Inside your home you can have machete,axes, spears , hammrs, guns,etc. to protect yourself. You can buy extendable batons from collectors shops. like real ones.
I think the loophole is you call them collectables. Which means you cant carry down the street but surely you would hit a home invader in the head with one.
In your yard you can carry machete,axes, hamemrs,etc. pretend you are a handyman looking for jobs to do as your alibi as you check the perimeter.
In cars the wheel lock on the passenger sid with a hammer fist strike out the window is probably the most legal.
Down the street it is more difficult. we cant carry guns down the street in ccw zones as easily or legally. You can carry an unbreakable umbrella. I think you might be able to get a cheaper version of it at lowes for $30. The original costs 200$ but imo if you carry an umbrella someone is less likely to punch you in the mouth and give you dental bills of over $200. You can carry sharpened pencils, pens, hard boots, torches if you are out at night. a small metal torch maybe in your pocket during the day. You could also carry a tennis racquet and pretend you are always en route the tennis court or you like to practice your swing as you go for a walk. You can also wear chunky rings. Also iif you got a crew of men all walking around in boots and umbrellas it woudl be even better.
Think they're just venting and pointing out the obvious that law abiding citizens can't protect themselves in what's becoming a very vicious world, other then in their own homes, which in some staes or in any if under iffy circumstances can still put you in jail?
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
You guys are luckier than us (Brits). About all we can use to protect ourselves is a heavy weight flashlight. (& then only "Accidentally" hit someone whilst defending yourself from actual physical assault). Using a baseball bat to defend yourself, even in your home, might be construed as utilising "excessive force", especially if you have no history of ever having played baseball!
I'd use a bat and then by the time the cops got there I'd be holding that flashlight or something else after I'd hit them with it a few times to make it look like what I used...
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
I'd use a bat and then by the time the cops got there I'd be holding that flashlight or something else after I'd hit them with it a few times to make it look like what I used...
Now how about an axe, then by the time the cops show up you be holding a lawn mower blade and say, "I swear officer (or is it Constable?).. he did it to himself!"
Another good one is, "I swear to drunk I'm not god ossifer"... or, "Ossifer, ossifer, I promise there is no blood in my alchol", or "Ossifer, ossifer, I locked my car in my keys.. can you help me out"?
Now how about an axe, then by the time the cops show up you be holding a lawn mower blade and say, "I swear officer (or is it Constable?).. he did it to himself!"
Another good one is, "I swear to drunk I'm not god ossifer"... or, "Ossifer, ossifer, I promise there is no blood in my alchol", or "Ossifer, ossifer, I locked my car in my keys.. can you help me out"?
No good with the lawn mower blade, not a blade of grass at this house, concrete, green & blue paint..........guys flying over think I've got a pool!
Yeah, your right, it's "Ossifer" or "cuntstable". (but most of them are not too bad, they spend more time in the Real world that the Judiciary do!!)
baseball bat and have a 2x4 or larger and smack em up with it a few times. I guess that'd work. What about Cricket bats?
It's all about Pre-meditation...........Inside your own house you might get away with hitting someone with a cricket bat but outside, unless you've just returned from playing cricket, forget it. Going outside, armed with anything other than a flashlight, means you already had the intention to use force!!
I spent four years stationed in England and it was bazaar to live in a country where your rights to protect yourself were so narrowly defined/restricted by the government...so, I understand the sentiments expressed by Impro. It's a bloody frightful situation to be in, in some areas of that country, which requires unusual measures to protect yourself.
Just seeing a bobby with a firearm was very unusual. Carrying a big torch, MagLight, would be my solution...along with some good steel-toed boots.
Ah now I understand. That shit needs to change. I call for the repeal of any and all laws restricting teh right to self-defense as well as the repeal of all gun control, NOW.
Yea, right...in England the authorities, and many of the citizenry, are in a hyper-panacea to heal the nation and its people of all perceived ills associated with weapons...of any kind. It's a very tough sell over there to loosen up any of their obnoxiously restrictive laws...so people can exercise their right and have the means to protect themselves.
Last edited by LiveToShoot; 06-09-2008 at 05:35 AM.
In some things the Brits are ahead in others the Americans are ahead. We are well ahead in restrictions of rights and possession of firearms but you guys are catching up fast. That's why I always stress that all fireams owners should be members of an organisation which will fight for your rights and to always vote at all elections! The Brits were always too conservative & blazé about standing up for their firearms rights and got chit on by the godamned liberal politicos bowing down to a vocal minority such as the Antis! (Anti this, anti-that, anti cruel sports, anti guns, anti nuke, anti etc.etc.etc.!!)
Yea, right...in England the authorities, and many of the citizenry, are in a hyper-panacea to heal the nation and its people of all perceived ills associated with weapons...of any kind. It's a very tough sell over there to loosen up any of their obnoxiously restrictive laws...so people can exercise their right and have the means to protect themselves.
Almost right LTS,
Except the people in that country are subjects, not citizens.
In America, WE are citizens.
Technically we are both subjects to the Crown and also citizens!
Ya, I know. I was just jerking your chain. We had some folks from over there come in and adjust some equipment. They were here about 6 weeks and we had a ball at work picking on each other. Well and after work too. Those folks loved their beers.
Ya, I know. I was just jerking your chain. We had some folks from over there come in and adjust some equipment. They were here about 6 weeks and we had a ball at work picking on each other. Well and after work too. Those folks loved their beers.
Yeah, for some reason most of us Brits enjoy our beer!!.
Actually it got a lot more complicated in 1983 I believe. Quote from Wiki, if you can believe it:
On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen.
The use of the term "British subject" was discontinued for all persons who fell into these categories, or who had a national citizenship of any other part of the Commonwealth. The category of "British subjects" now includes only those people formerly known as "British subjects without citizenship", and no other. In statutes passed before 1 January 1983, however, references to "British subjects" continue to be read as if they referred to "Commonwealth citizens".
British citizens are not British subjects under the 1981 Act. The only circumstance where a person may be both a British subject and British citizen simultaneously is a case where a British subject connected with Ireland (s. 31 of the 1981 Act) acquires British citizenship by naturalisation or registration. In this case only, British subject status is not lost upon acquiring British citizenship.
The status of British subject cannot now be transmitted by descent, and will become extinct when all existing British subjects are dead.
