two_zero
Members
- May 9, 2011
- 1,871
- 634
you'd be wise to check that the person you're selling to have a valid defence.... prison sucks, or so I've heard.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Hi Guest. Welcome to the new forums. All of your posts and personal messages have been migrated. Attachments (i.e. images) and The (Old) Classifieds have been wiped.
The old forums will be available for a couple of weeks should you wish to grab old images or classifieds listings content. Go Here
If you have any issues please post about them in the Forum Feedback thread: Go Here
UKARA/VCRA question
- Thread starter Saber6-1
- Start date
Ian_Gere
Retired Moderator
- Apr 1, 2012
- 6,417
- 2,050
It is not the buyer who needs the defence, the defence applies to the seller so long as the gun will be used for airsoft. Yeah, but that is not how it works in practice, right? Nonetheless, that is the law. So, for instance, when UK retailers say that they can only sell 2 tone guns to the parents of under 18's who are airsofters, they are just playing along with the money making scheme which UKARA actually is. In fact a photo of that U18 airsofting would be proof that the gun was intended to be used for airsoft, just not by the purchaser - but the VCRA doesn't say anything about who actually pays for it, only that the RIF must be used for one of the specified exempt purposes, to which airsoft was added under the provision which allows the Secretary of State to add to them.
cavninja
Members
- Jun 21, 2014
- 355
- 273
I think Ian's hit the nail on the head, we don't want any for of legislation for airsofting that is going to lump it in with gun control. Currently, as long as we all do what we love, airsofting at recognised sites,and not running around in public places with RIFs, then I'm pretty sure ACPO and the CPS will let sleeping dogs lay. But it took Dunblane to ban hand guns. I'm not saying that someone will go on a killing spree with an airsoft gun, but if there is a specific high profile incident or series on indcidents, involving airsoft guns, then I'm sure the do-gooders would feel compelled to act.
Our current system may not be perfect, it may be full of holes, it may be easy to circumvent, but it works for us, so let enjoy airsofting! If you're really in to it, then three games over two months is bugger all and you can soon be registered on the UKARA database, if that's what they want, that's what they'll get!
Smile and wave boys, smile and wave!
Our current system may not be perfect, it may be full of holes, it may be easy to circumvent, but it works for us, so let enjoy airsofting! If you're really in to it, then three games over two months is bugger all and you can soon be registered on the UKARA database, if that's what they want, that's what they'll get!
Smile and wave boys, smile and wave!
two_zero
Members
- May 9, 2011
- 1,871
- 634
didn't mention buyer or UKARA
I've taken "alternative" proof of defence when selling^^ but I always do check - not worth breaking the law for a few quidThe law is soo vague on lots of things. I used to work in a hardware store and could not sell knives, bladed items or axes to under 18s, however I could sell an under 18 year old a Balaclava, sledgehammer, pliers and a crowbar without blinking.
I had saws, hole punches, hammers, picks all of which were waaay more dangerous than a Stanley knife and all available to a 16 year old on a apprenticeship or a 17 year old thug..
I had saws, hole punches, hammers, picks all of which were waaay more dangerous than a Stanley knife and all available to a 16 year old on a apprenticeship or a 17 year old thug..
Airsoft_Mr B
Members
- Jul 14, 2013
- 1,794
- 612
This is what happens when you have an uncodified constitution, people don't clearly know their rights and laws and governments can change laws really easily.
Ian_Gere
Retired Moderator
- Apr 1, 2012
- 6,417
- 2,050
Deek
Members
- Aug 11, 2014
- 130
- 70
The EU aren't responsible for you putting a custom made vehicle on the road, this comes down to DVSA (who have replaced VOSA) - this is to make sure the vehicle you intend to run on the road is actually safe for both you and other road users...
Not sure how we would have a second amendment either given Britain does not have a single constitutional document like the US... but this is staring to wander off topic...
Ian_Gere
Retired Moderator
- Apr 1, 2012
- 6,417
- 2,050
We will get a constitution if we want one bad enough. The trouble is that most Brits actively do not want to know enough about politics to understand what a constitution is, let alone why we should want one. Worse, they often become aggressive if you attempt to tell them stuff they don't want to know.
Psychologically it's easy to understand - everyone in the UK knows that the way things are is fucked up, but most of us do not have a clear vision of what would be better, and even those vague ideas of what would be better involve considerable change, and quite apart from the natural post teen reluctance to embrace change which afflicts the majority of humans, let alone adults with children, especially those with something to lose, is the fact that wages in the UK have followed the same trend as in the US and, to only a slightly lesser degree, the entire western post-capitalist/corporate world: down compared to the cost of living. At the same time, despite the likes of Iain Duncan Smith, the safety net offered by the welfare state has become more robust, so that really only those so mentally ill that they cannot access services to which they are entitled end up completely destitute. The combination then is that the difference in income between the poorest and the majority has become more and more compressed, hence even the most minute differences in status symbols have taken on a degree of significance out of all proportion to their value or usefulness.
Subconsciously then, anything which seems to threaten, or even just call into question, the economic status quo, the situation which has provided the finance for the car, the mortgage for the house, the credit rating which allowed the brand name trainers, etc. is treated as a threat to the very core of whom each person is.
Added to this there are many people whose grip on power is extremely tenuous when examined from outside 'the system', even though from inside 'the system', ie from the perspective of those subject to said power, they appear to be unassailable. Be under no illusion that people in power and particularly those who may soon lose it do not employ others and spend a good part of their own working life to simply maintain their position by attempting to prevent change per se: conservative with a small 'c'. Hang on, that's a conspiracy theory, isn't it?
Yes, it is. And the very fact that all 'conspiracy theories' tend to be lumped together in the popular media alongside the wildest ravings of the truly disturbed is itself a product of the very conspiracy I'm talking about! In truth, even if we did not have countless historical examples of conspiracies to gain or hold onto power to guide us, a simple consideration of how many people must be involved to bring about the events which determine who rules countries and that, were it widely known what those people were up to before/whilst they were doing it, their aims would fail*, then we must conclude that when political/economic power is at stake, conspiracies are the norm, not flights of fancy to be given the same weight as the claim that Her Maj is an extraterrestrial lizard. The question is not "is there a conspiracy?", but "how many are there and how are they manipulating my views?" This has been part of civilisation for so long that it famously prompted Cicero to ask, "Cui bono?" (as U2 were still gigging pubs at the time) and we should never forget to ask the same everytime we hear a piece of news.
*for e.g. if Nick Clegg had told the electorate beforehand that he was very open to forming a coalition with the tories, how many Lib Dem voters who are socialists but were angry with Labour over, amongst other things, the lies told about weapons of mass destruction would have still voted Lib Dem? None.
In this country then, to get any change which could lead towards a constitution, we must come at it obliquely, otherwise the conservative machine (with its champion, Rupert "Lord Vader" Murdoch) will squash it, or if the idea cannot be assailed without negative backlash, then personally squash/defame any of us dumb enough to call attention to ourselves as hardcore constitutional reformers, unless we not only have backgrounds completely without interest, but we also have the funds to retain top notch lawyers to sue when we are libelled. I would suggest that the most vulnerable group of those whose power is being partly exercised to simply keep things the way they are is Bishops in the House of Lords. Never mind the idea that if xtians have representation then, for the sake of fairness, other religions ought to have the same...** why should the religious have extra representation at all? They get a vote like anyone else and the reality is that, regardless of what people write on their census forms, the actively religious in the UK are by far and away a tiny minority. And we know this about the largest religion according to the census, xtianity, for a fact ,because even those churches which have not closed down only see large turn outs for weddings, funerals, and televised xmas events (and people may well miss the religious aspects of those services, but would they miss them enough to actually get their wallets out? The evidence suggests that few would.). That is the stick to beat them with...
**Which may appear to be a progressive idea, but is in fact a reactionary wolf in sheep's clothing... it's just that saying so is exactly the sort of thing that will bring you to the attention of the conservative machine, should you ever be in a position to speak publicly on the subject.
Psychologically it's easy to understand - everyone in the UK knows that the way things are is fucked up, but most of us do not have a clear vision of what would be better, and even those vague ideas of what would be better involve considerable change, and quite apart from the natural post teen reluctance to embrace change which afflicts the majority of humans, let alone adults with children, especially those with something to lose, is the fact that wages in the UK have followed the same trend as in the US and, to only a slightly lesser degree, the entire western post-capitalist/corporate world: down compared to the cost of living. At the same time, despite the likes of Iain Duncan Smith, the safety net offered by the welfare state has become more robust, so that really only those so mentally ill that they cannot access services to which they are entitled end up completely destitute. The combination then is that the difference in income between the poorest and the majority has become more and more compressed, hence even the most minute differences in status symbols have taken on a degree of significance out of all proportion to their value or usefulness.
Subconsciously then, anything which seems to threaten, or even just call into question, the economic status quo, the situation which has provided the finance for the car, the mortgage for the house, the credit rating which allowed the brand name trainers, etc. is treated as a threat to the very core of whom each person is.
Added to this there are many people whose grip on power is extremely tenuous when examined from outside 'the system', even though from inside 'the system', ie from the perspective of those subject to said power, they appear to be unassailable. Be under no illusion that people in power and particularly those who may soon lose it do not employ others and spend a good part of their own working life to simply maintain their position by attempting to prevent change per se: conservative with a small 'c'. Hang on, that's a conspiracy theory, isn't it?
Yes, it is. And the very fact that all 'conspiracy theories' tend to be lumped together in the popular media alongside the wildest ravings of the truly disturbed is itself a product of the very conspiracy I'm talking about! In truth, even if we did not have countless historical examples of conspiracies to gain or hold onto power to guide us, a simple consideration of how many people must be involved to bring about the events which determine who rules countries and that, were it widely known what those people were up to before/whilst they were doing it, their aims would fail*, then we must conclude that when political/economic power is at stake, conspiracies are the norm, not flights of fancy to be given the same weight as the claim that Her Maj is an extraterrestrial lizard. The question is not "is there a conspiracy?", but "how many are there and how are they manipulating my views?" This has been part of civilisation for so long that it famously prompted Cicero to ask, "Cui bono?" (as U2 were still gigging pubs at the time) and we should never forget to ask the same everytime we hear a piece of news.
*for e.g. if Nick Clegg had told the electorate beforehand that he was very open to forming a coalition with the tories, how many Lib Dem voters who are socialists but were angry with Labour over, amongst other things, the lies told about weapons of mass destruction would have still voted Lib Dem? None.
In this country then, to get any change which could lead towards a constitution, we must come at it obliquely, otherwise the conservative machine (with its champion, Rupert "Lord Vader" Murdoch) will squash it, or if the idea cannot be assailed without negative backlash, then personally squash/defame any of us dumb enough to call attention to ourselves as hardcore constitutional reformers, unless we not only have backgrounds completely without interest, but we also have the funds to retain top notch lawyers to sue when we are libelled. I would suggest that the most vulnerable group of those whose power is being partly exercised to simply keep things the way they are is Bishops in the House of Lords. Never mind the idea that if xtians have representation then, for the sake of fairness, other religions ought to have the same...** why should the religious have extra representation at all? They get a vote like anyone else and the reality is that, regardless of what people write on their census forms, the actively religious in the UK are by far and away a tiny minority. And we know this about the largest religion according to the census, xtianity, for a fact ,because even those churches which have not closed down only see large turn outs for weddings, funerals, and televised xmas events (and people may well miss the religious aspects of those services, but would they miss them enough to actually get their wallets out? The evidence suggests that few would.). That is the stick to beat them with...
**Which may appear to be a progressive idea, but is in fact a reactionary wolf in sheep's clothing... it's just that saying so is exactly the sort of thing that will bring you to the attention of the conservative machine, should you ever be in a position to speak publicly on the subject.
Similar threads
