There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]300andabove wrote:
orion wrote:
I grant you that we are far superior to the British, compared to us you are practically animals, however we could supply behavioral trainers so that more guns would not necessarily lead to more violence.

Hell no, I agree, the British are a far too passionate people and lack any discipline and self control.

HA, now now lets not forget Austria is still dying to become part of Germany :smiley:

Most Austrians consider themselves German not Austrian so i don’t know about your country being superior if most of your people don’t consider themselves from there ![/quote]

It is superior to Britain where five million Brits want to break off their own country called Scotland, a few million more want to breakoff Wales and Northern Ireland as seperate countries and two and a half million British consider themselves Muslims first and want to impose a sharia state on the rest of the country.

The Austrians wanting in to one big German tribe is far superior to Britain wanting to break into multiple small tribes that hate other.

You should be more concerned about what the muslims have already done to everyone else and what they are going to do in the future.

382

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

…We expect people to pass a test before they drive on the roads but in some states I can just wander into a store and buy a gun. That doesn’t make sense to me/

It’s readily apparent that a lot of things don’t.

You’re either willfully blind or incredibly stupid. I really don’t think it’s the latter - to your credit, I guess.

So do you feel that people should be able to drive on the roads without a license and with no testing or training? If not, why not?

Because people use cars and trucks on a daily basis. It makes sense that if people are not safe to be driving we should regulate that. [/quote]

So because a gun is something that you rely on only in an emergency situation you don’t need training?

383

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Nuclear Submarines? So you are still resorting to over the top histrionics. What is even worse is you point out the complete failure of gun control in Mexico and then present more of your histrionics in the form of a question.

Kind of besides the point but what is wrong with a private citizen owning a nuclear submarine? I hope he knows that a nuclear submarine isn’t a submarine with nukes :S

Of course I understand that terrorists could potentially make a bomb out of the nuclear material in the submarine; however if they could be constructed in a way that you didn’t use weapons grade material then there would be nothing wrong with owning a nuclear submarine.

I for one want a fucking nuclear submarine.

You know they de-militarize F-14 tomcats for private sale? You bet your ass I’d buy one if I had the money. About the only difference is that there are no missile slots or a cannon. All the mechanics, engines, and speed is still there. Including the HUD. Sign me up for that![/quote]

No they don’t. The military hasn’t sold off surplus jets for years because someone lit off the afterburner on an old Super Sabre at a bad time and took out part of a neighborhood. All the F-14’s have been decommissioned. A handful that were in good shape will be used for static displays the rest are stripped of their reusable parts and scrapped that none of the plane is reusable , because they don’t want the Iranians getting a windfall of F-14 parts that they can use to service their f-14 fleet.

384

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu drooled:
When this country was founded we still had a frontier. People on the frontier were living on their own far away from any settlements. They had to be able to protect themselves from Injuns, brigands and wild animals. The need could arise without any warning at any time of the day and people would be armed 24/7.

Sifu also drooled:

You need to qualify that statement because you are making absolutely no sense. What does “they were living in a very different time” mean? Other than our modern technology what is different?

Way to answer your own question!

Then I will take it from your answer that you concede that I am right and that the worn out cliche of “times were very different then” is completely false.

So you can’t even follow your own arguments now? You talk about how different it was at the founding then ask me what the difference is.

You are so full of shit. There are still people living in rural ares who are far far away from anyone. There are people out in the Plains States who have to get into a car and drive a hundred miles just to get to the nearest town. The only way that they can secure their homes and protect their families is by arming themselves. There are even places in Britain where people are in rural areas are far removed from their neighbors or any help that could be called for from a far away town. ie the famous farmer Martin who was sent to jail for defending himself from a violent home invasion.

Also there still are people who travel form one area to another. It isn’t too hard for someone from one part of the country to unwittingly find themselves in a bad area when they are traveling to another part of the country. Even Britain has areas that would be very dangerous for an unsuspecting tourist to end up in.

Last but not least. Just recently in Tehran we saw peaceful people protesting for democracy get gunned down by their government! So even government Tyranny still exists in this world.

So tell us Cock, what has changed?

What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

What’s the matter Cock can’t you understand plain English? Bear means carry. And securing yourself in a state of freedom with firearms means that you can use them to defend yourself. It would make absolutely no sense to give the right to use firearms to secure your free state if you cannot use them.

  1. To carry from one place to another; transport.

what about the other 13 definitions on that page. Anyway the point was about self defence which is not mentioned in the amendment.

Well I am quite certain that “bear arms” wasn’t refferring to the arms of a bear. The Supreme court ruled in the Heller case that the second amendment does grant a right to self defense so again you are wrong.

No I am not wrong, it doesn’t say that the second amendment refers to self defence, it says that the second amendment doesn’t infringe on any pre existing rights to arms for self defence. That is subtly different. Also, they specifically state that there should be an allowance to restrict certain types of arms and arms to certain types of people.

There are also still a lot of far more erudite legal minds than mine in the US who feel that the case has actually created a federal constitutional right that didn’t previously exist.

The Supreme court says you are wrong. Another reason why you are wrong is because in addition to the US constitution there are also 50 state constitutions some of which specifically state self defense is a right. Here are some examples.

Alabama Constitution Article I, Section 26
That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare… That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Connecticut Constitution Article I, Section 15
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Delaware Constitution Article I, Section 20
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section 21
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

[/quote]

Martin was jailed for shooting a child in the back after he had left his property.

385

[quote]Sifu wrote:
300andabove wrote:
You put all your high school shootings together… why do you think they happen ??

What about the Rhyse Jones shooting? It happens in Britain too. So you need to stop being so sanctimonious.

Hormonal teenagers with some f*cked up reasoning decide “people must die” and they have EASY fucking access to a MEANS TO DO IT.

You are on a hysterical rampage, come back to reality. Sticks and stones can kill too and they are everywhere but you aren’t worried about those are you. Kids aren’t as violent as you are trying to make out.

HOW in gods fucking name do you LOGICALLY think this is “OK” i love the US, i have been there twice, my brothers are in the Marines (British) served in the 2 wars we helped ye with. But fucking hell you sit here and think Britain is bad due to our GUN LAWS ??? My god y’all need to get over your gun fetish and get onto some other fetish.

As teenagers get more and more fucked up, your high school shootings will become a REGULAR thing, having METAL DETECTORS in school IS NOT A GOOD THING.

Britain is bad because people are not allowed to defend themselves. It’s immoral. Then look at the weak sentences they give if someone does get convicted of murder. Over here in some states and certain federal crimes you can get the death penalty for murder. And life with no parole means exactly that life. Plus over here murderers don’t get anonymity so that when they get out they can hide their past from their neighbors. Compared to the US Britain is a violent criminals paradise.[/quote]

The issue with you is that you want to relate everything back to guns. I have no idea why, I’m sure a psychiatrist could help you with this but for most people in the world the idea of a gun being a right is just ridiculous.

You talk about a car being a privilege and a gun being a right, ask most people to choose one or the other and I think I know where they would go.

Also you totally misrepresent me. I have repeatedly stated that I don’t think banning guns would solve anything in the US and I wasn’t in support of the change to the law in the UK in 97.

What I have stated is that I don’t feel a need to get a gun and I don’t understand why so many people in the US do. I also don’t understand why people are adverse to the idea that guns should be licensed and that part of the licensing program should involve showing that you know what you are doing with the gun.

I know that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms should not be infringed, but at the end of the day, that is just words on paper. There is nothing sacred about them. The constitution has been changed in the past (hence amendment) and will be changed again in the future.

386

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Edit: That stated, even though crime in London is worse at the moment than NY, London is still a pretty safe place. Your chances of being hit by violent crime are very low in both. And most violent crime is between drunk people so guns are probably not a good idea!

Come now GUN crime in London is higher than in US States ??? [/quote]

He said crime not gun crime. Obviously though you are so fixated on guns that nothing else registers.

[quote]

Are you on drugs ?

The Saturday night fight night after a load of drink yes but thats harmless. [/quote]

What about happy slapping where a group of thugs take some poor hapless soul beat him down then take turns practicing field kicks with his head? There a re quite a few people who have died from that. They have had family men murdered right in front of the families like that where all their wife and kids could do is watch in horror. Shit like that doesn’t happen in the US because it’s not unheard of for a housewife to light some thug up.

[quote]
Your students getting Pa’s gun and shooting up a school NOT so harmless. [/quote]

Your sense of perspective is detached from reality. School shootings are so extremely rare that they have no affect upon overall statistics. Your bringing such a rare and unusual event into the discussion like they are significant shows just how much you have bought into the media hype that plays such events for maximum effect. A school is only a building nothing more. There are school aged kids that get murdered all the time outside of school but you never ever see those stories become international news stories for days weeks and months.

Far more children are murdered at home along with their parents under circumstances where the parents might have been able to fend off their attacker if they had been armed, than are murdered at school by some kid with their parents gun.

I guarantee you that when the cops tell a mother her school aged child has just been murdered the first words out of her mouth are not going to be “I hope it wasn’t at school, because I will be really upset if it was at school”. Likewise I can also guarantee that you aren’t going to hear a mother say “thank god my baby wasn’t murdered at school I feel so relieved”.

Britain has had a few school aged kids shot to death and there have been quite a few stabbed to death like the kid from the Harry Potter films.

[quote]
Your presuming ALL crime is crime. Theres a MAJOR difference between some rough and tumble and shooting people.[/quote]

Not when the end result is a dead body, then there is no difference. And people are a lot more inhibited about starting “rough and tumble” when they think it could get them shot. That is why we don’t have a problem with glassing like Britain does. People would be afraid of getting shot if they pulled some shit like that. It is also why we don’t have as many burglaries or rapes.

[quote]
Add to that our Nation drinks FAR to much, adding guns to the mix = utter chaos. [/quote]

So your answer to all the irrsponsible alcoholism is render normal people defenseless.

[quote]
As for histrionics as was stated we are a passionate people.[/quote]

More like alcoholically hyper emotional.

[quote]

No offense but the US lecturing any country on how to run it’s own boggles my mind, ye have enough problems than debating ours thank you. [/quote]

My parents and most of my family are British. My father served in the RAF during the Korean war, one uncle was a Royal Marine, one of my grandfathers served in the Britsh army during world war two was an infantryman in Normandy, my other grandfather served in the great war, one great grandfather died in the trenches, another was mustard gassed and died in agony a year later, and a third one was injured. I feel I have the right to talk about Britain.

387

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Nuclear Submarines? So you are still resorting to over the top histrionics. What is even worse is you point out the complete failure of gun control in Mexico and then present more of your histrionics in the form of a question.

Kind of besides the point but what is wrong with a private citizen owning a nuclear submarine? I hope he knows that a nuclear submarine isn’t a submarine with nukes :S

Of course I understand that terrorists could potentially make a bomb out of the nuclear material in the submarine; however if they could be constructed in a way that you didn’t use weapons grade material then there would be nothing wrong with owning a nuclear submarine.

I for one want a fucking nuclear submarine.

You know they de-militarize F-14 tomcats for private sale? You bet your ass I’d buy one if I had the money. About the only difference is that there are no missile slots or a cannon. All the mechanics, engines, and speed is still there. Including the HUD. Sign me up for that!

No they don’t. The military hasn’t sold off surplus jets for years because someone lit off the afterburner on an old Super Sabre at a bad time and took out part of a neighborhood. All the F-14’s have been decommissioned. A handful that were in good shape will be used for static displays the rest are stripped of their reusable parts and scrapped that none of the plane is reusable , because they don’t want the Iranians getting a windfall of F-14 parts that they can use to service their f-14 fleet. [/quote]

lol, i know about their F14 fleets. Magically all stopped working after a regime change, lol. Props to the CIA for doing what they did to render the fleet inoperable.

388

Sifu, you know so little about politics in Britain that you think the Tories are left wing so where you get off continuing to post here I have no idea. You have also shown in the past that you have very little understanding of the political system in your own country by making glaring errors.

All you do is read through trash newspapers and post strings of sensational articles then swing off the balls of anyone on your side of the argument that can post a coherent sentence.

389

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

What I have stated is that I don’t feel a need to get a gun and I don’t understand why so many people in the US do. [/quote]

I can answer this one. I believe in exercising all my freedoms. Because if people don’t make a habit out of it eventually those freedoms not exercised get taken away. I have no need for one for self defense purposes where I currently live. I imagine I will not need one for self defense purposes based on my living area…ever. But 1) I LIKE guns, I like shooting them, I like owning them, and I like talking about them, 2) I exercise all my freedoms as I am able for aforementioned reasons 3) I believe that although I will likely go through life without ever needing the gun it is prudent to own one in case I get struck by lightning so to speak.

Finally, for a very large chunk of the US, it is traditionally customary to own at least one gun.

The bottom line is that you don’t need to understand why we want them, but it is part of our history and culture, as well as part of a very guaranteed freedom.

[quote]
I know that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms should not be infringed, but at the end of the day, that is just words on paper. There is nothing sacred about them. The constitution has been changed in the past (hence amendment) and will be changed again in the future.[/quote]

That attitude is what has lead to a lot of the abuses of power currently going on in our government. Simply because the Constitution can be changed does not mean it should not be followed. If we can’t even live by our own highest law how can we even pretend to be honest with ourselves? The rule of law is not just “words on paper”. If we don’t have it, we don’t have a country. We will have finally given up all attempts to stay true to the concepts that made this country possible.

Changing the constitution is the only valid way of doing things. If that happens I will accept it, although I will fight that particular amendment to death. As long as it remains unchanged the words written in it are bound to be followed.

390

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

What I have stated is that I don’t feel a need to get a gun and I don’t understand why so many people in the US do.

I can answer this one. I believe in exercising all my freedoms. Because if people don’t make a habit out of it eventually those freedoms not exercised get taken away. I have no need for one for self defense purposes where I currently live. I imagine I will not need one for self defense purposes based on my living area…ever. But 1) I LIKE guns, I like shooting them, I like owning them, and I like talking about them, 2) I exercise all my freedoms as I am able for aforementioned reasons 3) I believe that although I will likely go through life without ever needing the gun it is prudent to own one in case I get struck by lightning so to speak.

Finally, for a very large chunk of the US, it is traditionally customary to own at least one gun.

The bottom line is that you don’t need to understand why we want them, but it is part of our history and culture, as well as part of a very guaranteed freedom.

I know that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms should not be infringed, but at the end of the day, that is just words on paper. There is nothing sacred about them. The constitution has been changed in the past (hence amendment) and will be changed again in the future.

That attitude is what has lead to a lot of the abuses of power currently going on in our government. Simply because the Constitution can be changed does not mean it should not be followed. If we can’t even live by our own highest law how can we even pretend to be honest with ourselves? The rule of law is not just “words on paper”. If we don’t have it, we don’t have a country. We will have finally given up all attempts to stay true to the concepts that made this country possible.

Changing the constitution is the only valid way of doing things. If that happens I will accept it, although I will fight that particular amendment to death. As long as it remains unchanged the words written in it are bound to be followed.[/quote]

OK when I said I don’t understand why so many people in the US want a gun, I misrepresented myself, what I mean is I don’t understand why they don’t feel safe without one. I fully understand the enjoyment of shooting.

I used to competitively target shoot 22s and I used to clay pigeon shoot. I am actually a pretty good shot.

393

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

…I know that the second amendment says that the right to bear arms should not be infringed, but at the end of the day, that is just words on paper. There is nothing sacred about them…

So is the entire rest of the Constitution “just words on paper.” Good grief, Blue Cock, you are truly a piece of work.

(On second thought this HAS to HH style trolling. Nobody could be this brazenly stupid. You might want to look into getting a vibrator for your 12 year old daughter, btw)[/quote]

Yes, it is just words on paper. Some of them are still very relevent, some of them not so much. A constitution has to be a living document that changes organically.

394

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

…The constitution has been changed in the past (hence amendment) and will be changed again in the future.

I figured out that indeed “There’s a lot wrong with Britain,” in that the educational system must be woeful. The Constitution wasn’t “changed” in the instance of the Bill of Rights, bozo.[/quote]

Have there or have there not been changes to peoples rights since the Constitution was drafted. Have there been changes since the Bill of Rights was drafted? Where then am I incorrect?

Quote for you in case you are struggling

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

395

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Cockney–

This was a poster from London I found. This scares me. I know it’s all dramatic and shit, but still…it’s creepy isn’t it?

I can only think that someone did that one for a joke and it was put through by mistake. It is really sinister.

I’m all for more cameras and shit.

I don’t commit crime so i don’t have to worry… i REALLY don’t get your reaction to some cameras ???
[/quote]

The olde British attitude of if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear is the highth of ignorance. ESPECIALLY now when it is applied to modern technology. Those cameras are creating vast databases of peoples behaviours and associations. Just because you have done something in front of a camera that isn’t illegal today there is absolutely no guarantee that tomorrow something that you did yesterday couldn’t become a crime.

For example, you and your mates could have a certain political outlook and form a poltical organisation that is perfectly legal today. If tomorrow however the government declares your organisation an enemy of the state whose members should all be rounded up and executed YOU WILL have something to hide. But by then it will be too late for you to hide because the government will already have you and your mates on video.

In the blink of an eye the legal circumstances in a country can change dramatically. ie Cambodia under Pol Pot. That is why people should be very uneasy of the government creating databases of information about them that it has no legitimate use for, that could be used against them in the future.

In America we believe that it is healthy to have a distrust of government that is why we don’t get your non-reaction to a lot of cameras along with their impending integration with radio identification and GPS technology.

396

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Aragorn wrote:

I didn’t lecture shit to anybody. You came into this thread and posted up a bunch of barely literate hysterics. And yes I know you were responding directly to Cockney but your post was a general one meant for everyone.

The survey in question that I posted was considering VIOLENT crime, not white collar. Assault, rape, murder, you know.

And that differentiates me from any other poster in here how ?

Assualt = Saturday Night Fight night or at any Soccer game.

Every club has its “association” which is where i would wager 30-40% of the assaults stem from.[/quote]

Windsor Canada on a Saturday night is like that too. Where there are roving bands of “mates” who if they see a vulnerable individual they might free to set upon him or her. Therein lies the beauty of hand guns. Because they allow a solitary man or woman the ability to effectively defend themselves from gang assault while going about their life.

The nice thing about guns is the are the great equalizer. With a gun you don’t need to be a young, healthy, male, weightlifting, rugby playing, martial arts expert to be able to free move about in society without fear of assault. On the other hand if you are someone who more or less matches that descrption and you like to go around bullying and preying upon the weak I am sure the thought of your victims being able to effectively fight back and put you down would be terrifying.

[quote]
Maybe i didn’t make alot of sense earlier, but it boils down to:

Cameras = Good

Shooting = Bad [/quote]

Wow! Your thinking is completely binary. Everything is either completely Black or White to you, you see no grey areas.

I can see grey areas. ie Just because I don’t think there should be enough CCTV that individuals can have their every movement tracked from the moment they step out of their home till the moment they come back I do think that they can serve a useful purpose.

What rock are you living under? They have already impemented pilot programs to install them on the streets to screen people walking down the sidewalk. They also have given the police stop and search powers so they can arbitrarily stop people walking down the street or pull their car over and search them.

397

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Cockney–

This was a poster from London I found. This scares me. I know it’s all dramatic and shit, but still…it’s creepy isn’t it?

I can only think that someone did that one for a joke and it was put through by mistake. It is really sinister.

I’m all for more cameras and shit.

I don’t commit crime so i don’t have to worry… i REALLY don’t get your reaction to some cameras ???

I wouln’t have so much of an issue with them if they worked[/quote]

But it depends upon what you consider to be working doesn’t it. They may not be working to reduce crime, but they are proving very effective in conditioning peoples minds so they are comfortable with being under constant observation and monitoring by the government.

The new technologies that the British government is hastily implementing have severe implications for the future of civil liberties, but people are not speaking out or taking a stand against it. They just go along with whatever the government says. And what has happened to the elected officials? Where is the debate in Parliament?

398

[quote]300andabove wrote:
Dunno about Cameron lol.

Doubt he will even get one term.[/quote]

No doubt. A lot can happen in the next eight months. There are several things in play that could cause him to implode along with Labour and the Lib Dems.

[quote]
I’d vote for the BNP, better than voting for the other 2 muppeteer parties. [/quote]

Last Junes election showed a lot about the mood of the country. Maybe only a million people voted for the BNP, however millions of voters could not be encouraged to vote Labour or Conservative in order to stop the BNP. Despite a massive campaign by both parties saying please vote for us to stop the BNP. They may not have voted for but they didn’t vote against, that in itself shows a big shift in public opinion.

399

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

…We expect people to pass a test before they drive on the roads but in some states I can just wander into a store and buy a gun. That doesn’t make sense to me/

It’s readily apparent that a lot of things don’t.

You’re either willfully blind or incredibly stupid. I really don’t think it’s the latter - to your credit, I guess.

So do you feel that people should be able to drive on the roads without a license and with no testing or training? If not, why not?

Because people use cars and trucks on a daily basis. It makes sense that if people are not safe to be driving we should regulate that.

So because a gun is something that you rely on only in an emergency situation you don’t need training?[/quote]

No, it is not something you only rely upon or use in an emergency. There is more than one way to use a gun. You do not have to shoot a gun in order to use it to defend yourelf. Merely demonstrating that you have a gun can resolve a lot of situations or even prevent them from starting.

ie I used to go to a 7/11 in Detroit that employed a uniformed, armed guard to protect the cashier. It didn’t matter if he could shoot straight or not. Just the fact he had a gun was enough to discourage people from messing with the cashier.

Likewise a half blind old lady in a wheel chair pointing a double barrel shotgun at a burglar and telling him to get out of her house could be all it takes to end a home invasion.

So you absolutely do not need to have any proficiency or training with firearms in order to be able to use them.

In the right circmstances you don’t even need to have a gun because there is the uncertanty factor that comes into play. In America not every household has a gun. But any time a burglar breaks into a house he has it in his mind that he could get shot. That is why we have a lot less burglaries and home invasions in America.

In a country that is founded on civil liberties and limited government power like America it is not fair to force people to prove to the government that they are worthy before they are allowed to enjoy their civil rights. Forcing people to prove themselves worthy to the government or allowing the government to pick and choose who it favors gives the government too much power.

What is fair is when people prove themselves unworthy by committing crimes like assault, rape, murder, then the government steps in and regulates. That way there is a limit on the governments power to favor one group over another but government still has a means to protect law and order. It is a much more balanced system.

Your insistance upon training is just poor excuse used to justify government intrusion into and control of peoples lives.

400

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

Martin was jailed for shooting a child in the back after he had left his property.[/quote]

16 is a young adult. Barras was a violent criminal going around committing home invasions as an accomplace of two grown men in their thirties. He was not a child engaged in a childs activites. He was a thug going around committing thuggery with grown men. Barras was a member of a gang that had terrorized Martin AND his neighbors by committing multiple acts of home invasion and burlgary.

Martin and his neighbors had filed numerous reports with the police who for some reason did nothing about the gang until after someone shot two of them and put them out of business. Then what the police did was go after the man who put the gang out of business.

Martin shot both of them inside his isolated farmhouse. Martin certainly did not shoot them when they were off of his property. Barras body was found ON Martins property where his accomplace left him.