So again, are the British People Sheep or are they impossible to sway? One or the other.
Cockney,
Think about religious cults, for instance. They are sheep and they are almost impossible to be swayed/persuaded from their blind course.
I think this is what Sifu was trying to convey and it has been my experience with the British.
They are very bound to tradition, conserving the status quo and more importantly very proud, and God forbid, of not becoming like those Americans.
America is “Them” and this is “Us” and we don’t embrace gun ownership policies - that is for vile American gangster society.
I have heard British people saying countless times with resentment how we are “constantly following America’s footsteps, always a step behind” “becoming like America” and “that is why we now have a knife/gang problem, because we are catching up with America.”
Whether that is true or not, there is a lot of passing the buck and stubbornness.
The obstinacy Sifu is talking about may have something to do with a lot of hurt pride.
That is just how I see it from my window.
[/quote]
You have just done exactly the same thing, in the first half of your post you talk about the fact that British People are bound by tradition and totally eschew American culture and values, in the second half you talk about how people percieve the problems to be from Brits following American culture and values.
Which is it? Are they tradition bound and impossible to change or do they follow the US?
Those are Heckler Koch MP5 submachine guns. Here is a video history of it for you. It fires a 9mm handgun round. It is actually less powerful than the .223 caliber rifle round that the Hello Kitty AR15 fires.
[/quote]
I cracked up when I saw the Hello Kitty picture! Thank you for making me laugh…that gun is not for real, right? It’s a toy, yes?
Thank you for the link. It was awesome to see them being fired. I like the way they look also - very elite![quote]
It sounds like you don’t have a lot of experience with being around firearms.[/quote]
You are correct. I don’t. Interesting fact is in Brazil, where I was until 17, the police on the streets were always armed. Two revolvers was the norm. You didn’t really see the big guns unless they were protecting important people or huge events requiring crowd control, like Carnival when the military police is out in all glory ( or should I say guts and gore ). The first thing I noticed when in Britain was the police was unarmed and I got used to this. At first I thought they were crazy but then realized it seemed unnecessary since the people seemed quite tamed.[quote]
Which is typical for a lot of people in Britain. In Britain peoples minds have been molded by the media to view guns as ominous, scary, instruments of death. All they are is a tool.[/quote]
Though I find fire arms impressive and would love to handle one one day, I have to question your statement. The first thought that came into my head when I read your above statement was: If I had a gun I would at least shoot people’s tires in traffic in Central London ( I drive in the Constipation charge all day - it is no longer a Congestion with all the third world road works here and that would be subject worthy of another thread! ). Then I thought I would get caught on cctv, shot by the cctv and then prison next. So I thought what is the point of owning a gun?
I would also be tempted to threaten the traffic wardens but they would probably carry guns also - at the moment they do which is the ticket machines and I have had thoughts of grabbing that thing from their hands and smashing on the floor. So, my point is, there might be a point to guns after all since I would have to control myself and with such a government that is clearly helping themselves to my livelihood with no one to stop them, allowing the population to own a gun takes some of their freedom to abuse us so softly but so consistently, away. It would add an ‘edge’ to the situation where we, the people could potentially cause considerable harm before being subdued by them completely - but at present we are, like I was in front of those MP5 officers; completely opened and vulnerable to immediate assault.
And on your point of “All they are is a tool”
Yes, but a tool of protection or a toll of destruction, or a tool of oppression?
It is a lethal weapon - a lethal weapon is a tool for what? [quote]
But your pictures do show the difference in levels of protection between upper class and the lower classes. If you are upper class you rate having immediate, firearm security available onsite because preservation of an upper class life is important and some circumstances require an immdediate armed response where milliseconds can mean the difference between life and death. [/quote]
This is common sense. And it would make sense reality unfolded that way. It is no different in Brazil. Mind you, in some favelas in Rio is where you find the most powerful guns and best security there is on account of the drug dealers protecting their ‘business’. In that case too, it is only the very important or elite dealers and their families that get this king of protection - and the reason is the assets: the drug business. Drawing a parallel with your reasoning; the assets would be the key players of the Gov business. There is also a couple of those officers with the MP5 patrolling the street of Chester Hill, Mayfair. A very important man lives at number 1. There used to be another officer with the MP5 submachine on the inner circle of Regents Park, right after the entrance to London Zoo - but I don’t know who lives there.
Sifu, in hindsight, it is not necessarily the people that are important. This teaches me that human life is quiet dispensable. It is what people represent that matters. If that man at number 1, Chester Hill became number 387 Harrow Hill he would still be the same man but would no longer ‘matter’.
Wouldn’t you agree?[quote]
That is why the guards in the picture are demonstrating part of their training which is to always have at least one hand on their gun at all times. Both guards have their right hands on the grip with their trigger finger just above the trigger ready to go.[/quote]
That is EXACTLY why I was so uneasy as I approached them and wanted to get out of their presence very quickly. I did notice that not even once during our conversation did they take their hands off that position even though they were cheerful and highly pleasant.[quote]
It probably is a good idea to be conscious of your movements around them.[/quote]
EXACTLY as you said!.. I WAS! It was like I was connected to an electric plug in terms of awareness. If it is part of their training, wow. I am impressed. I just thought they liked to feel the machine, ; D… How naive of me! [quote]
If you are lower class in Britain however the preservation of your life is not important. That is why for the lower classes 999 is all they get. For the lower classes those precious milli-seconds that mean life or death don’t count, because lower class lives don’t count.
When I am in London I train BJJ with Roger Gracie, there are a few close protection guys and a lot of police guys that train there.[/quote]
Ah, no wonder you are at such locker heads with Sifu, two martial artists!
You are quite elite yourself, then, huh? My masseuse is a BJJ competitor, I shall ask him about who is who in the celeb world of BJJ.
Tell us, do any of these protection guys discuss politics with you and what do they think? How would you describe the mental disposition of someone like them? Do they mind minding the important people?
Do they think they work for the government or do they think they are the government? Are they outraged by anything? And what is their position on gun ownership by the population - would they fear their job more, etc…You must be privy to some interesting opinions, no? Any stories? [quote]
By the way, a little point of order from an earlier post. The BBC is not owned by the government. It is funded by the license fee and authorized by Royal Charter however it is deliberately set up to be totally independent from government and autonomous. There have been occasions where claims have been made of bias (sometimes rightly so in my opinion,) however these have typically been for attacks on the government not defence of it.[/quote]
That could be a decoy. I don’t think there is a plot by any means but it is funded by public money and yet I have no say in it. Why?
Because I don’t have a choice even to opt out of paying for this hideous tv license ( I want them to show UFC fighters, not cooking programs and 4 hours of darts or snooker the entire weekend!!! ). As with the parking penalties, and I can’t even challenge this one, it is ENFORCED BY THE GOVERNMENT. I just wish they would at least respect my choice to opt out of the BBC viewing. How could I not have a choice?..Except for BBC choice…
According to their tv license law ( a crime against what, exactly? ), I can be fined and go to prison for watching tv even on my cell phone or something absurd like that, that they can’t even reinforce. I received this overwhelming list of electronic devices that if found in my property without a valid tv licence would make me subject to an immediate fine of $2000 and a possible prison sentence ( OoooO, the fear instilling language ).
So much of it is subjugation through fear - this is all I have been made to feel and I refuse to live in fear.
Do people know they don’t actually have to open the door to the tv boogeyman?
Have you seen the adverts? “We know every household in Britain and we have equipment to catch tv license thieves…”
Jesus Christ, aren’t there actual criminals that this equipment could catch?
Yet another situation where I owned a gun I doubt they would come knocking at my door reinforcing their money.
Death to the tv license!
Where is my Hello Kitty MP5 submachine?..
Cockney, is that you handling a gun on your avatar?
What those women in Hyde park wearing burqas represent is a culture of seperation and rejection of other cultures.[/quote]
That is exactly why I had such a visceral reaction to them.
You turned my instinctual responses into words.
It is also an utter rejection of their femininity.
Ah so you have noticed something. They are quite dilligent and extremely effective at enforcing traffic laws because they can generate revenues that way. But when it comes to important law and order issues like dealing with burglary, mugging, assault, rape, murder they are nowhere as good at catching those kinds of criminals and when they do the punishments they receive are a joke or some aspect of the human rights act helps the criminal.
Two completely different methods of law enforcement between civil and criminal law, but they have the same effect on people. They make them feel like the country has gone to the dogs and they want to get out.
[/quote]
I agree with this completely because it has been my experience.
“Ye blind guides, you strain a gnat, and swallow the camel.”
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
You have just done exactly the same thing, in the first half of your post you talk about the fact that British People are bound by tradition and totally eschew American culture and values, in the second half you talk about how people percieve the problems to be from Brits following American culture and values.
Which is it?[/quote]
Can we please stop the thread until Cockney catches up? If you can’t understand what they are saying then you lack critical reasoning skills.
A hint: It can be both.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
No it doesn’t it makes it very easy. You hire a publicist and ensure that your message is in the media.[/quote]
Oh right so I can just hire a publicist who will make sure that my message is heard on prime time tv?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
The fact that there may not yet be widespread support for gun ownership is only because the British are a brainwashed bunch of sheep. Since there is no rational basis for gun control public opinion could be changed. However if the British really can’t be swayed by reason to change their mind on gun control or any other issue for that matter then they truly are a lost cause.
OK this is another example of your screwed up logical processes. You claim that the British people are a brainwashed bunch of sheep and therefore easily led then you say that they are a lost cause because they can’t be swayed. So which is it? Are they easily swayed or are they impossible to sway? It can’t be both.
Your reading comprehension is very poor. I wrote: IF the British really can’t be swayed by reason to change their mind on gun control or any other issue for that matter then they truly are a lost cause.
I did not write “because”. That is your rewrite.
What I wrote is true . If the British cannot or will not admit when they have made a mistake and then rectify that mistake they really are finished as a people.
You use and IF THEN statement and then claim there is no BECAUSE. IF THEN clearly implies a causation. Because is a conjunction used to show causation.
So again, are the British People Sheep or are they impossible to sway? One or the other.[/quote]
You are so full of shit. You have deliberately rewritten what I wrote. I am not going to defend, justify or explain what you have written then tried to pass off as my words.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
A burqa is a lot more than just another piece of clothing. There is a whole lot of cultural baggage that goes along with it. Islam has an extensive history of treating women and girls as chattel. Using the burqa to strip women of any sense of identity and to prevent others from seeing them as individuals is the ultimate objectification of women.
What those women in Hyde park wearing burqas represent is a culture of seperation and rejection of other cultures. If the muslim population is not kept in check but allowed to grow unhindered that will be the future for all British women.
No, a Burqua is just another piece of clothing. If you choose to attach all that power to it then that is down to you but it really is just a piece of cloth.
No Cock. A burqa is a portable one person isolation cell. It dehumanizes women by hiding or not allowing them to have an identity.
Forcing someone to wear one is wrong but if someone chooses to wear one because they feel that it gives them freedom to walk about in public without judgement on the way that they look then who am I to tell them not to.
You really are clueless. A lot of women are forced to wear them and have suffered extreme violence for not wearing them. Why don’t you spend sometime studying up on muslim rape gangs in France and what happens to women there who don’t wear burqas.
You are the clueless one, you want to enforce your views on others and you see this as liberty. I clearly stated that forcing someone to wear a Burqa is wrong however if someone chooses to wear one that is their own business and I have no right to tell them not to.
You obviously have no idea of what life is like for women in muslim countries. Nor do you have any idea of the history islam and how muslims have forced their religion on others. My wanting to see the plot of land that my ancestors have been on for a thousand years remain free from subjugation by that religion is not forcing my ideas on others it is preventing others from forcing their ideas on me or my family. If you had half a brain you would understand the difference.
From that, you do your normal trick of leaping up in outrage screaming that I support gang rape.
Again you are making things up. I wrote nothing of the sort. What is the matter with you tonight? You need to lay off the tequila worms and the Mexican dirt weed. I wrote that you should learn about the muslim rape gangs in France because you obviously don’t any idea how violent muslim men are towards women who don’t wear burqas.
The idea that women willingly choose such a torture without being threatened is ridiculous.
You quite clearly implied that as I didn’t support a ban on Burqas that I was complicit in some way with gang rape otherwise what was the point that you were making?[/quote]
Again you are resorting to your tactic of misrepresenting, distorting, making things up. You made the following flippant statement about burqas being a matter of choice:
“Forcing someone to wear one is wrong but if someone chooses to wear one because they feel that it gives them freedom to walk about in public without judgement on the way that they look then who am I to tell them not to.”
So I pointed out that you should learn about what muslim men in France do to women who CHOOSE NOT TO WEAR A BURQA. So although it is obvious you don’t give a damn I made no suggestion that you were complicit in anything.
I merely point out the fact that if you think wearing a burqa is a matter of choice then yo are wrong. I have never heard a muslims woman say that she wore a burqa for any other reason than she was afraid that something bad would happen to her if she didn’t wear it.
[quote]
I am fully aware of tournantes, it is an example of what happens when religion joins up with crazy. It is not about the burqa it is about male sexual aggression and supression. Banning anyone from wearing Burqas would not suddenly make Tournantes and so called Honour Killings stop. [/quote]
If you are aware then why don’t you care? You are right that burqas are merely a symptom of the real problem which is islam itslef. Extreme violence towards women is so deeply ingrained into that relaigion there is no fixing it.
So again, are the British People Sheep or are they impossible to sway? One or the other.
Cockney,
Think about religious cults, for instance. They are sheep and they are almost impossible to be swayed/persuaded from their blind course.
I think this is what Sifu was trying to convey and it has been my experience with the British.
They are very bound to tradition, conserving the status quo and more importantly very proud, and God forbid, of not becoming like those Americans.
America is “Them” and this is “Us” and we don’t embrace gun ownership policies - that is for vile American gangster society.
I have heard British people saying countless times with resentment how we are “constantly following America’s footsteps, always a step behind” “becoming like America” and “that is why we now have a knife/gang problem, because we are catching up with America.”
Whether that is true or not, there is a lot of passing the buck and stubbornness.
The obstinacy Sifu is talking about may have something to do with a lot of hurt pride.
That is just how I see it from my window.
[/quote]
The British have really taken to gangsta culture. The problem with the British is they have added their own cultural twists to the situation that have made it particularly intractable. When you have armed gangbangers running around a comunity where the citizens are unarmed and defenseless and most of the police are also unarmed it is a recipe for things just spiraling out of control.
They blame America for it but that is just a cop out. If you look at the countries where a lot of Britains third world immigrants have come from some of them have bad gang problems of their own makeing. ie Kingston Jamaica has terrible gang problems. Back in the 80’s in Miami the Jamaican Yardies reputation with the Americans was that they were notoriously violent and dangerous. There are a lot more Jamaicans in London than Americans.
What Britain is becoming, is a lot more like the third world countries that all of it’s immigrants are coming from.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
So again, are the British People Sheep or are they impossible to sway? One or the other.
Cockney,
Think about religious cults, for instance. They are sheep and they are almost impossible to be swayed/persuaded from their blind course.
I think this is what Sifu was trying to convey and it has been my experience with the British.
They are very bound to tradition, conserving the status quo and more importantly very proud, and God forbid, of not becoming like those Americans.
America is “Them” and this is “Us” and we don’t embrace gun ownership policies - that is for vile American gangster society.
I have heard British people saying countless times with resentment how we are “constantly following America’s footsteps, always a step behind” “becoming like America” and “that is why we now have a knife/gang problem, because we are catching up with America.”
Whether that is true or not, there is a lot of passing the buck and stubbornness.
The obstinacy Sifu is talking about may have something to do with a lot of hurt pride.
That is just how I see it from my window.
You have just done exactly the same thing, in the first half of your post you talk about the fact that British People are bound by tradition and totally eschew American culture and values, in the second half you talk about how people percieve the problems to be from Brits following American culture and values.
Which is it? Are they tradition bound and impossible to change or do they follow the US?[/quote]
They are weak minded and easily swayed into stupidity. Then they stubbornly refuse to admit they made a mistake and sink into deep denial as a coping mechanism to avoid facing up to their stupidity.
When I am in London I train BJJ with Roger Gracie, there are a few close protection guys and a lot of police guys that train there.
Ah, no wonder you are at such locker heads with Sifu, two martial artists!
You are quite elite yourself, then, huh? My masseuse is a BJJ competitor, I shall ask him about who is who in the celeb world of BJJ.
[/quote]
I am by no means elite. Any time I start thinking I am good all I have to do is go back to London and get utterly destroyed by some of the guys there. Royce, Rodrigo and Royler also come down and train with us in Mexico from time to time which is also a great humbling experience.
There are actually a couple of proper celebs that train with us in London. A some of them are actually very good.
I don’t really talk politics much in the gym, it is normally gym stuff or girls. In general terms, the police guys bitch and moan about their work as much as any of us civilians.
The main topic of conversation seems to be how much of a joke the restraining and control training is in the Police and how the average bobby on the beat is actually pretty thick.
Oh and they definitely think they work for the government as opposed to being part of it. They just follow the orders (as the saying goes.)
I go back and forth on the TV license. On the one hand it is a joke that one company forces everyone to pay a license even if they don’t want to watch BBC shows, on the other hand the BBC has been responsible for some absolutely amazing programming that would most likely not have been possible under a different funding model.
Technically you don’t have to pay for a license if you can show that you have disabled your TV from showing BBC channels, how practical that would be in the modern Digital era I am not sure.
Personally I think now digital is in place you should have the option to opt out of BBC if that is what you want.
Yes it is a gun but it wasn’t loaded. It was for some photos at work. I actually used to target shoot in competition when I was a kid and clay pigeon shoot at the weekends. I fully understand the enjoyment of shooting and have no problem with sensible and controlled gun ownership. I just don’t equate liberty to guns in the same way as Sifu does.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You have just done exactly the same thing, in the first half of your post you talk about the fact that British People are bound by tradition and totally eschew American culture and values, in the second half you talk about how people percieve the problems to be from Brits following American culture and values.
Which is it?
Can we please stop the thread until Cockney catches up? If you can’t understand what they are saying then you lack critical reasoning skills.
A hint: It can be both.
Cockney Blue wrote:
No it doesn’t it makes it very easy. You hire a publicist and ensure that your message is in the media.
Oh right so I can just hire a publicist who will make sure that my message is heard on prime time tv?[/quote]
Yes you can. They can be found in any yellow pages.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
The fact that there may not yet be widespread support for gun ownership is only because the British are a brainwashed bunch of sheep. Since there is no rational basis for gun control public opinion could be changed. However if the British really can’t be swayed by reason to change their mind on gun control or any other issue for that matter then they truly are a lost cause.
OK this is another example of your screwed up logical processes. You claim that the British people are a brainwashed bunch of sheep and therefore easily led then you say that they are a lost cause because they can’t be swayed. So which is it? Are they easily swayed or are they impossible to sway? It can’t be both.
Your reading comprehension is very poor. I wrote: IF the British really can’t be swayed by reason to change their mind on gun control or any other issue for that matter then they truly are a lost cause.
I did not write “because”. That is your rewrite.
What I wrote is true . If the British cannot or will not admit when they have made a mistake and then rectify that mistake they really are finished as a people.
You use and IF THEN statement and then claim there is no BECAUSE. IF THEN clearly implies a causation. Because is a conjunction used to show causation.
So again, are the British People Sheep or are they impossible to sway? One or the other.
You are so full of shit. You have deliberately rewritten what I wrote. I am not going to defend, justify or explain what you have written then tried to pass off as my words. [/quote]
Ok reading back what you wrote I kind of get what you are saying however if they are as easily led as you claim then why has no-one led them into supporting guns?
Also, you keep using words like ‘stripped of their right to defend themselves’ which are implies removing the right against people’s will. Whereas the truth is that there is no real support for a relaxing of UK gun laws.
I tell you what, why don’t you kill two birds with one stone by going back to the UK and setting up a political party founded around giving people back their rights under the magna carta?
Again you are resorting to your tactic of misrepresenting, distorting, making things up. You made the following flippant statement about burqas being a matter of choice:
“Forcing someone to wear one is wrong but if someone chooses to wear one because they feel that it gives them freedom to walk about in public without judgement on the way that they look then who am I to tell them not to.”
So I pointed out that you should learn about what muslim men in France do to women who CHOOSE NOT TO WEAR A BURQA. So although it is obvious you don’t give a damn I made no suggestion that you were complicit in anything.
I merely point out the fact that if you think wearing a burqa is a matter of choice then yo are wrong. I have never heard a muslims woman say that she wore a burqa for any other reason than she was afraid that something bad would happen to her if she didn’t wear it.
I am fully aware of tournantes, it is an example of what happens when religion joins up with crazy. It is not about the burqa it is about male sexual aggression and supression. Banning anyone from wearing Burqas would not suddenly make Tournantes and so called Honour Killings stop.
If you are aware then why don’t you care? You are right that burqas are merely a symptom of the real problem which is islam itslef. Extreme violence towards women is so deeply ingrained into that relaigion there is no fixing it. [/quote]
Sifu you are barking up the wrong tree. The Burqa is not the issue, the issue is that a group of people in France can rape someone and then have it covered up by the community. Or the situation in the UK with so called honour killings.
Also if you think that all women who wear the Burqa are forced to then you are the one who needs some education. Some women choose to wear the Burqa because they feel that it allows them to go out in public without men seeing them as a sex object. I defend their right to do this (though I think they are bonkers.)
And finally you miss the point yet again when you state that Islam is the problem. The problem is violence against women. If religious fanaticism is used to support this then that is also an issue but it is not the root cause.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
So again, are the British People Sheep or are they impossible to sway? One or the other.
Cockney,
Think about religious cults, for instance. They are sheep and they are almost impossible to be swayed/persuaded from their blind course.
I think this is what Sifu was trying to convey and it has been my experience with the British.
They are very bound to tradition, conserving the status quo and more importantly very proud, and God forbid, of not becoming like those Americans.
America is “Them” and this is “Us” and we don’t embrace gun ownership policies - that is for vile American gangster society.
I have heard British people saying countless times with resentment how we are “constantly following America’s footsteps, always a step behind” “becoming like America” and “that is why we now have a knife/gang problem, because we are catching up with America.”
Whether that is true or not, there is a lot of passing the buck and stubbornness.
The obstinacy Sifu is talking about may have something to do with a lot of hurt pride.
That is just how I see it from my window.
The British have really taken to gangsta culture. The problem with the British is they have added their own cultural twists to the situation that have made it particularly intractable. When you have armed gangbangers running around a comunity where the citizens are unarmed and defenseless and most of the police are also unarmed it is a recipe for things just spiraling out of control.
They blame America for it but that is just a cop out. If you look at the countries where a lot of Britains third world immigrants have come from some of them have bad gang problems of their own makeing. ie Kingston Jamaica has terrible gang problems. Back in the 80’s in Miami the Jamaican Yardies reputation with the Americans was that they were notoriously violent and dangerous. There are a lot more Jamaicans in London than Americans.
What Britain is becoming, is a lot more like the third world countries that all of it’s immigrants are coming from. [/quote]
Yep, a lot of the gangsta culture came about at around the time that there were some pretty big turf wars going on between the Turkish Drugs Gangs and the Yardie Drug Gangs in Norf Lahndan. Then of course you throw the traditional Sarf London gangs (like the Richardsons) into the mix and it is a powderkeg.
That said, in Manchester I always felt much safer in Moss Side (very black) or Rusholme (very Muslim) than I did in Salford (13 year old white hoodie nutters who will randomly attack people just for shits and giggles.)
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
So again, are the British People Sheep or are they impossible to sway? One or the other.
Cockney,
Think about religious cults, for instance. They are sheep and they are almost impossible to be swayed/persuaded from their blind course.
I think this is what Sifu was trying to convey and it has been my experience with the British.
They are very bound to tradition, conserving the status quo and more importantly very proud, and God forbid, of not becoming like those Americans.
America is “Them” and this is “Us” and we don’t embrace gun ownership policies - that is for vile American gangster society.
I have heard British people saying countless times with resentment how we are “constantly following America’s footsteps, always a step behind” “becoming like America” and “that is why we now have a knife/gang problem, because we are catching up with America.”
Whether that is true or not, there is a lot of passing the buck and stubbornness.
The obstinacy Sifu is talking about may have something to do with a lot of hurt pride.
That is just how I see it from my window.
You have just done exactly the same thing, in the first half of your post you talk about the fact that British People are bound by tradition and totally eschew American culture and values, in the second half you talk about how people percieve the problems to be from Brits following American culture and values.
Which is it? Are they tradition bound and impossible to change or do they follow the US?
They are weak minded and easily swayed into stupidity. Then they stubbornly refuse to admit they made a mistake and sink into deep denial as a coping mechanism to avoid facing up to their stupidity. [/quote]
Those are Heckler Koch MP5 submachine guns. Here is a video history of it for you. It fires a 9mm handgun round. It is actually less powerful than the .223 caliber rifle round that the Hello Kitty AR15 fires.
I cracked up when I saw the Hello Kitty picture! Thank you for making me laugh…that gun is not for real, right? It’s a toy, yes? [/quote]
Actually ,yes it is a real gun. Some guy had it made for his wife. Other than paint and a few other changes to make it legal for civilian use that gun is more or less the same M16/M4 rifle that the American army has been using since Vietnam.
Hello Kitty AR-15 - evil black rifle meets cute and cuddly
So called “Assault Weapons Bans” such as the now expired 1994 Clinton ban and the one still in place in states such as California seek to ban rifles that our misguided legislators feel have no purpose in civilian hands. They identify “evil features” they can use to generically classify these “military style” weapons in sweeping terms. Of course these features, such as plastic pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and bayonet lugs have absolutely nothing to do with the firearms potential lethality in the real world and are merely cosmetic features. After all, it really doesn’t matter what color the firearm is if it fires the same ammunition right? Well, in the “spirit” of the California Assault Weapon Ban I decided to do my best to alleviate the fears of my fellow citizens and gun-banning legislators when I put together a new AR-15 for my wife. Below is the result of my painstaking work to transform an Evil Black Rifle (EBR) into a Cute Pink RIfle (CPR). Introducing the Hello Kitty AR-15!
[quote]
Thank you for the link. It was awesome to see them being fired. I like the way they look also - very elite!
It sounds like you don’t have a lot of experience with being around firearms.
You are correct. I don’t. Interesting fact is in Brazil, where I was until 17, the police on the streets were always armed. Two revolvers was the norm. You didn’t really see the big guns unless they were protecting important people or huge events requiring crowd control, like Carnival when the military police is out in all glory ( or should I say guts and gore ). The first thing I noticed when in Britain was the police was unarmed and I got used to this. At first I thought they were crazy but then realized it seemed unnecessary since the people seemed quite tamed. [/quote]
Historically Britain has been quite crime free so they ave been able to get away with that. But times have changed and the British do not want to face up to it. The issue of not arming police shows just how unrealistic they are.
[quote]
Which is typical for a lot of people in Britain. In Britain peoples minds have been molded by the media to view guns as ominous, scary, instruments of death. All they are is a tool.
Though I find fire arms impressive and would love to handle one one day, I have to question your statement. The first thought that came into my head when I read your above statement was: If I had a gun I would at least shoot people’s tires in traffic in Central London ( I drive in the Constipation charge all day - it is no longer a Congestion with all the third world road works here and that would be subject worthy of another thread! ). Then I thought I would get caught on cctv, shot by the cctv and then prison next. So I thought what is the point of owning a gun? [/quote]
You would be surprised but when you actually have a gun in your hands thoughts of running wild and doing crazy things with it can make you feel very uncomfortable. The reality is you are no more likely to shoot one of the accursed traffic wardens than than you are to “accidently” park a car on top of one of them.
[quote]
I would also be tempted to threaten the traffic wardens but they would probably carry guns also - at the moment they do which is the ticket machines and I have had thoughts of grabbing that thing from their hands and smashing on the floor. So, my point is, there might be a point to guns after all since I would have to control myself and with such a government that is clearly helping themselves to my livelihood with no one to stop them, allowing the population to own a gun takes some of their freedom to abuse us so softly but so consistently, away. It would add an ‘edge’ to the situation where we, the people could potentially cause considerable harm before being subdued by them completely - but at present we are, like I was in front of those MP5 officers; completely opened and vulnerable to immediate assault. [/quote]
If I was running Blair’s security you would have been monitored on CCTV and in the sights of a sniper before you got close to the door guards.
[quote]
And on your point of “All they are is a tool”
Yes, but a tool of protection or a toll of destruction, or a tool of oppression?
It is a lethal weapon - a lethal weapon is a tool for what? [/quote]
It is a tool to protect yourself with. One thing to bear in mind is you do not always have to shoot someone to use a gun to defend yourself. A car is a tool to go from point a-b. But if you choose a route with people in the way it can be a lethal weapon too. People have cars zipping around them all day long but they don’t give it a second thought.
[quote]
But your pictures do show the difference in levels of protection between upper class and the lower classes. If you are upper class you rate having immediate, firearm security available onsite because preservation of an upper class life is important and some circumstances require an immdediate armed response where milliseconds can mean the difference between life and death.
This is common sense. And it would make sense reality unfolded that way. It is no different in Brazil. Mind you, in some favelas in Rio is where you find the most powerful guns and best security there is on account of the drug dealers protecting their ‘business’. In that case too, it is only the very important or elite dealers and their families that get this king of protection - and the reason is the assets: the drug business. Drawing a parallel with your reasoning; the assets would be the key players of the Gov business. There is also a couple of those officers with the MP5 patrolling the street of Chester Hill, Mayfair. A very important man lives at number 1. There used to be another officer with the MP5 submachine on the inner circle of Regents Park, right after the entrance to London Zoo - but I don’t know who lives there.
Sifu, in hindsight, it is not necessarily the people that are important. This teaches me that human life is quiet dispensable. It is what people represent that matters. If that man at number 1, Chester Hill became number 387 Harrow Hill he would still be the same man but would no longer ‘matter’.
Wouldn’t you agree? [/quote]
We all our pants on one leg at a time. I see no reason why the life of a Tony Blair should be significantly more worth saving than a convenience store clerk. When both are in a situation where they could get killed I think both deserve having protection.
What those women in Hyde park wearing burqas represent is a culture of seperation and rejection of other cultures.
That is exactly why I had such a visceral reaction to them.
You turned my instinctual responses into words.
It is also an utter rejection of their femininity.
[/quote]
Probably another reason why you had a visceral reaction to it is because in your mind you could imagine yourself being in their shoes and it is not a pleasant thought. Having lived your life in freedom such a prison would be a nightmare.
The important thing to bear in mind is given a chance they would put you and any other women or girls in your family into that same nightmare.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You have just done exactly the same thing, in the first half of your post you talk about the fact that British People are bound by tradition and totally eschew American culture and values, in the second half you talk about how people percieve the problems to be from Brits following American culture and values.
Which is it?
Can we please stop the thread until Cockney catches up? If you can’t understand what they are saying then you lack critical reasoning skills. [/quote]
Cockney is what the British call a “tosser” If we stopped every thread and waited for him to stop tossing and catch up we would never get anywhere.
[quote]
A hint: It can be both.
Cockney Blue wrote:
No it doesn’t it makes it very easy. You hire a publicist and ensure that your message is in the media.
Oh right so I can just hire a publicist who will make sure that my message is heard on prime time tv?[/quote]
This gives insight into Cock’s thinking. He doesn’t believe in people doing anything for themselves they must have someone else to do it for them and if they can’t afford it fuck em.
The media in Britain is very biased. Try writing into the comments section of a British newpaper sometime and you will see what I mean. They censor heavliy. Other opinions do not easily get heard over there.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Historically Britain has been quite crime free so they ave been able to get away with that. But times have changed and the British do not want to face up to it. The issue of not arming police shows just how unrealistic they are.
[/quote]
Actually the police have been broadly unarmed since their inception and it was a deliberate decision by Robert Peel in order to allay fears that they would be some sort of armed enforcers.
The system of an unarmed police force and a highly trained Armed Response unit works pretty well in the UK. Obviously in the US this would not work so well given the large numbers of firearms in the public domain. For the record there have only been 73 police officers killed by firearms in Britain in the last 109 years.
