There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]Sifu wrote:

Again you are late to the party because I have already thoroughly disproved the idea that glassing isn’t widespread in Britain. There are over 5000 glassings a year in Britain. When I did my research for the thread below I just concentrated on young women who were glassed and I found incidents all over the country including areas I would consider to be nice, like Mayfair or just outside Bath. So it is time for Capn’ cut-n-paste to give you a mere taste of what I covered in that thread.
[/quote]

Which just goes to show how little you know about the UK. Mayfair has some dodgy areas, even in the nice areas you have issues due to lots of out of towners, stag parties, birthday parties etc which means boozed up idiots trying to prove themselves in the big city.

And saying just outside Bath is a nice area is ludicrous, there are lots of places ‘just outside Bath.’ Some are really nice, some are fucking horrible.

222

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is a real good example of what is wrong with Britain not only do they not have the right to keep and bear arms, they don’t have freedom of speech. Look at this bullshit, these poor people were arrested and are facing criminal charges for saying something which is true. This is why America has the second amendment, so people can speak the truth freely without fear of reprisal from their government.

“A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.
Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments.”

“It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.”
[/quote]

Alternatively you could wait until there is an outcome to the trial before passing judgement. Perhaps they were threatening, perhaps they weren’t, reporting it before the case comes to court is solely designed to stir up the knuckle grazers. Seems to have worked huh?

223

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
orion wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, in the context of the sentence, when used in conjunction with “a well regulated militia…”, it becomes less obvious that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow universal gun ownership to all citizens.

What people do you think it’s referring to? It certainly says nothing about qualifications. It just says the people have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

The term “the people” can be interepreted as the collective body of persons. If it had said “all persons” have the right to keep and bear arms then that would imply universal ownership. As it is written, it seems to me to refer to the right of the collective to form a WELL REGULATED militia that has the right to the instruments of war.
This does not say that every Tom, Dick, and Harry have the right to handguns. It also doesn’t mention anything about gun ownership for self defense.

It is a pre-amble:

Fish can swim, birds can fly, pancakes rule supreme, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You might also notice that those “people” are not given that right by anyone, it already exists and it shall not be infringed by the US government.

Given the Lockean nature of the US constitution that is really the only interpretation that makes sense, what you are doing is grasping for straws.

In any legal document the exact wording, punctuation, and phrasing are important to determining the intent of statement. It cannot be dismissed as preamble. The fact that the second amendment starts with “A well regulated militia…” and lacks the specificity “person” is important to determining the intent of the statement as a whole.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the Constitution, I’m just making the argument that the second amendment has been interpreted different ways by people of different political leanings. To be viewed a legal dogma is shortsighted. This makes the discussion about universal gun ownership open to anyone who wishes to demonstrate their position with facts. To simply assert that it’s your second amendment right and case closed only shows that you cannot defend yourself with logic and reason.[/quote]

It also avoids the question of whether a well armed militia is still needed in the modern US.

224

[quote]Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?

You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to carry a weapon. They typically weigh much less than your wife.

Is that your idea of a rebuttal? You are comparing an adult woman to a 3 year old child.

I feel like I have to give you an example to show how retarded your argument is: I claim an adult woman should be allowed to have sex. Your reply “You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to have sex.”

No wonder push won’t give you the time of day.

This is typical of what people from the commonwealth come up with. Since they can’t support their ideology with logic they resort to histrionics. They come up with ridiculous scenarios and ludicrous exagerations.

What he is demonstrating is brain washing. I can guarantee you that if you were to put him in a room with Cockney Blue some, other Brits and some Australians they they could go back and forth for hours making the most absurd suggestions and it would make complete sense to them to be asking ridiculous questions about scenarios that are completely unrealistic.

Histrionics must be a new word that you’ve learned recently. This from a guy who just posted a ridiculously long list of glassing incidents in the UK to support his statement. You are a hypocrite.

Do a google search for histrionics, Sifu, CockneyBlue, you will see I have used that word many times before.

That was a short list of glassing incidents, there were over 5000 last year. That is over a hundred a week. I posted it to refute your silly arguement that ones chances of getting glassed in Britain were nil.

If anyone here is a hypocrite it is YOU! You are the one who has been complaining that we aren’t bringing evidence to support what we are saying so now I have. And now you are whining like a little bitch about it.

By the way the link I provided with that was the link to a twenty five page thread where we thoroughly went through all of this with another subject of the commonwealth. People have been telling you we have had these discussions before and you have been asking for a link so I gave you one.[/quote]

OK, 5000 glassings, 61,000,000 people, random glassing probability in any given year = 0.00008 I would say that is pretty close to nil.

225

[quote]Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

In the 2nd their is clear indication that the People refers to the State collective. It appears to me to refer to the right of the State to have a regulated separate militia from the federal level government.

You obviously haven’t studied the history. The second amendment is a direct descendent of the Magna carta right of rebellion against the state. Militia have a long tradition in British common law and were seen as a way to prevent the state from abusing the people with a large standing army. So when the second amendment refers to militia it is referring to long history of military power that is not under the control of the state.

Again, 18th century “bear arms” refers to tools of warfare. Does the individual have the same right to tools of warfare as the US government? Does any person have a god-given right to a nuclear bomb?

Again you are resorting to ridiculous exagerations with nuclear weapons. This is a clear example of your histrionics.
[/quote]

It has nothing to do with the Magna Carta, it was first specifically mentioned in the Bill of RIghts of 1689 and the right was not for everyone, only Protestants and it was not all arms, it was arms as befitting their social position.

227

[quote]pushharder wrote:
phaethon wrote:

I know. As an Australian it disgusts me. The other day a group of 5 or 6 of us were talking about gun rights and gun control and one person said that if lots of people had guns and a criminal opened fire then nobody would know who the shooter was as everyone was armed. Instead the law abiding citizens would start shooting other thinking each thinking one of the others was the gunman. And of course it would turn into a huge gunfight.

I was the only person in the group who found that idea to be absurd. Everyone else was circle-jerking about how stupid Americans are. My simple counter: Why aren’t there huge gun fights involving dozens of law abiding people turning on each other in the US then?

Their response: “Wow you are such a brainwashed gun nut” and “I hope one of your family members gets shot. Then you won’t be such a gun nut”. So rather than provide a reasonable argument they wished death upon my family and called me a nut.

Typical of young Australians attitudes on firearms.

Remind your friends that everywhere in the U.S. where gun ownership by common citizens is high and gun control is low, violent crime is relatively low - in fact in many cases it’s downright rare. Inversely, everywhere in the U.S. where gun ownership is severely restricted violent crime is relatively higher. The statistics, the facts, and good common sense refute your buddies’ sillines. Google Gary Kleck.[/quote]

That is in part because the government allows people in ‘safe’ areas to have guns, but doesn’t trust people to have guns in ‘dangerous’ places like New York.

228

[quote]Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?

You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to carry a weapon. They typically weigh much less than your wife.

Is that your idea of a rebuttal? You are comparing an adult woman to a 3 year old child.

I feel like I have to give you an example to show how retarded your argument is: I claim an adult woman should be allowed to have sex. Your reply “You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to have sex.”

No wonder push won’t give you the time of day.

This is typical of what people from the commonwealth come up with. Since they can’t support their ideology with logic they resort to histrionics. They come up with ridiculous scenarios and ludicrous exagerations.

What he is demonstrating is brain washing. I can guarantee you that if you were to put him in a room with Cockney Blue some, other Brits and some Australians they they could go back and forth for hours making the most absurd suggestions and it would make complete sense to them to be asking ridiculous questions about scenarios that are completely unrealistic.

I know. As an Australian it disgusts me. The other day a group of 5 or 6 of us were talking about gun rights and gun control and one person said that if lots of people had guns and a criminal opened fire then nobody would know who the shooter was as everyone was armed. Instead the law abiding citizens would start shooting other thinking each thinking one of the others was the gunman. And of course it would turn into a huge gunfight.

Cockneyblue has posted something very similar here. The reason why they think that way is they have been bombarded for years with the message that guns equal insanity. Since they have been programmed to believe that guns equal insanity it perfectly logical to them that anything that is done with a gun will be insane and over the top.

I was the only person in the group who found that idea to be absurd. Everyone else was circle-jerking about how stupid Americans are. My simple counter: Why aren’t there huge gun fights involving dozens of law abiding people turning on each other in the US then?

Their response: “Wow you are such a brainwashed gun nut” and “I hope one of your family members gets shot. Then you won’t be such a gun nut”. So rather than provide a reasonable argument they wished death upon my family and called me a nut.

Typical of young Australians attitudes on firearms.

Of course. Because the dogma has been repeatedly drilled into their head that guns equal insanity any questioning of that dogma is treated as an act of insanity. The reason why is it has become a belief system like a religion. For them it is an article of faith that gun control is proper. Any questioning of their faith is herecy. Therefore GOD should punish you by killing your family because you have questioned their belief.

You should ask them. If I am brainwashed and a nutter, why are you the ones saying that my family should die merely because I asked a reasonable question as to why we don’t see your wild exagerations played out in the real world?

If anyone is displaying insanity and brainwashing it is the gun control faithful who see nothing wrong with innocent lives being sacrificed for their beliefs. [/quote]

The flip side is that you have been bombarded with messages that gun = liberty therefore any percieved attack on guns is seen by you as an attack on your liberty.

Innocent people die regularly due to guns in the US, they are being sacrificed for your beliefs.

Personally I think the issue is far deeper than gun control. Whether people have guns or not, crimes happen. What needs to be worked on is the cause of those crimes. This is more important than arguing back and forth over gun control.

There is no realistic chance that within our lifetimes that all of the guns in private ownership in the US will be taken by the government. There is also no realistic chance that the UK will repeal it’s gun laws.

230

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Innocent people die regularly due to guns in the US, they are being sacrificed for your beliefs.
[/quote]

Far more people have died at the hands of oppressive governments than will ever die from private citizen gun crime.

231

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Which just goes to show how little you know about the UK…

Meanwhile Senor Azul exhibits an unbridled propensity to pontificate about the U.S. and its internal culture and policies - all from the smugness of his Mexican lair and with no “on the ground” experience within American borders.[/quote]

What makes you think that I have no ‘on the ground’ experience?

Also, I am within the American borders at the moment.

233

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

That is in part because the government allows people in ‘safe’ areas to have guns, but doesn’t trust people to have guns in ‘dangerous’ places like New York.

Ahhh…the self proclaimed “expert” on the U.S. who has never spent any appreciable time in the country he purports to know so much about pipes up again![/quote]

Dude, dont you support dropping bombs on people you know even less about?

Pot, kettle, and so on.

235

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

…It also avoids the question of whether a well armed militia is still needed in the modern US.

This question can only be addressed by amending the Constitution, in particular by amending the Second Amendment. It cannot be addressed by someone(s) simply deciding the Second means something other than what it says.

The militia is a grass roots civil defense organization made up by “the people.” It is not a construct or an administration of the federal government. The federal government cannot snap its fingers and decide the militia is anachronistic thereby in a back door fashion eliminating the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. In addition, with Heller being the law of the land, that recent USSC decision would have to be revisited and the USSC would have to reverse its own decision.[/quote]

Oh I know that, and I doubt that will happen any time soon, it is an interesting discussion however as I went on to say ultimately it probably doesn’t affect the crime rate too much either way. There are other factors that are far more important.

237

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Gregus wrote:

I find it hard to believe that the little pen knives that the Boy Scouts use are an illegal length. If they are illegal wouldn’t it make better sense to just use a size that complies with the law?

anything longer than a 3" blade is illegal[/quote]

The Victorinox Swiss Army knives for Boy Scouts have an overall length of 3.5 inches, so it looks like they do comply with the 3 inch blade rule. Which makes it look like the Boy Scout directive is just more nanny state bullshit of finding problems to regulate on where none exist.

http://www.swissknifeshop.com/Boy_Scout_s/63.htm?gclid=CNHi1tX4g50CFQ7Gsgod8GCsbg

238

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

Again you are late to the party because I have already thoroughly disproved the idea that glassing isn’t widespread in Britain. There are over 5000 glassings a year in Britain. When I did my research for the thread below I just concentrated on young women who were glassed and I found incidents all over the country including areas I would consider to be nice, like Mayfair or just outside Bath. So it is time for Capn’ cut-n-paste to give you a mere taste of what I covered in that thread.

Which just goes to show how little you know about the UK. Mayfair has some dodgy areas, even in the nice areas you have issues due to lots of out of towners, stag parties, birthday parties etc which means boozed up idiots trying to prove themselves in the big city.

And saying just outside Bath is a nice area is ludicrous, there are lots of places ‘just outside Bath.’ Some are really nice, some are fucking horrible.[/quote]

Obviously Mayfair has become dodgy is if a young woman in a nightclub is not safe from getting glassed. I can remember when it was a really nice area where that kind of violence did not happen. So can my father who used to have an office on Bond street and used to walk 3/4 of a mile to Mayfair for his lunch everyday.

From what I have seen of it that countryside around Bath is really nice and peaceful. About the only crime that my cousins who live there worry about are all the burglaries. I have one cousin who has had his house broken into 5 times.

Face it Britian is not what it used to be. The country isn’t getting better it is getting worse. America on the other hand is getting better. The murder rate here has been trending downwards for the last 17 years. While Britain’s has been going up. Obviously America is doing something right while Britain is doing something wrong.

239

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Here is a real good example of what is wrong with Britain not only do they not have the right to keep and bear arms, they don’t have freedom of speech. Look at this bullshit, these poor people were arrested and are facing criminal charges for saying something which is true. This is why America has the second amendment, so people can speak the truth freely without fear of reprisal from their government.

“A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.
Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments.”

“It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.”

Alternatively you could wait until there is an outcome to the trial before passing judgement. Perhaps they were threatening, perhaps they weren’t, reporting it before the case comes to court is solely designed to stir up the knuckle grazers. Seems to have worked huh?[/quote]

What is wrong with you? Is there no outrage that you won’t try to spin doctor or rationalize?

The simple fact that they have been arrested is outrageous and is a terrible blow to freedom of speech. Even if they ultimately win their case these types of cases are a deliberate attack on freedom of speech. Because even if they are fully exonerated they will have been penalized. This is costing them for lawyers, there is the loss of business while they take time out to answer to these charges, the stress of a criminal prosection and their reputation being dragged through the dirt. Their freely speaking their mind in their own home will have cost them.

What about the charge of giving offense? That is a ridiculous legal standard because anyone can say that they are offended by anything that anyone says. If people can be criminally charged and penalized for saying something that is offensive to someone else freedom of speech is dead.

What the government is doing to those people is absolutely indefensible. How can you not find this outrageous? The only thing I can figure out is that you are so deeply in denial that there is nothing the government could do that you would not rationalize or try to justify. You claim not to be a Guardianista yet there is no outrage the Labour party can commit that you will denounce.

240

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

Again you are late to the party because I have already thoroughly disproved the idea that glassing isn’t widespread in Britain. There are over 5000 glassings a year in Britain. When I did my research for the thread below I just concentrated on young women who were glassed and I found incidents all over the country including areas I would consider to be nice, like Mayfair or just outside Bath. So it is time for Capn’ cut-n-paste to give you a mere taste of what I covered in that thread.

Which just goes to show how little you know about the UK. Mayfair has some dodgy areas, even in the nice areas you have issues due to lots of out of towners, stag parties, birthday parties etc which means boozed up idiots trying to prove themselves in the big city.

And saying just outside Bath is a nice area is ludicrous, there are lots of places ‘just outside Bath.’ Some are really nice, some are fucking horrible.

Obviously Mayfair has become dodgy is if a young woman in a nightclub is not safe from getting glassed. I can remember when it was a really nice area where that kind of violence did not happen. So can my father who used to have an office on Bond street and used to walk 3/4 of a mile to Mayfair for his lunch everyday.

From what I have seen of it that countryside around Bath is really nice and peaceful. About the only crime that my cousins who live there worry about are all the burglaries. I have one cousin who has had his house broken into 5 times.

Face it Britian is not what it used to be. The country isn’t getting better it is getting worse. America on the other hand is getting better. The murder rate here has been trending downwards for the last 17 years. While Britain’s has been going up. Obviously America is doing something right while Britain is doing something wrong.[/quote]

Mayfair has nice areas and dodgy areas, some of the clubs in the nice areas also have violence at times. Same as clubs in nice areas of New York.

The countryside around Bath is stunning however a lot of the little villages have issues with high unemployment and drugs amongst other things.