There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Sifu · September 26, 2009, 5:14am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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.

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. [/quote]

No I do not relate averything back to guns. I relate everything back to the actions of the British government and how it imposed it’s will upon the Americans. Read the Declaration of Independence sometime. What the Americans had to deal with was far worse than George Orwells 1984. Instead of having CCTV’s in their homes they had British soldiers armed with guns stationed in their homes. Guns are what tyrants use to impose their will, so it makes sense that guns are needed to throw off tyrants.

You are either willfully ignorant as to how tyranny has manifested itself throughout history or you are the one who needs to see a psychiatrist. Because despite my constantly repeating it is not registering with you that the majority of people in this world owe their freedom to someone with a gun who fought for it.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

The second amendment is a right to rebellion. Armed rebellion. Without it America would be like Burma or Iran or China where the governments have put down rebellion by shooting and killing unarmed protesters. Yet you constantly pretend that these events never happened. You are the one who has some real issues, because you are heavily in denial.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

You were not in favor of the change of the law in Britain? So you are in favor of changing it back? If you want to change the law back I guess I do have you wrong.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

With all the violent crime in Mexico I do not understand is how you could not understand why people would want to be able to defend themselves. When I lived in the city of Detroit the police were almost totally useless. There are a lot of people in this country who have had to deal with ineffective police. And we watch the news. When we saw Tiannamen Square live on CNN and we watched Neda die on youtube we were reminded of exactly why the founding fathers gave us the second amendment and why we should not have to apply to the government for permission to have the means of rebelling against it.

All licensing is, is an excuse to disarm people for no good reason. It is not that difficult to use a gun. Driving a car is much more complicated.

[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]

With that one you have totally contradicted yourself. Sure the constitution is words on a piece of paper but guns give the people the ability to demand their government respect those words and treat them as sacred until such time as we the people decide to change them.

Sifu · September 26, 2009, 5:22am

[quote]Gregus wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Sifu wrote:
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.

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. [/quote]

Actually it wasn’t the CIA who were responsible, it was the engineers from Grumman. The airpalnes had just been delivered and they were in the process of making them operational when the revolution happened. All they did is pull a few key components and took them with them when they left the country. The Iranians did get a few flying though because they used to use them as AWACS to direct their other aircraft during the Iran Iraq war.

Sifu · September 26, 2009, 5:50am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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. [/quote]

Back in January you said I didn’t know anything about British politics when I said that the BNP were the future, you swore up and down that would never happen, six months later they had two MEP’s. I think that shows I have a better grasp on British politics than you do.

The Tory’s are left wing, their MEP’s just voted to re-elect Jose Borosso who is a Maoist communist as the President of the European Commision and then ecstatically celebrated when he won. What more do they need to do? Do they need to wear Mao suits? Or do they need to call each other comrade like the Labour MP’s used to?

The only thing they are to the right of is Labour and that’s not saying much.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

The US congress has it’s own cable channel Cspan. Every week on Cspan they broadcast Prime Ministers questions. They have also broadcasted PM’s Q on PBS. They have done this for years I have been watching it since John Major was PM.

I have had an internet connection since 96 that I have been able to get online news from. Most news sources in Britain leave much to be desired. I read the BBC for years till their political biases became too much to ignore.

Cockney_Blue · September 26, 2009, 1:53pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
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.

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. [/quote]

He was shot in the back as he was running away. That was why Martin ended up in jail. Clearly an example of someone with a gun but not the training or mental stability to know when not to pull the trigger. A bit similar to your granny with a shotgun idea. What happens when she accidentally blasts the paperboy because he looks suspicious?

300andabove · September 26, 2009, 2:24pm

I fully agree with what Martins did.

That poor man was being driven to the edge of insanity by those traveller pricks.

When they were leaving, they promised they would come back… he soon put an end to that idea.

There was a huge uproar when he was convicted as for shooting him in the back does it matter… honestly the man had been burgled so many times it literally was the straw that broke the camels back.

And you know who he supports ??

BNP !

I’m telling you now your BLIND if you do not think the BNP won’t become if not the leading party the 2nd party in English politics.

English people have HAD it with ineffective government who literally give more rights to freaking immigrants than they do to English people themselves. All across Europe more and more right wing parties are springing up. The EU has failed, if they don’t do something soon to stem the huge influx of immigrants there will be right wing governments everywhere.

Wasn’t it Austria that elected a Right wing government and was told that was not acceptable to the EU ? Apparently EU gets the final say in your elected officials.

Look at HOLLAND the most liberal country in the world, next 5 years they will have a right wing government in power, Dutch have had it to.

Sloth · September 26, 2009, 10:41am

I wonder about the claim the Founders lived in a different time. That, while the 2nd may have had a purpose then, this is no longer the case today. Really? Since when did governments, even our own, cease to exist. If anything, our government today is far bigger, with a much longer reach. Oh no, the check and balance of an armed populace is very much needed in the present. If anything, it’s the government that needs to surrender many of the powers it’s picked up along the way.

Cockney_Blue · September 26, 2009, 4:01pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
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.

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.

No I do not relate averything back to guns. I relate everything back to the actions of the British government and how it imposed it’s will upon the Americans. Read the Declaration of Independence sometime. What the Americans had to deal with was far worse than George Orwells 1984. Instead of having CCTV’s in their homes they had British soldiers armed with guns stationed in their homes. Guns are what tyrants use to impose their will, so it makes sense that guns are needed to throw off tyrants.

You are either willfully ignorant as to how tyranny has manifested itself throughout history or you are the one who needs to see a psychiatrist. Because despite my constantly repeating it is not registering with you that the majority of people in this world owe their freedom to someone with a gun who fought for it.

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.

The second amendment is a right to rebellion. Armed rebellion. Without it America would be like Burma or Iran or China where the governments have put down rebellion by shooting and killing unarmed protesters. Yet you constantly pretend that these events never happened. You are the one who has some real issues, because you are heavily in denial.

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.

You were not in favor of the change of the law in Britain? So you are in favor of changing it back? If you want to change the law back I guess I do have you wrong.

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.

With all the violent crime in Mexico I do not understand is how you could not understand why people would want to be able to defend themselves. When I lived in the city of Detroit the police were almost totally useless. There are a lot of people in this country who have had to deal with ineffective police. And we watch the news. When we saw Tiannamen Square live on CNN and we watched Neda die on youtube we were reminded of exactly why the founding fathers gave us the second amendment and why we should not have to apply to the government for permission to have the means of rebelling against it.

All licensing is, is an excuse to disarm people for no good reason. It is not that difficult to use a gun. Driving a car is much more complicated.

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.

With that one you have totally contradicted yourself. Sure the constitution is words on a piece of paper but guns give the people the ability to demand their government respect those words and treat them as sacred until such time as we the people decide to change them. [/quote]

So how did the armed rebellion idea work out for the guys at Waco?

As for changing the law back in the UK, I would oppose that but only because changing it back would be as much of a waste of time as putting it in place in the first place, there are far more important things that need government time.

If it could be changed back without taking up lots of parliament time then great. I think that it is stupid that the British Olympic shooting team has to travel abroad to train for instance.

Cockney_Blue · September 26, 2009, 4:05pm

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
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.

Back in January you said I didn’t know anything about British politics when I said that the BNP were the future, you swore up and down that would never happen, six months later they had two MEP’s. I think that shows I have a better grasp on British politics than you do.

The Tory’s are left wing, their MEP’s just voted to re-elect Jose Borosso who is a Maoist communist as the President of the European Commision and then ecstatically celebrated when he won. What more do they need to do? Do they need to wear Mao suits? Or do they need to call each other comrade like the Labour MP’s used to?

The only thing they are to the right of is Labour and that’s not saying much.

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.

The US congress has it’s own cable channel Cspan. Every week on Cspan they broadcast Prime Ministers questions. They have also broadcasted PM’s Q on PBS. They have done this for years I have been watching it since John Major was PM.

I have had an internet connection since 96 that I have been able to get online news from. Most news sources in Britain leave much to be desired. I read the BBC for years till their political biases became too much to ignore. [/quote]

The most likely outcome of the two BNP guys getting in as MEPs is that voter turnout at the next elections will be higher cutting the BNP voter share significantly.

Especially if stories like senior members of the BNP making up lies about murders by minorities as propeganda continue to come out.

300andabove · September 26, 2009, 7:43pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

The most likely outcome of the two BNP guys getting in as MEPs is that voter turnout at the next elections will be higher cutting the BNP voter share significantly.

Especially if stories like senior members of the BNP making up lies about murders by minorities as propeganda continue to come out.[/quote]

No chance i guarantee next election it will get MORE seats.

They more air time they get and they are getting ALOT now more exposure, more people know about them.

Peeved off people are FAR more likely to vote than those who don’t really give a toss. Anyone i know doesn’t care less who is in power they are all the same.

BNP is a breath of fresh air

Sifu · September 28, 2009, 2:34am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

Do you understand that you are telling us than none of what we have said to you makes any sense? Time and time a gain we have exhaustively explained to you why we like to have the ability to defend ourselves and our freedom. If after all our efforts you still can not understand why people want to live in a democracy and have the ability to protect their freedom and thrir lives then you either are an idiot or just willfully ignorant.

We present you with real life examples that clearly demonstrate that our concerns are genuine, yet all you do is denegrate and insult us by attempting to colour our genuine concerns as irrational fear. Your childish debating tactics are typical British bullshit.

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

I think you are full of shit. If you really were familiar with firearms you would understand that the person weilding them is what is important. If you had familiarity with firearms you wouldn’t see them as some kind of boogeyman that scares you and you would be able to understand why Americans can be comfortable around them and see them as useful tools that help them live their lives in security and freedom. You demonstrate none of this understanding and even admit it.

Sifu · September 28, 2009, 2:54am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

No dumbass the first ten amendments known as The Bill of Rights has not been changed. The amendments that are related to the Bill of Rights only served to enhance and extend it. ie.

13th. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

14th. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

15th. Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Cockney_Blue · September 28, 2009, 3:12am

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
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.

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.

Do you understand that you are telling us than none of what we have said to you makes any sense? Time and time a gain we have exhaustively explained to you why we like to have the ability to defend ourselves and our freedom. If after all our efforts you still can not understand why people want to live in a democracy and have the ability to protect their freedom and thrir lives then you either are an idiot or just willfully ignorant.

We present you with real life examples that clearly demonstrate that our concerns are genuine, yet all you do is denegrate and insult us by attempting to colour our genuine concerns as irrational fear. Your childish debating tactics are typical British bullshit.

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

I think you are full of shit. If you really were familiar with firearms you would understand that the person weilding them is what is important. If you had familiarity with firearms you wouldn’t see them as some kind of boogeyman that scares you and you would be able to understand why Americans can be comfortable around them and see them as useful tools that help them live their lives in security and freedom. You demonstrate none of this understanding and even admit it. [/quote]

Of course it is the person weilding the firearm that is important, that is the entire point. The person should not be weilding the firearm unless they can show that they are adequately trained and capable.

Cockney_Blue · September 28, 2009, 3:22am

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
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.

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.

No dumbass the first ten amendments known as The Bill of Rights has not been changed. The amendments that are related to the Bill of Rights only served to enhance and extend it. ie.

13th. Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

14th. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

15th. Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[/quote]

They are 10 of 27 amendments to the constitution. Other amendments have subsequently been overridden so there is nothing legally to stop any of the first 10 from being.

Sifu · September 28, 2009, 4:06am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
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.

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.

He was shot in the back as he was running away. That was why Martin ended up in jail. Clearly an example of someone with a gun but not the training or mental stability to know when not to pull the trigger. A bit similar to your granny with a shotgun idea. What happens when she accidentally blasts the paperboy because he looks suspicious?[/quote]

Barras and Fereas were shot inside Martin’s house. The only reason why they might have been trying to make a getaway is because Martin had a gun. If Martin hadn’t had a gun the incident might very well have had a different outcome with Martin dead and his attackers still being portrayed as poor lovable lads who deserved to be given light treatment.

Oh there are a whole lot of reaons why Martin ended up in jail that go far beyond any minor wrong doing by Martin. Martin was violently assaulted in his home with noone to help him. The real issue is despite a lack of help Martin managed to defend himself by using an appropriate tool of self defense. Martin took care of himself when the government refused to help. That is why Martin was put in jail because he showed up the government.

Again you have resported to your bullshit rhetoric of using over the top fantasies. I know quite a few old grannys who have shotguns who have not blasted the paperboy because he looked suspicious. But just humour ou for a moment, if the paperboy has kicked granny’s front door down in the middle of the night and forcibly entered her home then she shoots him that is his fault.

Sifu · September 28, 2009, 4:47am

[quote]300andabove wrote:
I fully agree with what Martins did.

That poor man was being driven to the edge of insanity by those traveller pricks.

When they were leaving, they promised they would come back… he soon put an end to that idea.

There was a huge uproar when he was convicted as for shooting him in the back does it matter… honestly the man had been burgled so many times it literally was the straw that broke the camels back.[/quote]

Let’s also not forget that the police had recieved numerous home invasion and burglary reports about the gang before Martin shot them and had done nothing. Then they threw the book at the man who finally put their reign of terror to an end. If the police had arrested them sooner it never would have come to Martin shooting them. Martin was crucified because he put the police on the spot for either being incompetent or corrupt.

[quote]
And you know who he supports ??

BNP !

I’m telling you now your BLIND if you do not think the BNP won’t become if not the leading party the 2nd party in English politics. [/quote]

Sadly Britain is full of people like Cock who are blind to what is happening and when the BNP does come to power they will be wondering how could it have happened.

[quote]
English people have HAD it with ineffective government who literally give more rights to freaking immigrants than they do to English people themselves. All across Europe more and more right wing parties are springing up. The EU has failed, if they don’t do something soon to stem the huge influx of immigrants there will be right wing governments everywhere. [/quote]

The EU is not going to stem the massive waves of immigrants who are flowing into Europe. Instead what the EU is doing is putting in place mechanisms to deal with right wing parties and suppress dissent.

Britain just signed onto an agreement to fight forest fires spreading across the continent (which it is seperated from by twenty miles of ocean) that also creates a Europe wide paramilitary force tasked with protecting EU government institutions. This means that foreign troops can be brought into Britain to put down a British uprising against the EU. The Lisbon treaty by the way authorizes the use of deadly force to suppress rebellion against the EU.

[quote]
Wasn’t it Austria that elected a Right wing government and was told that was not acceptable to the EU ? Apparently EU gets the final say in your elected officials. [/quote]

It was also the EU that declared the Irish hadn’t given the correct vote in the referrendum on the Lisbon treaty so now they have to do it again in October.

Liberalism is it’s own worst enemy. The Dutch have been so overly liberal that they could very well end up becoming Europes first sharia state. They are so liberal that they are not doing anything to protect their liberal culture from being wiped out. Pim Fortyn was right.

Cockney_Blue · September 28, 2009, 4:56am

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

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.

He was shot in the back as he was running away. That was why Martin ended up in jail. Clearly an example of someone with a gun but not the training or mental stability to know when not to pull the trigger. A bit similar to your granny with a shotgun idea. What happens when she accidentally blasts the paperboy because he looks suspicious?

Barras and Fereas were shot inside Martin’s house. The only reason why they might have been trying to make a getaway is because Martin had a gun. If Martin hadn’t had a gun the incident might very well have had a different outcome with Martin dead and his attackers still being portrayed as poor lovable lads who deserved to be given light treatment.

Oh there are a whole lot of reaons why Martin ended up in jail that go far beyond any minor wrong doing by Martin. Martin was violently assaulted in his home with noone to help him. The real issue is despite a lack of help Martin managed to defend himself by using an appropriate tool of self defense. Martin took care of himself when the government refused to help. That is why Martin was put in jail because he showed up the government.

Again you have resported to your bullshit rhetoric of using over the top fantasies. I know quite a few old grannys who have shotguns who have not blasted the paperboy because he looked suspicious. But just humour ou for a moment, if the paperboy has kicked granny’s front door down in the middle of the night and forcibly entered her home then she shoots him that is his fault.[/quote]

So shooting an unarmed child in the back is a minor wrongdoing in your eyes. Not really a lot of point arguing with you past that statement.

Martin was jailed because he broke the law. I have very little sympathy for the kid that got shot, he should not have been there to be shot however Martin was an unstable guy who broke the law.

His defence at the retrial was based around how mentally unstable he was, that is hardly someone I would be handing a gun to.

Sifu · September 28, 2009, 5:28am

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