DZJ

It would seem to me to work both ways. The prosecution would surely have to prove that any activity was for terrorist purposes in order to secure a conviction under that legislation. I used to be a cadet while I was at school, and so I taught skill at arms and marksmanship, that sort of thing. I think you would be very hard pressed to find a court that would presume that (or any other legitimate firearms training) to be preparatory to terrorism.

I wouldn't worry too much. Part 5 of that legislation states:

I've just got back from my weekend at Langar, so far the news would be: A very cool 16-way competition A new UK POPS record 33-way Lots of Skyvan jumps. Also some minor incidents: 1 reserve pilotchute fire in a Skyvan (fortunately contained) 1 dislocated shoulder in freefall 1 collision between a jumper landing and a jumper on the ground (only minor bruising AFAIK)

Ask me in my next life.

I have a 1917 MkIII* which, like yours is far too elegant to part with. I'm a real history buff, so seeing issue marks on it I can't help speculating about where it might have been. I could probably get 10 - 15 jumps' worth if I sold it, but I can't see myself doing that any time soon. (Interestingly enough, I also have a Canadian 1942 BREN Mk II under my bed which I could conceivably part with, but it's staying put for the time being. It's too iconic of it's period to get rid of on a whim)

Friends of friends of mine are Second World War reenactors and own fully automatic weapons (machine guns like Bren Guns, MG42s and what not) under a Section V firearms certificate. Can't think what photo you're referring to though.

I now know what I want for Christmas!

So who's coming?

Yeah, but I didn't always post in SC (forced back by the inferno, I think).

David Cameron must be gleefully practicing his PM acceptance speech already...

The ability of SC threads to go from one extreme to another continues to amaze...

Maybe I've not made myself clear (and none of this isn't meant as a dig at you in particular) it's just that I often see people trying to infer lessons from history that are questionable at best and perverse at worst. I just feel that such 'lessons' are often so ridiculously politically loaded as to make them almost completely meaningless (Saddam = Hitler strikes me as a particular example). But anyway, I fear we're taking the thread in a wrong direction, so let me say I am inexpressibly grateful to those who fought for what was right in the war of 1939 - 45.

Once again the gap between legality and morality seems particularly wide. (That said, I wonder if there's more to this situation than the article claims)

Thank you for illustrating the point. Given the never before seen carnage of the First World War which, killed, wounded or scarred for life incomprehensible numbers of people, quite how people feel able to criticise post-war politicians for wanting to avoid more of the same is beyond me. Alas, others still seem compelled to make history teach the lessons they want it to, rather than realise that it only teaches such lessons long after they are needed.

The government would reply that they have a track record of responding to legitimate concerns by the general population. Remember that the Dunblane massacre which prompted the 1997 Amendment was conducted with weapons that were legally held on a license that could not be easily revoked. Yes, the resulting legislation was an excessive knee-jerk reaction but was nonetheless not unjustified and met a real public concern. However flawed the legislation, in this case the democratic process quite simply came down on the 'anti' side. Anyhow, the fact remains that at present there is no public clamour, nor government interest in further firearms legislation. Thus I do not find myself particularly concerned by this article or the views of IANSA.

You do know what happened during the First World War, don't you?

Is that such an unreasonable position?

If someone comes to me then I'm happy to lend a hand with information, etc, but I wouldn't book a jump on someone's behalf. Nor would urge someone to jump who just says 'Oh I'd love to do that', because everyone says that if you mention that you skydive.

Cheeky bugger! (Nice pointing? At what?)

Background to that interview?

You said it yourself: The anti-gun folks think there is something wrong with law-abiding people, who have been vetted by police, owning guns for sport. That idea frightens them... They think that these law-abiding people will shoot their spouses in domestic disputes, and that their guns will be stolen by criminals. In order to eliminate those possibilities, they would prefer that even law-abiding people not be allowed to own guns. Do you agree with that? No, I don't agree with that (though their concern seem reasonable), but I still don't see a problem. The IANSA (a group I'd not even heard of until this article) are not in a position to dictate policy while as your article points out, an apparently rising number of people stand to oppose them. With them stand other bodies like the National Rifle Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Countryside Alliance and a range of other shooting sport organisations. Now, if the people seeking still tigher firearms legislation were, say, the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, or the Labour Party, I would be concerned. From this particular article however, I see just a continuing debate between pros and antis.

What about diving-for-cover classes for, well, everyone?

Forgive me, but I fail to see any problem with that article. An apparent rise in legal firearm ownership and certification. The anti-gunners that you so despise complain (even while conceding "It's totally possible every single rifle has been carefully justified") and pro-gunners explain the rise through sport and pest control. The police comment on their rigorous checking of applications. Where's the issue?

I did, and as far as I can see, the question I put to you is still hanging unanswered.

Ducking the question already? I was expecting at least one irrelevant and misquoted tabloid newspaper article first!