple hunting rifle or pistol would not have stop a Tank.

 

Everyone back on topic or the next time I post here will not be pleasant for any of us.