[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Oh so because I point out that the Fox News Network is not the bastion of even handed reporting that Sifu makes it out to be I must be gay. I guess I am also secretly Islamic then for pointing out that some of the coverage of Islam on this site isn’t exactly unbiased.[/quote]
Fox News has nothing to do with it. Several other things are indicating a large gaydar cross section here.
You could make a lot of money in Tijuana with a few cosmetic changes.
Incidentally Sifu, you will just love how well this study backs up your hypothesis
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112408164/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Abstract
The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970. However, states with the stricter handgun control statutes were found to have lower suicide rates by firearm and lower suicide rates overall.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Oh so because I point out that the Fox News Network is not the bastion of even handed reporting that Sifu makes it out to be I must be gay. I guess I am also secretly Islamic then for pointing out that some of the coverage of Islam on this site isn’t exactly unbiased.
Fox News has nothing to do with it. Several other things are indicating a large gaydar cross section here.
You could make a lot of money in Tijuana with a few cosmetic changes. [/quote]
Great so you can’t argue with my logic so instead you decide to call me gay. That is a new one.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
And the God of the Jews (and therefore Christians) commanded them to commit genocide. As a great countryman of mine once wrote ‘God is not great.’ [/quote]
And He had a point. Personally when you look at human nature, how it cocks up every thing good there is simply due to it’s inability to discern right from wrong, when not to cross the boundaries and impinge violation, I am objectively and rationally conclusive that everybody has grounds to be eliminated.
Personally, I think if God is not great is precisely because He has not wiped off every single one of us from His property. If I had a great accommodation and my tenants were disrespectful and ruining my place I would terminate the agreement and have them out of my property swiftly - don’t you think that that is logical?
So either you can say objectively He is not great for failing to deal with ‘us’ and get new tenants. Or subjectively search in your heart for that little thing called compassion and think God is indeed His Greatness for showing mercy and letting us have a go at this ruling ourselves thing whilst continuously cocking up with His plans for the earth.
I am not religious but if Biblical history is fact and fable we must use our common sense.[quote]
I am not a supporter of any religion however if a group of followers of a religion want to come out and make a noise to say that they are not in support of the violence that is being committed in the name of their religion then I see it as a positive step.
Again I ask, what specific problem do you have with the campaign?[/quote]
I will tell you what I see wrong with that campaign:
It is saying Islam is peace which is deceitful at best. It is targeting non Muslims when it should be targeting the violent monsters that give their religion a bad name.
It is not realistic, where it would say: Islam does not support violence. Painting black as white doesn’t change the intrinsic color of the piece. Even if the campaign were well intentioned, the problem I have with that is the usual problem that comes with human nature I mentioned above: The internet is a good invention and it was for good intentions and yet, as we speak, evil is in our midst.
That campaign will also serve to hide Islamic evil intent - that is the problem I have with it and most campaigns; It is one sided, sugar coated, unrealistic and therefore pulls the wool over the eyes of well meaning people.[quote]
Anyway as a supporter of free speech, if you wanted to pay bus companies to carry large adverts on the side saying ‘Islam Blows Goats’ I would support your rights to do that (I possibly would avoid traveling on the buses though.[/quote]
LOL! That gave me the giggles, : D
So I am beginning to insight that for you it is about “rights”, yes?
What about when someone’s ‘right’ gives them carte blanche to cause someone else ‘wrong’?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Who is this ‘they’?
The people who think gun control is awesome. I can’t think of any UK politicians who support less firearm restrictions.
I can’t think of many figures the UK media who support greater firearm ownership.
Can’t think of any celeb.
Can’t think of any teacher (Well I do realise I only know a couple but most seem against guns).
Yet I can think of UK politicians who are against gun ownership.
I can think of UK media figures who are against gun ownership.
I can think of UK teachers who are against gun ownership.
I can think of plenty of English MMA & Bodybuilders who are against gun ownership.
And I can think of plenty of UK celebs who are against gun ownership.
The debate in the US is ‘intense’ because there are plenty of politicians, media figures, teachers and even the odd celeb who support gun ownership.
Can you please post some links to where these UK public figures have been making public comments against gun ownership?[/quote]
Are you serious?
Tony Blair in 1997: “They have done enormous carnage often to wholly innocent civilians, including children. The sooner Britain gets a lead in this, the better. It’s the right and civilized things to do.”
Gordon Brown has something to say as well.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/PA06.htm
Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the Handgun Ban (Oct 1996)
We Must have a Total Ban (from the Daily Record, 17 October 1996)
Labour’s GORDON BROWN reveals why he’s backing the parents of Dunblane in their demand for a full ban on guns
"PARLIAMENT must now speak for the people â?? and pass gun control legislation with speed.
I will vote for a complete ban on handguns.
And I believe that there will be a parliamentary majority against the government, to put it in place.
Nothing less than this total ban will now be enough to answer the pleas of grieving Dunblane parents and to do what is right for the country.
There can be no case for a total of 40,000 handguns lying around gun clubs. No matter how tightly regulated they are. This should not be a party political issue.
Yet twice in the past the House of Commons has walked away from its responsibilities.
In 1972, the then Conservative government was warned of the need for handgun controls but the report was suppressed.
Then again, in the wake of Hungerford, eight and a half years ago.
If action had been taken then we might not have had the tragedy of Dunblane.
Legally-held weapons were used in both the Dunblane and Hungerford tragedies.
This time we must not shirk from the tough laws that are necessary.
The government are right to propose a ban on the home ownership of guns; they are right to stop the use of high calibre guns; they are right to propose a ban on gun sales by post; and they are right to tighten up on school security.
But how can it be right for as many as 40,000 handguns to remain in private ownership?
The government’s argument yesterday was that they could guarantee public safety through tight regulation of these clubs and that smaller calibre handÂguns can therefore remain legally held in gun clubs.
Yet experts say that these .22 or less calibre guns can be just as lethal as the bigger guns.
If they are bought as smaller guns they can be converted into more dangerous ones.
And they say it will be easy to claim to their gun club that they want to take them out for one purpose - for example a competition - when they really want to take them out for another.
That is why this is a messy compromise that will be difficult to administer and police - and leaves open the chance of another Dunblane.
Yet what was the Home Secretary Michael Howard’s response to this yesterday? Only that if you ban all legal handguns you will drive people to use these guns illegally.
This is a counsel of despair.
Exactly the same sort of excuse that has been used in the past. Dunblane was the evil work of a man who should never have had a gun and of a gun that should never have been in the hands of a civilian.
Allowing 40,000 handguns to remain in Britain is thousands too many. Banning them is the first step to preventing an American-style gun culture ever coming to Britain.
Yesterday the Home Secretary said that there could be new controls by Christmas. If Parliament votes the right way, as I believe it must, handguns could be banned by Christmas.
The Dunblane parents deserve no less."
Here is a petition to number 10. followed by the governments heartless response.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20714
Friday 25 September 2009
â??We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to allow Concealed Handguns In The UK.â??
Details of Petition:
â??I feel something needs to be done to reduce crime and protect the many vulnerable people in this country. The fact is that neither the UK government nor the police have the resources to offer full time protection to every citizen. I therefore feel that the UK public should now be trusted and given back the right to self-defence. Iâ??m asking the government to grant to law-abiding citizens the right to self-defence, and defence of our property, by repealing the UK handgun ban and allowing us to carry concealed handguns. The problem with banning weapons is that criminals donâ??t obey laws, so when guns were banned criminals ignored the law and kept their weapons, and decent law abiding people were left defenceless, as is the case now. This is simply because guns, in the right hands, are a serious deterrent against acts of violence. An example of this is the US state of Vermont, which has virtually no laws against gun ownership, and a crime rate which is a fraction of that in Britain. The simple fact is that by disarming honest citizens, Britain has actually helped criminals, who now go about their business without fear.â??
Read the Governmentâ??s response
Thank you for your e-petition about allowing people to carry guns for self-defence.
The Government has no plans to relax firearm controls to allow handguns or any other type of firearm for personal protection. It firmly believes that firearms are not an acceptable means of protection in this country.
It has been the view of successive Governments for many years that the private possession and carrying of firearms for personal protection is likely to lead to an increase in levels of violence. Guidance to police forces, therefore, is that any such application should be refused. This remains the Governmentâ??s view and it has no plans to alter the position
Here is the latest UK propaganda that they are going to play on the telly. I think this one clearly shows how simplistic they are in their thinking over there.
Here is another video. Called toys that kill.
Here is a video of people in the UK who are opposed to the gun ban. It does include an interview with an MP.
[quote]300andabove wrote:
Sifu just do what i did and stop arguing with people over the internet like Cockney.
Rather like talking to wall really.[/quote]
I feel you. He is like talking to a wall, but that is okay. I am not concerned if I can change his mind. What does matter is there are other people following this thread. When he throws up the same old cliche arguments and I bat them down people learn something that they can carry into an arguement with others who want to use those cliches. Plus every now and then one of you delurks and puts him on the spot. Without him I wold just be preaching to the choir.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I think I know what you mean. Speaking of propaganda, seen these ads?
No, I haven’t. Is that in the US and who is the target?
It’s an ad campaign in the UK. The target is credulous infidels.
http://www.islamispeace.org.uk/
I shouldn’t even say British because it is mostly the English from London.
One of my bosses was an Englishman from London and was incredibly (and unjustifiably) arrogant and rude.
The amount of undiscovered talent in these so called third world countries must be unreal - I am thinking of the favelas: I have seen extremely genetically gifted children who would thrive, intellectually and physically, if at least given enough protein. I actually want to plan on opening a kind of BB, training, athletic facility/farm and adopting a lot of street children to rebuild their lives through sports. I would love to take on about 15 children and raise them up to be athletes and responsible adults, to take pride in being pro-active strong people. That would be a wonderful project. Build like a little people Empire, : )
Good luck.
And what specifically is your problem with the islam is peace campaign? I don’t agree with their religion but if a group of Islamic people who are against the violence that has been committed in the name of their religion want to publicly show that they reject it, surely that is a good thing.[/quote]
If muslims truly rejected violence they would reject islam itself, because islam teaches that murder in the name of religion is a service to god. You should read the Hadith sometime, mohammad was not a peaceful person. Mohammad also lied to non-muslims in order to gain their trust so he could take advantage of them and betray them.
When a religion teaches deliberate lying about the religion in order to advance it’s agenda is okay, it is completely appropriate that we should highly skeptical of anything they say and not take their word at face value.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I think I know what you mean. Speaking of propaganda, seen these ads?
No, I haven’t. Is that in the US and who is the target?
It’s an ad campaign in the UK. The target is credulous infidels.
http://www.islamispeace.org.uk/
I shouldn’t even say British because it is mostly the English from London.
One of my bosses was an Englishman from London and was incredibly (and unjustifiably) arrogant and rude.
The amount of undiscovered talent in these so called third world countries must be unreal - I am thinking of the favelas: I have seen extremely genetically gifted children who would thrive, intellectually and physically, if at least given enough protein. I actually want to plan on opening a kind of BB, training, athletic facility/farm and adopting a lot of street children to rebuild their lives through sports. I would love to take on about 15 children and raise them up to be athletes and responsible adults, to take pride in being pro-active strong people. That would be a wonderful project. Build like a little people Empire, : )
Good luck.
And what specifically is your problem with the islam is peace campaign? I don’t agree with their religion but if a group of Islamic people who are against the violence that has been committed in the name of their religion want to publicly show that they reject it, surely that is a good thing.
If muslims truly rejected violence they would reject islam itself, because islam teaches that murder in the name of religion is a service to god. You should read the Hadith sometime, mohammad was not a peaceful person. Mohammad also lied to non-muslims in order to gain their trust so he could take advantage of them and betray them.
When a religion teaches deliberate lying about the religion in order to advance it’s agenda is okay, it is completely appropriate that we should highly skeptical of anything they say and not take their word at face value. [/quote]
I totally agree. This is one one of the issues that I have with organised Christianity.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
And the solution to inner city violence is hardly increasing the number of guns.
Who said that it was?
But my question, which you have yet to answer, is “How, if you make gun ownership unlawful (which you seem to advocate, at least for the city), do law-biding citizens protect themselves and their property against armed criminals, gangs, etc., when they can’t just ‘move someplace safer?’”
[/quote]
I have not advocated making gun ownership unlawful in the US. I have clearly stated that on numerous threads. It simply would not be practical. I have just questioned the fact that a number of people on here equate liberty with holding a gun and feel that more guns is the solution to violent crime.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Sifu just do what i did and stop arguing with people over the internet like Cockney.
Rather like talking to wall really.
I feel you. He is like talking to a wall, but that is okay. I am not concerned if I can change his mind. What does matter is there are other people following this thread. When he throws up the same old cliche arguments and I bat them down people learn something that they can carry into an arguement with others who want to use those cliches. Plus every now and then one of you delurks and puts him on the spot. Without him I wold just be preaching to the choir. [/quote]
For over 800 posts I’ve been following you, Sifu. So yes, your message is coming through. Thanks.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Oh so because I point out that the Fox News Network is not the bastion of even handed reporting that Sifu makes it out to be I must be gay. I guess I am also secretly Islamic then for pointing out that some of the coverage of Islam on this site isn’t exactly unbiased.
Fox News has nothing to do with it. Several other things are indicating a large gaydar cross section here.
You could make a lot of money in Tijuana with a few cosmetic changes.
Great so you can’t argue with my logic so instead you decide to call me gay. That is a new one.[/quote]
There was no logic to argue with, so that can’t be the reason. Reread what I actually said. Your personality traits are forming a familiar Venn diagram. That’s about all I’ll say.
For the edification of everyone else (please disregard this, CB, I don’t want you hurting your poor little head), read this:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html
The Bible, of course, does contain a part where the Israelites are told to wipe out the Canaanites. No one questions that. What seems to be lost on people is that there’s this thing called the “New Testament” revolving around a guy named Jesus who was peaceful and who advocated peace (“Love your enemies, pray for those who persecuted you.”) Also, he claimed to be the fulfillment of everything in the Old Testament, thus abrogating it.
Muslims have a doctrine of abrogation also. As Muhammad became more violent, he told his followers that his new sayings abrogate the old. Thus, Surahs 9:5 and 9:29 abrogate tons of peaceful Surahs during Muhammad’s Meccan period of revelation:
So saying “Islam is peace” is roughly equivalent to saying “War is peace.” Truly Orwellian. In fact, pretty much everything Orwell said is now coming to pass in Britain and the US.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Whereas in the US, one can just switch on Fox News and be told what to believe. It is a far more straightforward system because it is available 24/7 in nice little soundbite segments.
Obviously you don’t watch FOX, because you don’t know what you are talking about. They are the only news organisation that has any kind of serious journalistic standards left. Glenn beck has been doing God’s work educationg people about Obama and all the marxists he has surrounded himself with. They are using a lot more than soundbites.
OK now I understand where you get your bullshit from. You support Glenn Beck. Is it because you just love your country so much (boohoohooo)? [/quote]
Glenn is not the only source I get my bullshit from. Sometimes Bill O’Rielly has Glenn on. There is also the Red Eye. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson et Al… I support anyone who isn’t too busy sucking on Obama’s nuts to tell me what he is up to.
[quote]
Fox news is doing God’s work by setting up the Tea Party marches then reporting on them but choosing to totally ignore the Gay rights march in Washington that was larger than the Tea Party marches. [/quote]
Again you are misquoting and misrepresenting what I have written. I wrote “Glenn Beck is doing gods work”. Those tea parties were all over the country and they had thousands show up for them. The gay march in Washington did get covered, you obviously weren’t watching.
No offense to the gay folk, but as important as their issues are to them the issues that the tea parties are standing up for are more important and they are important for everyone including the gay folk.
The reason why I say that Glenn Beck is doing gods work is because he is showing the American people who Obama really is. Obama himself said judge him by the people he surrounds himself with. He has surrounded himself with Marxists and communists who idolize mass murderers and dictators.
Just yesterday Beck played a video of Anita Dunne giving an address to high school kids where she says her favorite political philosopher is Mao Tse Tung. Mao was the worst mass murderer in human history who turned China into a communist hell hole. Compared to Mao, Hitler was a poser. People have very good reason to be concerned when one of the president’s top white house advisors is out in public singing Mao’s praises.
I am not surprised however by your hypocracy. You turn a blind to all the Marxist internationalists and communists in the Labour and Tory parties who have ruined Britain. But you don’t forget about Nick Griffen’s past associations or alledged associations.
[quote]
They are showing their serious journalistic standards by giving up more coverage to showing live an empty sidewalk where the day before a group of 20 people had protested about the song for Obama at a school than they gave up to covering 100s of thousands of people marching on Washington. They didn’t even bother to send a reporter. [/quote]
They are showing serious journalistic standards by doing investigative reporting of Obama and his associates when no one else will. All the other news organisations have given Obama a pass. That is why FOX has way higher ratings than all the other news organisations.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Yes of course, that only happens in Britain. You would never see that in the US…
Oh no passing off guns to third parties happens here too. That is how I know about it. It is also how I know that it creates an unfair situation.
I was referring to
I see you too have noticed that the British have a penchant for coming up with silly campaigns and acting like they are going to solve anything.
[/quote]
We have stupidity here too. But Britain is the world champion of stupidity and self inflicted wounds.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Most people in the UK and the US are freely able to move to a different area if they so choose. The vast majority of the US is very safe and comfortable to live in. Increasing the numbers of guns in the most dangerous bits is not going to be the best way to cut violence.
Ok, well since “most” and “majority” mean more than 50&, you may be correct.
But tell me, what should those who CAN’T afford to, or otherwise can’t, move to a “nicer” area, do?
What is your solution for them? Or are they “expendable?”
You are looking at this the wrong way round. What I said was that I wouldn’t choose to live somewhere where I felt I needed a gun to protect my family. And the solution to inner city violence is hardly increasing the number of guns. New York for instance managed to significantly drop the crime rate whilst at the same time tightening gun control.
The murder rate in the US has been declining for the last 17 years. In 2008 the murder rate in New York was 6.3 per 100,000 which is still higher than the national average of 5.8.
If you look at this chart the explosion in New Yorks murder rate began in the 1960’s when a lot of gun control laws got started.
And there was me thinking that the Sulivan Act dated back to 1911 but of course, you are the history scholar.
Oh and does the huge drop off in the 90s relate to the repeal of all gun control laws in the state then? Because if the increase was caused by gun control then obviously the drop must be the relaxing of gun control otherwise it would imply that something else was the cause.[/quote]
There was a big upward spike in violence after the federal gun control act of 1968. The murder rate remained raised until the 90’s when states started relaxing laws to allow concealed carry. They didn’t repeal all the laws and the changes have not been uniform across the states, just as changes in crime have not been uniform across the states.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Whereas in the US, one can just switch on Fox News and be told what to believe. It is a far more straightforward system because it is available 24/7 in nice little soundbite segments.
Obviously you don’t watch FOX, because you don’t know what you are talking about. They are the only news organisation that has any kind of serious journalistic standards left. Glenn beck has been doing God’s work educationg people about Obama and all the marxists he has surrounded himself with. They are using a lot more than soundbites.
OK now I understand where you get your bullshit from. You support Glenn Beck. Is it because you just love your country so much (boohoohooo)?
Fox news is doing God’s work by setting up the Tea Party marches then reporting on them but choosing to totally ignore the Gay rights march in Washington that was larger than the Tea Party marches.
Do you get the words, “P-nche maricon!” thrown your way a lot down there? Be honest.
Oh so because I point out that the Fox News Network is not the bastion of even handed reporting that Sifu makes it out to be I must be gay. I guess I am also secretly Islamic then for pointing out that some of the coverage of Islam on this site isn’t exactly unbiased.[/quote]
FOX is a lot more even handed than MSNBC. MSNBC is owned by GE. The same GE that makes all those wonderful windmills that are going to save us from global warming after Barry gives them billions of our tax dollars.
This site does not provide coverage of Islam. Everything here is purely the views and contributions of individual members.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Incidentally Sifu, you will just love how well this study backs up your hypothesis
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112408164/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Abstract
The handgun control statutes of the continental states of the USA in 1966 were coded and scaled for strictness, and strictness was found to be unrelated to the incidence of homicide (by any method) in 1960 and 1970. However, states with the stricter handgun control statutes were found to have lower suicide rates by firearm and lower suicide rates overall.
[/quote]
Oh wow! A whole two sentences from an abstract written by a psychologist who specializes in suicide prevention. So tell us oh great one, how does gun control prevent people from getting the urge to commit suicide? Or is it the lack of gun control laws gives people the urge to commit suicide? Which one is it? Or is it both? Or is it just a bunch of bullshit?
If guns somehow do cause people to commit suicide as your psychologist suggests why is it that there are several countries with strict gun control laws that have suicide rates much higher than the US?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
And the solution to inner city violence is hardly increasing the number of guns.
Who said that it was?
But my question, which you have yet to answer, is “How, if you make gun ownership unlawful (which you seem to advocate, at least for the city), do law-biding citizens protect themselves and their property against armed criminals, gangs, etc., when they can’t just ‘move someplace safer?’”
I have not advocated making gun ownership unlawful in the US. I have clearly stated that on numerous threads. It simply would not be practical. I have just questioned the fact that a number of people on here equate liberty with holding a gun and feel that more guns is the solution to violent crime.
[/quote]
Again you are making things up. In America we don’t equate guns with liberty we equate being able to control our government with liberty. Guns are the ultimate instrument of control. Without them we would be completely at the governments mercy just like in Britain. Democracy is dying in Britain and there is very little the people can do about it.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Sifu wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Sifu just do what i did and stop arguing with people over the internet like Cockney.
Rather like talking to wall really.
I feel you. He is like talking to a wall, but that is okay. I am not concerned if I can change his mind. What does matter is there are other people following this thread. When he throws up the same old cliche arguments and I bat them down people learn something that they can carry into an arguement with others who want to use those cliches. Plus every now and then one of you delurks and puts him on the spot. Without him I wold just be preaching to the choir.
For over 800 posts I’ve been following you, Sifu. So yes, your message is coming through. Thanks.
[/quote]
Thank you for the encouragement. I will outlast Cockney just like I have outlasted the others like him.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Guns are the ultimate instrument of control.[/quote]
EXACTLY.[quote]
Without them we would be completely at the governments mercy just like in Britain.[/quote]
EXACTLY.[quote]
Democracy is dying in Britain and there is very little the people can do about it. [/quote]
EXACTEMENT.
Avec prescision, monsieur Sifu.
( I don’t know why I am speaking French - actually yes I do. I just feel dumb reading all the latest posts from PRCalDude and Sifu. The knowledge is pouring in. I didn’t learn this much in school. Thank you gentleman, this table has truly been a feast. I will have to re read this again to digest )