[quote]pushharder 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?
Yes.[/quote]
Is it the slippery slope argument or something specific to guns?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder 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?
Yes.
Is it the slippery slope argument or something specific to guns?
Good fuckin grief, Cock, just hit the Push rewind button and play it over again. Have I not typed and typed and typed the answer over and over and over again?
[/quote]
Was only asking. What’s up, nurse didn’t come round with your tablets and meals on wheels this morning?
Cockney i’ll do it, hell raise it to whatever you want.
I 100% personally GUARENTEE there WILL be a BNP person in parliment after the next election.
Obviously you don’t live where i live or you would know what is happening.
PS: People are FED UP with everyone coming here and calling it home ! English are becoming a freaking minority in their OWN country !
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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.
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]
Nobody in their right mind would consider Pakistan a liberal non belligerant society. The state of their own society in their homeland is highly indicative of what Britain will become like if they ever beccome the dominant group there.
Right before they flew airplanes into the world trade center a bunch of the 9/11 terrorists were going out to strip clubs and getting drunk. The moral of the story is they can act perfectly normal and westernized in order to hide their true beliefs. That is something they learned from mohammad.
[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”.
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]
Yes I have answered the question, read my other posts.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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 Ã?¢?? 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).
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]
You posted a couple of numbers with nothing to put them into context with the point that you are trying to make. Then you want to act like we are idiots because we don’t know the relevant case law and know exactly what you are refferring to. That’s bullshit. If you can’t support what you are saying with actual examples don’t waste our time.
[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]
I do. 1) it is a right, which is not the same as a privilege. You have a right to free speech under the 1st amendment. Would you support licensing of that right only to citizens who prove they are sufficiently intelligent to make sense when speaking?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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.
But I thought things like this could only happen in the UK because we don’t have guns to protect us.[/quote]
Agan with the hyperbole. Guns have nothing to do with this.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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?
[/quote]
No, it is not the case. There are 11 states that do no require any license or test to carry openly in public.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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”.
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!
The British electorate have proven themselves to be quite capable of disappointing, I wouldn’t bet money on them. ie As much fuss as some make about Labour falling to 14 percent of the vote in the June elections, I can’t understand how they even got that much. The damage that nulabour have done will take generations to to undo.
So one politician makes an ass out of himself. Do you belive that no other parties have had assholes? Here is what the BNP said about him. I don’t support his views and it appears the BNP took care of the matter.
http://bnp.org.uk/index.php?s=Nick+Eriksen
Following on from coverage in newspapers yesterday concerning comments attributed to British National Party London list candidate Nick Eriksen, the BNP has issued the following statement:
Nick Eriksen has this morning withdrawn his candidature from the London Assembly elections.
Under the party list system, popular BNP Councillor Bob Bailey (illustration), deputy leader of the official opposition on Barking and Dagenham council, moves up to take the number two position.
It was felt that no matter how much Nick Eriksenâ??s blog comments, written back in 2005, had been distorted and taken out of the context of a blog which reflected our tough stance on all sorts of crime, they could still be perceived as trivialising the issue in a manner that many women in particular could have found extremely offensive. As such it was agreed that there should not be any ambiguity with regards real crimes against real women in our capital city by somebody about to enter government. British National Party members elected to the Greater London Assembly will campaign relentlessly to rid the city of the criminals that infest it and those responsible for their reign of terror against ordinary Londoners.
Whilst this Party remains committed to free speech it should be understood that with that freedom comes responsibility. Mr. Eriksen has taken responsibility and unlike other politicians faced with similar circumstances has acted swiftly and honourably to resolve this matter.
[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]
He is obsessed with the subject because he sees government control as the answer to everything and he refuses to understand that government control can cause problems.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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?
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? [/quote]
It varies from state to state but there is one standard test that applies to all of them. Does the person have a felony criminal record? In Vermont if you don’t have a criminal record you are good to go. That is very fair.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
The CCW class I took was reasonable. I learned some good techniques for safe gun handling and carrying. Though a lot of it was redundant with what I had been taught about self defense and assault laws in karate class.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
While there are issues of freedom or law and order that guns can or do play a role in we don’t relate everything back to guns. Again you are resorting to your histrionics.
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Cockney i’ll do it, hell raise it to whatever you want.
I 100% personally GUARENTEE there WILL be a BNP person in parliment after the next election. [/quote]
I think that is quite possible. If the Irish refferndum votes Yes the Tory’s are going to be in a bind because although they have promised a refferendum on the EU constitution if they are elected they have included the weasal clause that if the Constitution is in effect by the time they are elcted they will of course have to go along with it so there will be no vote. The Tory’s could unravel and the BNP could pick up a lot of support in the next 8 moths becaue of that. The BNP could also scavenge a good nomber of votes out of UKIP if people realize they are a scam.
[quote]
Obviously you don’t live where i live or you would know what is happening. [/quote]
Tell us, Cock doesn’t know. I get it. Parts of Britain have been absolutely overrun to the point that the indiginous people aren’t safe to walk down the street in some areas.
Trust me you really don’t want to end up where they are taking you! Living in the US I have had the good fortune to have several friends who were descended from native Americans. I know fully well what awaits the British if they become the minority in their homeland like the native Americans have become. They will never get it back after it is gone. They will be absolutely regretting and cursing their ancestors who let it happen.
Now is the time to take action before it goes any further. Already the number of babies born to non British mothers is greater than the number born indiginous mothers. Immigration is no longer needed to cause the demographics change, it is now self sustaining.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
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.
Wow.
Talk about an inane post!
What in the WORLD is the point of this?[/quote]
Well according to Sifu everyone from Pakistan wants to destroy Britain and hates everything that Britain stands for so surely I should have at least sensed something from them.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
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.
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.
Nobody in their right mind would consider Pakistan a liberal non belligerant society. The state of their own society in their homeland is highly indicative of what Britain will become like if they ever beccome the dominant group there.
Right before they flew airplanes into the world trade center a bunch of the 9/11 terrorists were going out to strip clubs and getting drunk. The moral of the story is they can act perfectly normal and westernized in order to hide their true beliefs. That is something they learned from mohammad.
[/quote]
So you and your tin foil hat legitimately believe that two of my old Uni mates are 1 step away from breaking out the suicide bombs just because they come from Pakistan? You are a racist, bigot.
[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”.
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.
Yes I have answered the question, read my other posts. [/quote]
All you have said is send them home, no mention of how, who pays etc. The cost to just send the Illegals back has been estimated at over 12 billion sterling, where does that come from?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Was only asking. What’s up, nurse didn’t come round with your tablets and meals on wheels this morning?
Your ongoing recourse of insulting Push based on his age is pretty pathetic.
[/quote]
I am only responding in kind. Push mocked me for being too young to understand something a few months back. It is meant in good nature and I am sure that Push is thick skinned enough to stand up for himself.