GUNS

[gavman]

Originally Posted by psd1

Two points from this ****ing idiot Trev.

[gavman]

Originally Posted by psd1

Hope ya catch some other suckers with your name calling childish antics!

[gavman]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

I think you need to research your history wrt communism in Russia. The people were not anti-communism in the beginning as they were sick of being slaves to a Russian elite. That is why communism took hold. The communist revolution in Russia was actually aided by and plotted under a Labour government in this very country. Not much has changed really. There's still a street somewhere called Stalin Street and other streets named after the fathers of communism.

so by the time they were being oppressed they'd all forgotten how to shoot?
there is a strong culture of hunting and shooting in russia, then as now. however an armed populace did nothing to stop the purges, forced resettlements and genocide that came with stalin- but this was just because they weren't in the mood?
the idea that an armed populace holds the government to account is quaint and outdated. it may have been true at the time of the US independance when the federal government had no standing army, and any militia was only armed with the same weapons as the populace
fast forward to today and all it is is a rallying cry for right wing gun nuts.
as asked earlier, how long are the springfield militia going to menace the marine corps?

answer: until denny's opens for breakfast

[gavman]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

I think you need to research your history wrt communism in Russia. The people were not anti-communism in the beginning as they were sick of being slaves to a Russian elite. That is why communism took hold. The communist revolution in Russia was actually aided by and plotted under a Labour government in this very country. Not much has changed really. There's still a street somewhere called Stalin Street and other streets named after the fathers of communism.

this is an interesting take on history/ international relations.

current rw sees the release of lenin, trotsky and other communist leaders to be from german detention, together with their expeditious travel across a nation in the grip of the first world war to their russian homeland just in time to take advantage of wholescale mutiny within the white russian armed forces, declare soviets and remove russia from WW1 on the side of the british and thereby free up millions of german troops to fight the western allies, some might say that the british labour government under lloyd george were somewhat disadvantaged by the turn of events they apparently engineered.....very strange that the british government then financed anti-revolutionary forces within soviet russia and the white russian army in their brutal struggle against the soviets, one suspect this may have seen their removal from lenin's xmas card list, or perhaps it was the outspoken support for the romanovs, close relatives of queen victoria that came between the soviets and their british sponsors?

[gavman]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

On this point, anyone know how the cabinet 'whip' got their name? The birth of UK democracy.

ermm..no

that was the birth of party politics, the means by which a vote for an individual becomes a vote for a unified party with consistent views and policies, and one that has been adopted throughout the world

if you join a political party in westminister, you 'take the whip'. this means you agree to a particular set of priciples and policies, usually outlined in the pre-election manifesto having been agreed by the party at annual conference.

a good example is the abolition of slavery; if you wanted to vote for an anti-slavery candidate then you simply voted for the party that stood against it, handy for the barely literate english voter who took a stand against the immoral slave trade many years before the 'civilised' colonies were prepared to do so
(in fact this was one of the major causes of the US war of independance, despite what american history and hollyweird would have you believe. the americans wouldn't give up their slaves- very little to do with 'taxation without representation' and a lot to do with 'cheap labour')

[gavman]

Originally Posted by psd1

Hope ya catch some other suckers with your name calling childish antics!

you see, that's a common issue when plagarising others, tends to make you look a tad inconsistant?

(as well as bereft of imagination and incapable of original thought)

[Howsie]

Originally Posted by gavman

erm..what century are you living in?

yours is the country that still has capital punishment, and the electric chair sounds like just about as barbaric a means of execution as exists anywhere in the world

if the only way you can make your nation look good is by comparing it's current legal code with one that was discarded over here hundreds of years ago, i'd say you were clutching at straws, my septic chum

anyway, i'm off to swear allegiance to the queen as it's a tuesday

****ing brilliant!

btw, did you see Michael Portillo search for a 'humane' execution method?

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | The search for a 'humane' execution

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by gavman

so by the time they were being oppressed they'd all forgotten how to shoot?

No, by the time they were being oppressed, gun laws had been tightened. The tightening of gun laws is the first sign of oppression. It shows that the government has something to fear from its people and is no longer governing by consensus.

Originally Posted by gavman

there is a strong culture of hunting and shooting in russia, then as now. however an armed populace did nothing to stop the purges, forced resettlements and genocide that came with stalin- but this was just because they weren't in the mood?

Again no, it's because their weapons were not of a standard comparable to the standing army.

Originally Posted by gavman

the idea that an armed populace holds the government to account is quaint and outdated. it may have been true at the time of the US independance when the federal government had no standing army, and any militia was only armed with the same weapons as the populace

fast forward to today and all it is is a rallying cry for right wing gun nuts.
as asked earlier, how long are the springfield militia going to menace the marine corps?

answer: until denny's opens for breakfast

You fail to understand anything about militias, which is interesting considering the problem the Soviets had in Afghanistan (and the problems NATO are having now), against a people that are less well armed than the US citizenry. Are you aware that there are more guns on the east coast of the US than in the whole of the European armed forces?

It's not as if militias dres in bright red uniform. They just pop up and ambush troops.

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by gavman

ermm..no

The whip was responsible for torturing people until they voted the right way in parliament. Of course nowadays it's all done by blackmail, far more civilised.

Originally Posted by gavman

that was the birth of party politics, the means by which a vote for an individual becomes a vote for a unified party with consistent views and policies, and one that has been adopted throughout the world

Now that's not true is it. What value has a vote if you don't like the people behind the options? Where's the 'GTFO' box on the ballot slip?

Originally Posted by gavman

if you join a political party in westminister, you 'take the whip'. this means you agree to a particular set of priciples and policies, usually outlined in the pre-election manifesto having been agreed by the party at annual conference.

This has nothing to do with the original intent and means nothing. A futile point.

Originally Posted by gavman

a good example is the abolition of slavery; if you wanted to vote for an anti-slavery candidate then you simply voted for the party that stood against it, handy for the barely literate english voter who took a stand against the immoral slave trade many years before the 'civilised' colonies were prepared to do so

And what if there was no anti-slavery option?

Originally Posted by gavman

(in fact this was one of the major causes of the US war of independance, despite what american history and hollyweird would have you believe. the americans wouldn't give up their slaves- very little to do with 'taxation without representation' and a lot to do with 'cheap labour')

So the British were making the US give up their slaves? Funny that the UK was still trading slaves at the time.

[simplysideways]

oh no there even giving guns to monkeys now
YouTube - Monkey wit gun

[Howsie]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

No, by the time they were being oppressed, gun laws had been tightened. The tightening of gun laws is the first sign of oppression. It shows that the government has something to fear from its people and is no longer governing by consensus.

You really do believe this tripe don't you?

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by Howsie

You really do believe this tripe don't you?

So said 'Mr. Congestion Charges for 4x4s but the little ones go free'. We'd all be dancing round singing, 'Umpa, Lumpa, Dumpety Doo,' in your world.

[Howsie]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

So said 'Mr. Congestion Charges for 4x4s but the little ones go free'. We'd all be dancing round singing, 'Umpa, Lumpa, Dumpety Doo,' in your world.

Umpa, Lumpa, Dumpety Doo, this world is a better place without you!

[Cris]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

You seem to know very little about US gun laws. There is a licensing process, which involves similar security vetting to the armed forces. No criminals etc.

Cough cough, you really don't know what you are talking about do you, have a look at the Brady law and it's current implementation, unless it's been changed recently you get the background check then immediately pick up the gun. Also:

"Current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold by licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of gun sales. This means that two of every five guns acquired in the US change hands without a background check. This includes guns bought at gun shows, through classified ads, and between individuals. There are between 2,000 and 5,000 gun shows held every year."

I think that the military is a little more discerning that just doing a criminal background check too. You might want to look into what it takes to get into the armed forces. You don't just drop in an application then get issued an SA80.

As a side point don't you find it a little strange that, so far at least, no one else has come out supporting the availability of battle field weapons and biological weapons to the general public. Just a thought.

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by Howsie

Umpa, Lumpa, Dumpety Doo, this world is a better place without you!
If you'd only bum Ken Livingtone too, and let him steal your money from you!