OK Sifu, money where your mouth is time.
As you are so sure that the BNP are the future of Great Britain how about a good sporting wager?
$100 (US) says that there will be no BNP MPs elected at the next General Election in the UK.
Everyone on here can be witness to this. We can settle the bet through paypal or by buying $100 of product from this website, whatever is easier.
So what do you think? Do you have the courage of your convictions?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
OK Sifu, money where your mouth is time.
As you are so sure that the BNP are the future of Great Britain how about a good sporting wager?
$100 (US) says that there will be no BNP MPs elected at the next General Election in the UK.
Everyone on here can be witness to this. We can settle the bet through paypal or by buying $100 of product from this website, whatever is easier.
So what do you think? Do you have the courage of your convictions?
Hey CockadoodleMexicanBlue, since you’re in the wagering mood let’s do this. Without resorting to Google (or any other search engine or research outlet) let’s choose two towns in the United Gun-Totin’ States of America…oh let’s go with Kennesaw, Georgia (Population: 21,675) and Morton Grove, Illinois (Population: 22,451). Each town is a suburb of the largest city in their respective states. Kennesaw has a city ordinance requiring gun ownership and Morton Grove has one prohibiting it.
Let’s make a bet that Kennesaw’s violent crime rate is lower than Morton Grove’s. Whadda ya say, bloke? Wanna go for it?
Edit: In all fairness you stated you don’t think gun crime and gun control go hand in had. However, that position flies in the face of your animus for gun owners and the freedom to own these dastardly weapons of mass destruction. More Cocky paradoxes, I guess.
Your faux concerns for gun safety are a joke as well. The disparity between gun accident numbers and crimes prevented by guns is astronomical.[/quote]
Other than philosophically based around the wording ‘shall not be infringed’, do you have any real issue with licensing as a way of ensuring that people are trained on safe gun ownership?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
And the point is this is a non story. Someone fucked up, once it was brought to people’s attention, it was realised that someone fucked up. End of.
Maybe.
IF that situation has been rectified.
But you’ve said similar things about the knife issue and the woman sued for “insulting” Muslims…
I honestly don’t know if you’re right or not, but it certainly appears that you may be trying to minimize the significance of such things.
You are seeing a pattern here aren’t you. Where we point osmething out then Cock comes in and tells us “there’s nothing wrong here, move along along, nothing to see move along, don’t think about it Move along”.
Knowing what the British are like it would not surprise me in the least to find out that Cock is a government employed spin doctor who is paid to troll message boards to disarm debate and quell dissent…
There certainly is a theme to all of Cock’s posts that there is nothing wrong with Britain whatsoever. Everything in Britain is wonderfully wonderful, anything that might look bad to the outside observer is just a misunderstanding because everything in Britain is wonderful.
Oh and get this. Cock isn’t a Guardianista he’s a Tory?!?!?! The Labour government cabinet is full of Marxists Internationalists who have ruined, turned the country into a police state and turned the country into a multi tribal mess that is breaking apart. But we never hear our resident Tory say anything critical of Nu-Liebour. For someone who claims not to be a Guardianista he certainly has the mindset of one.
If you look back through my posts you will see plenty where I happily discuss a number of things that are very wrong in the UK.
What I am not prepared to do is have an ignorant, facist, racist purveyor of propaganda spread their lies and misrepresentations without calling them on it.
If anyone is facist or racist it is you Guardianistas. You Guardianistas are the ones who use race as a weapon. There are races that you favor and can’t do enough for like the Pakistanis and there are races that you despise and want to harm like the British.
What a retarded thing to post. I really couldn’t care less where someone’s family is from originally I treat people as I find them and I find you to be an idiot. [/quote]
What is retarded is people like you running a government and not caring where people they let into the country come from. That is why Britain now is under the threat of muslim bomb attacks. The threat of terrorist atacks is used by the government as an excuse to severely curtail civil liberties and destroy centuries of established legal tradition.
In Pakistan there is widespread hatred of the British. In Pakistan the 7/7 London bombers are national heroes with millions of people visiting their gravesites to pay homage. Allowing more Pakistanis into the country only adds to the problem. Instead of allowing more in they need to be getting them out so the threat is diminished and to make it easier to monitor what remains.
[quote]
The issues in the UK would not be solved by giving everyone guns or by sending all the non-white, non-Christians ‘home’. These are your two suggestions and they are both as retarded as you are.
Again you make ridiculous exagerations. None of us has suggested giving everyone guns. Everyone didn’t have a gun before the 97 gun ban. All that is needed is for criminals to know that there guns out there that they could run into if they get out of line and it has a chilling effect on them. That is why there was such a massive rise in gun crime in response to the 97 ban.
I also have not suggested send home all the non white, non Christians. All I have suggested is cutting off the flood of new immigrants. The only people who need to be sent home are the illegals, failed and bogus asylum seekers and the muslims.
The Jamaicans, Chineese, Nepalese and Indians are not white and they are not all Christian, but they are alright, because they are not trying to sieze control of the society and change it into a theocratic dictatorship.
But I asked you what should be done about all of the legal immigrants and your response was ‘send them home’ I actually asked you twice just to be clear on it. Now you are dick tucking and squirming like you usually do. Next thing will be a wall of text post linking stories from the Daily Mail, the other thing you do when you are backed into a corner. [/quote]
You act like there is something wrong with people deciding who they want to allow in their home. It is little wonder why you have such difficulty seeing anything wrong with home invasion.
The Labour governments immigration policy is no different to an unsupervised teenager posting on Facebook or Beobo, “my parents are out of town, I’m having a party, everyone is welcome here is our address” and just letting shit get out of hand. Your attitude is if Mummy and Daddy come home and find their home invaded and getting trashed it would be wrong for them to reassert some adult authority over their home and tell everyone who is wrecking their home “the party’s over, get the fuck out of my house”.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Other than philosophically based around the wording ‘shall not be infringed’, do you have any real issue with licensing as a way of ensuring that people are trained on safe gun ownership?[/quote]
It’s a right, not an earned privilege. What the heck would be next? I have to get a license to go swimming? Do I have to go through a safety program, completed with a licensing test, before I can legally have a cold beer?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I totally agree that the anti terrorism laws are a joke. The first person arrested under them was an old man who stood up and shouted abuse during a labour party conference.
Also the incitement to racial hatred laws are wrong there should be freedom of speach and freedom of the press.
Those are both things that I agree are wrong with Britain. Interestingly a lot of this type of legislation seems to have been copied from US laws.
To which US laws regarding “the incitement to racial hatred” (or lack of “freedom of speach and freedom of the press”) do you refer?.
Title 7 of the Civil rights act 1964
18 U.S.C �§ 2101
18 U.S.C. �§ 245[/quote]
You do not know what you are talking about.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
To circumvent limitations on congressional power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause imposed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases, the law was passed under the Commerce Clause, which had been interpreted by the courts as a broad grant of congressional power. Once the Act was implemented, its effects were far reaching and had tremendous long-term impacts on the whole country. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U.S. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Powers given to enforce the bill were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years.
Title VII
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[21]).
Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.[22]
In very narrow defined situations an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between sex and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the “essence” or “central mission of the employer’s business,” and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on sex (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer’s preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School â?? Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the “unlawful employment practice” for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[citation needed]
There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:
Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to the federal government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
Native American Tribes
Religious groups performing work connected to the group’s activities, including associated education institutions;
Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4[21]). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Every state, except Arkansas and Alabama maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for more than 19 weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.[citation needed]
In the late 1970s courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal is a notable Title VII case relating to sexual harassment that was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. In 1986 the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998). Title VII has been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act[23] , Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
As I stated:
Next thing will be a wall of text post linking stories from the Daily Mail, the other thing you do when you are backed into a corner.
Huge fucking LOL. Sifu you are a joke!
Cock, I googled, “living in denial” and the first ten hits I got had photos of you. Sifu has handed you your ass on this thread and others and all your deluded mind can think of is, “Sifu, you are a joke.” You might want to see a therapist.[/quote]
Thank you Push.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I present him with a picture of a man who quite obviously has had his face stitched back together and all Cockhead can do is dismiss what happened as nothing to be concerned about because the mail has covered the story.
The reason why people like Cock hate the mail is because it doesn’t try to paint Britain as some wonderful fantasy world that doesn’t reallt exist. It shows the warts. Because he can’t provide a reasonable answer to the warts he resorts to the fallback answer of “well it’s the mail”.
Since he can’t attack the message he attacks the messenger.
What the hell are you talking about you rambling idiot? I never said that people do not occasionally get attacked in their homes in the UK. What I said was that there is no such crime on the statute books in the UK as Home Invasion. [/quote]
If you read my earlier post about home invasion you would know that a lot of US states don’t have statutes that specifically codify home invasion as a crime. Instead there are other laws that are brought in like kidnapping and assault.
In Britain they could use existing laws to add aggravating factors onto burglary charges. The problem with Britain is there is no will to deal with dangerous criminals like home invaders harshly.
[quote]
The issue was whether Martin was acting in self defence when he shot unarmed people that were running away from him in the back. You have failed to demonstrate how. [/quote]
No the issue is what would those home invaders have done to Martin had he not been armed with a shotgun. The issue is why should people not only have to live in fear of being assaulted in their own homes but also live in fear of their government if they defend themselves. You don’t get that and your friends in the government don’t get that either.
[quote]
The original issue was a claim that the Scout Association of Great Britain had banned it’s members from carrying knives. This was shown in the 3rd post to be a lie. [/quote]
They are restricting where thy can carry knives. I am not aware of a problem with Boy Scouts using their Swiss army pen knives to commit assaults. They are regulating a problem where none exists. This is typical of Britain today, over regulated and micro managed.
[quote]
You have nothing to say and you are saying it far, far too loud![/quote]
Whatever.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
In all fairness to the Brits over the illegal daycare story, it happens in Michigan too:
http://www.wndu.com/michigan/headlines/62669077.html [/quote]
Michigan is a Democrat dominated state that has been going down the shitter for decades.
Liberals do like to control everyone.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK Sifu, money where your mouth is time.
As you are so sure that the BNP are the future of Great Britain how about a good sporting wager?
$100 (US) says that there will be no BNP MPs elected at the next General Election in the UK.
Everyone on here can be witness to this. We can settle the bet through paypal or by buying $100 of product from this website, whatever is easier.
So what do you think? Do you have the courage of your convictions?[/quote]
The problem with your bet is it would require me to have faith in the British electorate to realize that they are being conned and lied to by the LibLabCon.
At the present time the only result I have certainty of is that the Tory’s are going to beat Labour and the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Democrats might to beat Labour.
However it could be a long eventful 8 months leading up to the election. The Irish vote this month could put the Tory’s in a very awkward position. Lets also not forget the muslims and their hatred of public transport. A couple of muslim bombings could seriously change peoples attitudes.
The bottom line is I am not going to make any bets this far out because just like Angela Merkel said when she canceled the British refferendum on the EU constitution, “the British can’t be trusted to give the correct vote”.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
OK Sifu, money where your mouth is time.
As you are so sure that the BNP are the future of Great Britain how about a good sporting wager?
$100 (US) says that there will be no BNP MPs elected at the next General Election in the UK.
Everyone on here can be witness to this. We can settle the bet through paypal or by buying $100 of product from this website, whatever is easier.
So what do you think? Do you have the courage of your convictions?
Hey CockadoodleMexicanBlue, since you’re in the wagering mood let’s do this. Without resorting to Google (or any other search engine or research outlet) let’s choose two towns in the United Gun-Totin’ States of America…oh let’s go with Kennesaw, Georgia (Population: 21,675) and Morton Grove, Illinois (Population: 22,451). Each town is a suburb of the largest city in their respective states. Kennesaw has a city ordinance requiring gun ownership and Morton Grove has one prohibiting it.
Let’s make a bet that Kennesaw’s violent crime rate is lower than Morton Grove’s. Whadda ya say, bloke? Wanna go for it?
Edit: In all fairness you stated you don’t think gun crime and gun control go hand in had. However, that position flies in the face of your animus for gun owners and the freedom to own these dastardly weapons of mass destruction. More Cocky paradoxes, I guess.
Your faux concerns for gun safety are a joke as well. The disparity between gun accident numbers and crimes prevented by guns is astronomical.
Other than philosophically based around the wording ‘shall not be infringed’, do you have any real issue with licensing as a way of ensuring that people are trained on safe gun ownership?[/quote]
Yes because unlike Britain in America we are still considered innocent until proven guilty.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What a retarded thing to post. I really couldn’t care less where someone’s family is from originally I treat people as I find them and I find you to be an idiot.
What is retarded is people like you running a government and not caring where people they let into the country come from. That is why Britain now is under the threat of muslim bomb attacks. The threat of terrorist atacks is used by the government as an excuse to severely curtail civil liberties and destroy centuries of established legal tradition.
In Pakistan there is widespread hatred of the British. In Pakistan the 7/7 London bombers are national heroes with millions of people visiting their gravesites to pay homage. Allowing more Pakistanis into the country only adds to the problem. Instead of allowing more in they need to be getting them out so the threat is diminished and to make it easier to monitor what remains.
[/quote]
Well at University I shared a house with two guys of Pakistani herritage. One had a Pakistani Father and a British Mother, the other was born in Pakistan. I never saw either of them try to blow anything up and they both were outraged by the 7/7 bombings.
[quote]
But I asked you what should be done about all of the legal immigrants and your response was ‘send them home’ I actually asked you twice just to be clear on it. Now you are dick tucking and squirming like you usually do. Next thing will be a wall of text post linking stories from the Daily Mail, the other thing you do when you are backed into a corner.
You act like there is something wrong with people deciding who they want to allow in their home. It is little wonder why you have such difficulty seeing anything wrong with home invasion.
The Labour governments immigration policy is no different to an unsupervised teenager posting on Facebook or Beobo, “my parents are out of town, I’m having a party, everyone is welcome here is our address” and just letting shit get out of hand. Your attitude is if Mummy and Daddy come home and find their home invaded and getting trashed it would be wrong for them to reassert some adult authority over their home and tell everyone who is wrecking their home “the party’s over, get the fuck out of my house”.[/quote]
So still no answer to the question of who to send home or how and a thrown in straw man claim that I don’t see anything wrong with home invasion.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I totally agree that the anti terrorism laws are a joke. The first person arrested under them was an old man who stood up and shouted abuse during a labour party conference.
Also the incitement to racial hatred laws are wrong there should be freedom of speach and freedom of the press.
Those are both things that I agree are wrong with Britain. Interestingly a lot of this type of legislation seems to have been copied from US laws.
To which US laws regarding “the incitement to racial hatred” (or lack of “freedom of speach and freedom of the press”) do you refer?.
Title 7 of the Civil rights act 1964
18 U.S.C �?�§ 2101
18 U.S.C. �?�§ 245
You do not know what you are talking about.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. Conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
To circumvent limitations on congressional power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause imposed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases, the law was passed under the Commerce Clause, which had been interpreted by the courts as a broad grant of congressional power. Once the Act was implemented, its effects were far reaching and had tremendous long-term impacts on the whole country. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U.S. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Powers given to enforce the bill were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years.
Title VII
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. �§ 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. �§ 2000e-2[21]).
Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.[22]
In very narrow defined situations an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between sex and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the “essence” or “central mission of the employer’s business,” and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on sex (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer’s preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School â?? Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the “unlawful employment practice” for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[citation needed]
There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:
Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to the federal government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
Native American Tribes
Religious groups performing work connected to the group’s activities, including associated education institutions;
Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. �§ 2000e-4[21]). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Every state, except Arkansas and Alabama maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for more than 19 weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.[citation needed]
In the late 1970s courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal is a notable Title VII case relating to sexual harassment that was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. In 1986 the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998). Title VII has been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act[23] , Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
[/quote]
Again you post a wall of text without understanding it. You must be about 0-100 on facts by now.
Title VII is one of the bits of legislation that is used to prosecute so called hate speech as employers can be prosecuted for tolerating hate speech by their employees.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Other than philosophically based around the wording ‘shall not be infringed’, do you have any real issue with licensing as a way of ensuring that people are trained on safe gun ownership?
It’s a right, not an earned privilege. What the heck would be next? I have to get a license to go swimming? Do I have to go through a safety program, completed with a licensing test, before I can legally have a cold beer?[/quote]
No but you do to drive a car, do you disagree with training and testing before driving?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
If you read my earlier post about home invasion you would know that a lot of US states don’t have statutes that specifically codify home invasion as a crime. Instead there are other laws that are brought in like kidnapping and assault.
In Britain they could use existing laws to add aggravating factors onto burglary charges. The problem with Britain is there is no will to deal with dangerous criminals like home invaders harshly.
[/quote]
They do you dumb arse, if you bothered to read the article that you posted you would see that.
No it is not. You claimed that Martin was denied the use of a self defence claim due to the horrors of the British legal system when in fact it was because it was not self defence.
But this is not happening. A scout on his way to a camping trip carrying a knife is under no threat of arrest. This is clearly laid out in the law and clearly covered in the document linked in post 3 of this thread. Again, with the lies. I can see why you like the BNP!
[quote]Sifu wrote:
pushharder wrote:
In all fairness to the Brits over the illegal daycare story, it happens in Michigan too:
http://www.wndu.com/michigan/headlines/62669077.html
Michigan is a Democrat dominated state that has been going down the shitter for decades.
Liberals do like to control everyone. [/quote]
But I thought things like this could only happen in the UK because we don’t have guns to protect us.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
OK Sifu, money where your mouth is time.
As you are so sure that the BNP are the future of Great Britain how about a good sporting wager?
$100 (US) says that there will be no BNP MPs elected at the next General Election in the UK.
Everyone on here can be witness to this. We can settle the bet through paypal or by buying $100 of product from this website, whatever is easier.
So what do you think? Do you have the courage of your convictions?
The problem with your bet is it would require me to have faith in the British electorate to realize that they are being conned and lied to by the LibLabCon.
At the present time the only result I have certainty of is that the Tory’s are going to beat Labour and the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Democrats might to beat Labour.
However it could be a long eventful 8 months leading up to the election. The Irish vote this month could put the Tory’s in a very awkward position. Lets also not forget the muslims and their hatred of public transport. A couple of muslim bombings could seriously change peoples attitudes.
The bottom line is I am not going to make any bets this far out because just like Angela Merkel said when she canceled the British refferendum on the EU constitution, “the British can’t be trusted to give the correct vote”.[/quote]
What a blatant dick tuck!
You have been screaming on in post after post that the BNP are the future because British people recognise that they are the only party talking sense. The second I test your convictions we find out that you are blowing hot air. Typical!
By the way, here are some more views from your beloved BNP and in your favourite comic. Aparrantly non violent rape is a myth!
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Other than philosophically based around the wording ‘shall not be infringed’, do you have any real issue with licensing as a way of ensuring that people are trained on safe gun ownership?
It’s a right, not an earned privilege. What the heck would be next? I have to get a license to go swimming? Do I have to go through a safety program, completed with a licensing test, before I can legally have a cold beer?
No but you do to drive a car, do you disagree with training and testing before driving?[/quote]
Travel is a right. But, driving on tax payer funded infrastructure built specifically for vehicle usage isn’t. The managed use of public works is an entirely different matter. To compare the two is nonsense. Notice I used examples which private citizens would often be engaged in, in entirely private circumstances.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Other than philosophically based around the wording ‘shall not be infringed’, do you have any real issue with licensing as a way of ensuring that people are trained on safe gun ownership?
It’s a right, not an earned privilege. What the heck would be next? I have to get a license to go swimming? Do I have to go through a safety program, completed with a licensing test, before I can legally have a cold beer?
No but you do to drive a car, do you disagree with training and testing before driving?[/quote]
You’ve been harping on this crap for a few pages. You have to have training and testing before driving on public roads. That is because the roads are built by the public, at public expense, therefore, the government can set rules regarding their use. Anyone, even children can drive on private roads and private property. It is the same with guns. You don’t need to be trained or tested before you can keep a gun on your property, you do have to take a class and get tested before you can concealed carry in public.
Since I answered your asinine question, answer this: why are you so obsessed with this subject?
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Other than philosophically based around the wording ‘shall not be infringed’, do you have any real issue with licensing as a way of ensuring that people are trained on safe gun ownership?
It’s a right, not an earned privilege. What the heck would be next? I have to get a license to go swimming? Do I have to go through a safety program, completed with a licensing test, before I can legally have a cold beer?
No but you do to drive a car, do you disagree with training and testing before driving?
You’ve been harping on this crap for a few pages. You have to have training and testing before driving on public roads. That is because the roads are built by the public, at public expense, therefore, the government can set rules regarding their use. Anyone, even children can drive on private roads and private property. It is the same with guns. You don’t need to be trained or tested before you can keep a gun on your property, you do have to take a class and get tested before you can concealed carry in public.
Since I answered your asinine question, answer this: why are you so obsessed with this subject?[/quote]
Is it the case in all states that you have to be tested and certificated to carry a gun in public? Also, for anyoen who has actually taken the tests, is it a decent test?
I ask the second because here in Mexico there is a driving test however in reality it is a joke that is impossible to fail.
I am not obsessed with the subject at all, on the contrary it is the Americans that seem to be obsessed with guns. I have repeatedly stated that gun control probably has minimal effect on crime whereas Captain Dick Tuck and Push seem to see that everything in the world can be related back to gun ownership.