[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
As long as I know that you and your gun are there to protect the world against government tyranny then I sleep safely in my bed at night. Thank you.
I see here you apparently concede the argument. Your ineffective diatribes and weak position certainly force you to become facetious at some point. Can’t say that I blame you; if I were in your position I would see the need to become playfully silly too.
You go on being free behind your guns and your barricades and I will continue to be repressed out in the open without the need of a gun.
Of all places to live, regardless of the relative safety or your particular neck of the Mexican woods, you employ this misguided attempt to paint a picture of utopia in a land where tyranny both from the criminal and from the state has reared its ugly head for hundreds of years. I’m tempted to type “I feel sorry for you,” but in reality I don’t. We all get what we deserve. If enough Americans acquire your ethos on this idea we too collectively will get what we deserve as well. You can take consolation in that fact.
Obviously I am a sheep because I don�??�?�¢??t follow you and your group�??�?�¢??s beliefs but gods damn it, I am a happy sheep here in Mexico, sipping my Michelada and playing with my daughter in the sunshine.
Regardless of where on this earth one sips his Michelada and plays with his daughter, if he does so in in peace and tranquility it is because others have inevitably shed their blood to make it so. If that is not the case it is a temporary sense of euphoria. On this we need not speculate, we have the volumes of history to substantiate it.
And here is where you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion: you believe in the innate transcendent goodness of your fellow man and your government. I believe he (and it) is innately evil and left unchecked will always eventually evolve into a force of malignancy. Again I would have to say history wholeheartedly and unarguably supports my view over yours.
Pretty neatly sums it up. As I have stated before, had I had a different upbringing in a different area I am sure that I would have different views. With this kind of argument there is no right and wrong other than what is right and wrong for you or for me personally and that is something that we both have to decide.
I am pretty optamistic (though with an underlying cynical caution), I treat people as I find them and try to be fair with everyone that I come into contact with. It has worked well for me so far in a large range of places, environments and social settings therefore that is the way that I will continue to lead my life.
I feel no need to go and get a gun or to rally against the gun laws here in Mexico or in the UK. Whilst I disagree with you about your need for a gun I also respect your choice especially given that you are breaking no laws.
What I do object to is Sifu claiming that the British are repressed by changes in gun laws in 1997 that were only controversial because they were not really necessary given that virtually no-one (less than 0.1% of the population) actually had or wanted a gun.
Problem is, Cock, every time a world history book gets within 20 feet of you, you have to take off like a Baja roadrunner. Like I said earlier, your idyllic world view is at odds with the facts of the past. And even a somewhat foolish man must admit the path to the future can be determined in part by what has already occurred.[/quote]
Yes Mexico has a fucked up past. So do most countries but I hardly think that comparing Calderon to Pol Pot shows a good understanding of history.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Please give us an example between 1930 and 1997 of a non police, non military person in Great Britain using their own gun in self defence to stop a crime and not being prosecuted for either manslaughter or murder.
Based on your claim that there was a deterent to crime inherent in the legal status during this period and your evident great depth of knowledge on guns in the UK then this should be really easy for you.
Faulty logic.
How do we know that the US nuclear arsenal kept the USSR at bay? It was never used on them…[/quote]
And who here compared Calderon to Pol Pot? You’re reaching, Cock. Really, really reaching.[/quote]
I know you are old and a little senile, probably all that Viagra that you have to take doesn’t help matters either but you posted the following about 5 posts up.
So in answer to your question, you did you daft old sod.
Regardless of where on this earth one sips his Michelada and plays with his daughter, if he does so in in peace and tranquility it is because others have inevitably shed their blood to make it so. If that is not the case it is a temporary sense of euphoria. On this we need not speculate, we have the volumes of history to substantiate it.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The OP aked what is wrong with Britain. What is wrong with Britain is the mentality of the British people. They take their freedom for granted and are completely in denial of all the threats to their freedom that they are allowing to happen. [/quote]
I don’t disagree with that, at all. Well, a lot of people are not in denial, but they are unwilling to do more than roll their eyes and say “but what can you do?” Hysteria doesn’t help, of course, nor exaggeration of what is actually happening. The situation is fairly bad, though.
But the gun control thing is a red herring. Completely, utterly, totally irrelevant.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
As long as I know that you and your gun are there to protect the world against government tyranny then I sleep safely in my bed at night. Thank you.
I see here you apparently concede the argument. Your ineffective diatribes and weak position certainly force you to become facetious at some point. Can’t say that I blame you; if I were in your position I would see the need to become playfully silly too.
You go on being free behind your guns and your barricades and I will continue to be repressed out in the open without the need of a gun.
Of all places to live, regardless of the relative safety or your particular neck of the Mexican woods, you employ this misguided attempt to paint a picture of utopia in a land where tyranny both from the criminal and from the state has reared its ugly head for hundreds of years. I’m tempted to type “I feel sorry for you,” but in reality I don’t. We all get what we deserve. If enough Americans acquire your ethos on this idea we too collectively will get what we deserve as well. You can take consolation in that fact.
Obviously I am a sheep because I don�?�¢??t follow you and your group�?�¢??s beliefs but gods damn it, I am a happy sheep here in Mexico, sipping my Michelada and playing with my daughter in the sunshine.
Regardless of where on this earth one sips his Michelada and plays with his daughter, if he does so in in peace and tranquility it is because others have inevitably shed their blood to make it so. If that is not the case it is a temporary sense of euphoria. On this we need not speculate, we have the volumes of history to substantiate it.
And here is where you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion: you believe in the innate transcendent goodness of your fellow man and your government. I believe he (and it) is innately evil and left unchecked will always eventually evolve into a force of malignancy. Again I would have to say history wholeheartedly and unarguably supports my view over yours.
Pretty neatly sums it up. As I have stated before, had I had a different upbringing in a different area I am sure that I would have different views. With this kind of argument there is no right and wrong other than what is right and wrong for you or for me personally and that is something that we both have to decide.
I am pretty optamistic (though with an underlying cynical caution), I treat people as I find them and try to be fair with everyone that I come into contact with. It has worked well for me so far in a large range of places, environments and social settings therefore that is the way that I will continue to lead my life.
I feel no need to go and get a gun or to rally against the gun laws here in Mexico or in the UK. Whilst I disagree with you about your need for a gun I also respect your choice especially given that you are breaking no laws.
What I do object to is Sifu claiming that the British are repressed by changes in gun laws in 1997 that were only controversial because they were not really necessary given that virtually no-one (less than 0.1% of the population) actually had or wanted a gun.[/quote]
Obviously this is going over your head because we constantly have to keep telling you but you don’t get it. When the civilian population of a country own firearms they have the ability to physically force their government to obey their will and respect their rights.
When the people are disarmed and the government has a complete monopoly on military power you do not live in a free country. The government may allow the people to have an illusion of freedom but make no mistake the government can crush the people any time they want.
The British army has a history of gunning down unarmed, peaceful protesters. If they have done it before they can do it again! Look at this.
The massacre at the Qissa Khawani Bazaar (the Storytellers Market) in Peshawar, British India (modern day Pakistan) on April 23, 1930 was a defining moment in the non-violent struggle to drive the British out of India. It was the first major confrontation between British troops and non-violent demonstrators in the then peaceful cityâ??some estimates at the time put the death toll from the shooting at nearly 400 dead.[1] The gunning down of unarmed people triggered protests across the subcontinent and catapulted the newly formed Khudai Khidmatgar movement onto the National scene.[2]
The Khudai Khidmatgar (literally Servants of God), led by Ghaffar Khan, were a group of Pashtuns committed to the removal of British rule through non-violent methods. On April 23, 1930, Ghaffar Khan was arrested after giving a speech in Utmanzai urging resistance to the British occupation. Ghaffar Khan’s reputation for uncompromising integrity and commitment to non-violence inspired most of the local townspeople to take the oath of membership and join the Khudai Khidmatgar in protest.[3]
After other Khudai Khidmatgar leaders were arrested, a large crowd of the group gathered at the Qissa Khwani bazaar. As British troops moved into the bazaar, the crowd was loud, though completely non-violent. British armored cars drove into the square at high speed, killing several people. The crowd continued their commitment to non-violence, offering to disperse if they could gather their dead and injured, and if British troops left the square. The British troops refused to leave, so the protesters remained with the dead and injured.[3] At that point, the British ordered troops to open fire with machine guns on the unarmed crowd.[
Here is the reason why Americans think the British are foolish to blindly trust their government by allowing it to disarm them.
The Boston Massacre was an incident that led to the deaths of five civilians at the hands of British troops on March 5, 1770, the legal aftermath of which helped spark the rebellion in some of the British colonies in America, which culminated in the American Revolution
I seriously doubt that less than one tenth of a percent of the people in Britain were opposed to the gun ban. But if that number were true it speaks volumes about the ignorance of the British people of their own history. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it’s mistakes.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
SIN BINS FOR WORST FAMILIES
That’s not real is it??
Please tell me that’s not fucking real…
Given that it is in the Express I would imagine that they have grabbed some output from a ‘think tank’ that has no chance of being passed into law and then exagerated the worst bits of it and passed it off as something that is about to happen.[/quote]
You spin doctor anything that you don’t like. You are not the only Brit I have encountered who does this either. The British constantly resorting to defense mechanism instead of facing up to reality is another thing that is wrong with Britain. s
[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The OP aked what is wrong with Britain. What is wrong with Britain is the mentality of the British people. They take their freedom for granted and are completely in denial of all the threats to their freedom that they are allowing to happen.
I don’t disagree with that, at all. Well, a lot of people are not in denial, but they are unwilling to do more than roll their eyes and say “but what can you do?” Hysteria doesn’t help, of course, nor exaggeration of what is actually happening. The situation is fairly bad, though.
But the gun control thing is a red herring. Completely, utterly, totally irrelevant.
[/quote]
The gun control issue is an example of the British being far too trusting of their government. Britains current crop of politicians are not the most trustworthy people in the world.
Just think about how the 2005 Labour party election mainfesto promised a refferrendum on the EU constitution, then when they were reelected they merely renamed the constitution to Lisbon treaty and said that they were no longer bound by promise because they weren’t calling the constitution a constitution anymore. They have signed away the British peoples sovereignty without asking for the peoples permission after they promised they would. How can ou trust people like that? And where were the protests?
It is amazing that a people who can take to the streets in droves over fox hunting can so passively sit back and let their sovereignty be signed away by a traitor who didn’t have the peoples permission to do so. The British have irrational priorities.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The OP aked what is wrong with Britain. What is wrong with Britain is the mentality of the British people. They take their freedom for granted and are completely in denial of all the threats to their freedom that they are allowing to happen.
I don’t disagree with that, at all. Well, a lot of people are not in denial, but they are unwilling to do more than roll their eyes and say “but what can you do?” Hysteria doesn’t help, of course, nor exaggeration of what is actually happening. The situation is fairly bad, though.
But the gun control thing is a red herring. Completely, utterly, totally irrelevant.
The gun control issue is an example of the British being far too trusting of their government. Britains current crop of politicians are not the most trustworthy people in the world.
Just think about how the 2005 Labour party election mainfesto promised a refferrendum on the EU constitution, then when they were reelected they merely renamed the constitution to Lisbon treaty and said that they were no longer bound by promise because they weren’t calling the constitution a constitution anymore. They have signed away the British peoples sovereignty without asking for the peoples permission after they promised they would. How can ou trust people like that? And where were the protests?
It is amazing that a people who can take to the streets in droves over fox hunting can so passively sit back and let their sovereignty be signed away by a traitor who didn’t have the peoples permission to do so. The British have irrational priorities. [/quote]
Ok, I’ll say it again. Bliar and his NuLabour party are evil slimy cnuts who would happily sell their own children if it allowed them to take more control over the population at large. (recent series of Torchwood was chillingly realistic, I thought). Yes, it’s about time we as a nation grew some balls and stood up to this crap.
But, in British politics in the 20th and 21st century, gun control is not, has not been, and is most unlikely to be, an issue for the vast, vast majority of the population. It has not affected our crime rate in either direction to any great extent, and was never going to have an impact on the ability of the government to subjugate the population, because there were too few fucking guns in circulation. Ok?
[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
doc_man_101 wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The OP aked what is wrong with Britain. What is wrong with Britain is the mentality of the British people. They take their freedom for granted and are completely in denial of all the threats to their freedom that they are allowing to happen.
I don’t disagree with that, at all. Well, a lot of people are not in denial, but they are unwilling to do more than roll their eyes and say “but what can you do?” Hysteria doesn’t help, of course, nor exaggeration of what is actually happening. The situation is fairly bad, though.
But the gun control thing is a red herring. Completely, utterly, totally irrelevant.
The gun control issue is an example of the British being far too trusting of their government. Britains current crop of politicians are not the most trustworthy people in the world.
Just think about how the 2005 Labour party election mainfesto promised a refferrendum on the EU constitution, then when they were reelected they merely renamed the constitution to Lisbon treaty and said that they were no longer bound by promise because they weren’t calling the constitution a constitution anymore. They have signed away the British peoples sovereignty without asking for the peoples permission after they promised they would. How can ou trust people like that? And where were the protests?
It is amazing that a people who can take to the streets in droves over fox hunting can so passively sit back and let their sovereignty be signed away by a traitor who didn’t have the peoples permission to do so. The British have irrational priorities.
Ok, I’ll say it again. Bliar and his NuLabour party are evil slimy cnuts who would happily sell their own children if it allowed them to take more control over the population at large. (recent series of Torchwood was chillingly realistic, I thought). Yes, it’s about time we as a nation grew some balls and stood up to this crap.[/quote]
I can accept that you probably have a dim view of most if not all of Britains politicians. I think that most people do. The thing that amazes me is how the British people can have such a low estimation of their political leaders on the one hand, but on the other hand when they give them the levers of power that control the military and the police they let the same slimy politicians tell the people that they can’t be trusted to have the ability to control them.
[quote]
But, in British politics in the 20th and 21st century, gun control is not, has not been, and is most unlikely to be, an issue for the vast, vast majority of the population. It has not affected our crime rate in either direction to any great extent, and was never going to have an impact on the ability of the government to subjugate the population, because there were too few fucking guns in circulation. Ok?[/quote]
The first gun control laws in Britain came after world war one and were a response to the Russian revolution. Those laws were primarily intenced to take away the peoples right to rebellion against the government but they refused to take a stand. What is happening today is the result of generations of passivity.
You are wrong about the affect upon the governments ability to subjugate the people. The British army only has about 150,000 soliders. Before 1997 there were enough guns in the peoples hands for them to be a real problem to subjugate.
Compared to what Britain used to be like crime there is out of control. It is nothing like it was when my parents were growing up there and I can remember how safe it was there when I was a child, there was almost no crime. Now crime statistics get worse every year. And as the economy collapses and there is less and less money for police services things are going to get way worse. Thanks to the 1997 gun control act the only security the people have is the police, because they can’t do it themselves. When the shit hits the fan over the next few years Blunkett’s Bobbies who only have the authority to observe and report crime are not going to save anyone.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And who here compared Calderon to Pol Pot? You’re reaching, Cock. Really, really reaching.
I know you are old and a little senile, probably all that Viagra that you have to take doesn’t help matters either but you posted the following about 5 posts up.
Cock, you are seriously setting yourself up for a fall with this, “I’m as snug as a bug in a rug because I trust the Mexican government will fully take care of my lovely daughter, wife and me and for that matter I know my countrymen back home in jolly ol’ England are secure too” mentality.
I have Cambodian friends that used to feel that way about their benevolent leader at the time.
So in answer to your question, you did you daft old sod.
And you are a dumb fuck to talk yourself into believing that I consider Calderon and Pol Pot to be cut from the same cloth.
You see, buddy, Calderon has not been elected to a life term. He will have a successor. Are you aware of that or do I need to school you on how the Mexican government election system works?
Do you even understand the tenuous and volatile situation of Mexican leaders? Do you know one single fuckin thing about the history of the country that you sip your Michelada in? The country in which you have entrusted the security of your daughter? Are you really that “daft”?
If I were the Mexican immigration officer who stamped your passport I think I would have stamped your forehead, “Rejected”, and sent you back to Liverpool.[/quote]
Nurse, the screens! He is having another one of his turns.
You are the one that related Calderon to Pol Pot you daft old coot, not me. Now you are trying to ridicule me for comparing them.
I know all about Mexico’s troubled history and I am fully aware of the current situation. And where do you get Liverpool from? Is my screen name Scally Blue?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Please give us an example between 1930 and 1997 of a non police, non military person in Great Britain using their own gun in self defence to stop a crime and not being prosecuted for either manslaughter or murder.
Based on your claim that there was a deterent to crime inherent in the legal status during this period and your evident great depth of knowledge on guns in the UK then this should be really easy for you.
Faulty logic.
How do we know that the US nuclear arsenal kept the USSR at bay? It was never used on them…
No but it was used on the Japanese, twice.
So the criminals — I mean the Soviets — knew they MIGHT face guns — I mean nuclear weapons if they acted out – and that was an effective deterent?
On second thought, never mind.
Anybody who feels “safe and sound” in Mexico just because the country’s murders aren’t in his own back yard is, well, not really worth arguing with. [/quote]
I feel safe and sound most places. At the end of the day you more likely to die in a traffic accident in pretty much any country in the world than the victim of a violent crime but you still get behind the wheel every day.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
As long as I know that you and your gun are there to protect the world against government tyranny then I sleep safely in my bed at night. Thank you.
I see here you apparently concede the argument. Your ineffective diatribes and weak position certainly force you to become facetious at some point. Can’t say that I blame you; if I were in your position I would see the need to become playfully silly too.
You go on being free behind your guns and your barricades and I will continue to be repressed out in the open without the need of a gun.
Of all places to live, regardless of the relative safety or your particular neck of the Mexican woods, you employ this misguided attempt to paint a picture of utopia in a land where tyranny both from the criminal and from the state has reared its ugly head for hundreds of years. I’m tempted to type “I feel sorry for you,” but in reality I don’t. We all get what we deserve. If enough Americans acquire your ethos on this idea we too collectively will get what we deserve as well. You can take consolation in that fact.
Obviously I am a sheep because I don�??�?�¢??t follow you and your group�??�?�¢??s beliefs but gods damn it, I am a happy sheep here in Mexico, sipping my Michelada and playing with my daughter in the sunshine.
Regardless of where on this earth one sips his Michelada and plays with his daughter, if he does so in in peace and tranquility it is because others have inevitably shed their blood to make it so. If that is not the case it is a temporary sense of euphoria. On this we need not speculate, we have the volumes of history to substantiate it.
And here is where you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion: you believe in the innate transcendent goodness of your fellow man and your government. I believe he (and it) is innately evil and left unchecked will always eventually evolve into a force of malignancy. Again I would have to say history wholeheartedly and unarguably supports my view over yours.
Pretty neatly sums it up. As I have stated before, had I had a different upbringing in a different area I am sure that I would have different views. With this kind of argument there is no right and wrong other than what is right and wrong for you or for me personally and that is something that we both have to decide.
I am pretty optamistic (though with an underlying cynical caution), I treat people as I find them and try to be fair with everyone that I come into contact with. It has worked well for me so far in a large range of places, environments and social settings therefore that is the way that I will continue to lead my life.
I feel no need to go and get a gun or to rally against the gun laws here in Mexico or in the UK. Whilst I disagree with you about your need for a gun I also respect your choice especially given that you are breaking no laws.
What I do object to is Sifu claiming that the British are repressed by changes in gun laws in 1997 that were only controversial because they were not really necessary given that virtually no-one (less than 0.1% of the population) actually had or wanted a gun.
Obviously this is going over your head because we constantly have to keep telling you but you don’t get it. When the civilian population of a country own firearms they have the ability to physically force their government to obey their will and respect their rights.
When the people are disarmed and the government has a complete monopoly on military power you do not live in a free country. The government may allow the people to have an illusion of freedom but make no mistake the government can crush the people any time they want.
The British army has a history of gunning down unarmed, peaceful protesters. If they have done it before they can do it again! Look at this.
The massacre at the Qissa Khawani Bazaar (the Storytellers Market) in Peshawar, British India (modern day Pakistan) on April 23, 1930 was a defining moment in the non-violent struggle to drive the British out of India. It was the first major confrontation between British troops and non-violent demonstrators in the then peaceful cityâ??some estimates at the time put the death toll from the shooting at nearly 400 dead.[1] The gunning down of unarmed people triggered protests across the subcontinent and catapulted the newly formed Khudai Khidmatgar movement onto the National scene.[2]
The Khudai Khidmatgar (literally Servants of God), led by Ghaffar Khan, were a group of Pashtuns committed to the removal of British rule through non-violent methods. On April 23, 1930, Ghaffar Khan was arrested after giving a speech in Utmanzai urging resistance to the British occupation. Ghaffar Khan’s reputation for uncompromising integrity and commitment to non-violence inspired most of the local townspeople to take the oath of membership and join the Khudai Khidmatgar in protest.[3]
After other Khudai Khidmatgar leaders were arrested, a large crowd of the group gathered at the Qissa Khwani bazaar. As British troops moved into the bazaar, the crowd was loud, though completely non-violent. British armored cars drove into the square at high speed, killing several people. The crowd continued their commitment to non-violence, offering to disperse if they could gather their dead and injured, and if British troops left the square. The British troops refused to leave, so the protesters remained with the dead and injured.[3] At that point, the British ordered troops to open fire with machine guns on the unarmed crowd.[
Here is the reason why Americans think the British are foolish to blindly trust their government by allowing it to disarm them.
The Boston Massacre was an incident that led to the deaths of five civilians at the hands of British troops on March 5, 1770, the legal aftermath of which helped spark the rebellion in some of the British colonies in America, which culminated in the American Revolution
I seriously doubt that less than one tenth of a percent of the people in Britain were opposed to the gun ban. But if that number were true it speaks volumes about the ignorance of the British people of their own history. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it’s mistakes. [/quote]
Wow, such relevent examples. 250 years ago in a different country!
Perhaps you could also dig up some recent examples of armed militia in the US succesfully resisting the government. There must be lots of them.
Finally, the figure of 0.1% of the population was the number of people who had legal firearms before the 1997 changes to the law.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
SIN BINS FOR WORST FAMILIES
That’s not real is it??
Please tell me that’s not fucking real…
Given that it is in the Express I would imagine that they have grabbed some output from a ‘think tank’ that has no chance of being passed into law and then exagerated the worst bits of it and passed it off as something that is about to happen.
You spin doctor anything that you don’t like. You are not the only Brit I have encountered who does this either. The British constantly resorting to defense mechanism instead of facing up to reality is another thing that is wrong with Britain. s
[/quote]
OK please link to an official government source for the bill to bring this into law.