 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Cameras to watch the cameras.
Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/6293823.stm "Speed cameras in the Scottish Borders may soon be monitored by security cameras to protect them from vandals." On Jan 24, 1:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/6293823.stm > > "Speed cameras in the Scottish Borders may soon be monitored by security > cameras to protect them from vandals." I wonder just what this other camera is going to do about the 30-.06 slug, fired from 1/2 mile away, screaming into the lens of the speed camera... bye... > On Jan 24, 1:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > slug, fired from 1/2 mile away, screaming into the lens of the speed > camera... bye... Who do you think is going to fire it ? Gunds aren't popular here remember ? Graham On Jan 24, 2:26 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 24, 1:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Graham Ha! More disadvantages of an unarmed populace, much like the beginning of WW2 when our NRA members were sending y'all their spare squirrel guns to keep the damn Nazi's from getting cocky enough to invade your mainland... of course ya didn't learn from that, either, and re-disarmed... DPH > > > > Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ha! More disadvantages of an unarmed populace Like a near absence of gun deaths ? > much like the beginning > of WW2 when our NRA members were sending y'all their spare squirrel > guns to keep the damn Nazi's from getting cocky enough to invade your > mainland... of course ya didn't learn from that, either, and > re-disarmed... There has *never* been widespread gun ownership in the UK. Graham >> > > > Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Like a near absence of gun deaths ? And a near absence of knife deaths, and a near absence of beating deaths, and a near absence of poisioning deaths, etc. etc. Face it, your criminals are not nearly as vicious as our criminals, that's all. The instrument of dispatch has nothing to do with it. >> much like the beginning >> of WW2 when our NRA members were sending y'all their spare squirrel [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >There has *never* been widespread gun ownership in the UK. Not true: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59866,00.html Again, your countrymen simply do not have as great a taste for personal violence, its as simple as that, and has nothing to do with the presence or absence of guns or any other weapon. Dave Head >Graham > >> > > > Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > nearly as vicious as our criminals, that's all. The instrument of dispatch has > nothing to do with it. Ok, I can live with that explanation. > >> much like the beginning > >> of WW2 when our NRA members were sending y'all their spare squirrel [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59866,00.html This is nuts ! Do you think anyone kept crime statistics in the 14th century ????? It's simple fluff made up by a loony, and like a Faux News loving loony that you are, you fell for it. " As Malcolm observes, violent crime rates in England, very high in the 14th century, fell more or less steadily for five hundred years, even as ownership of firearms became more common. " It's pure invention. > Again, your countrymen simply do not have as great a taste for personal > violence, its as simple as that, and has nothing to do with the presence or > absence of guns or any other weapon. I repeat. There has never been widespread gun ownership in the UK. Graham >> >> > > > Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >This is nuts ! Do you think anyone kept crime statistics in the 14th century ????? Uh... you think English history of crime was not written down anywhere? >It's simple fluff made up by a loony, and like a Faux News loving loony that you are, you fell for it. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I repeat. There has never been widespread gun ownership in the UK. Look, I've been arguing this stuff for about the last 25 years on the American question of gun control. I'm actually really sick of it, so if you don't want to believe it about England or the UK, don't. I don't care. Facts are facts. Ignore 'em - doesn't make any difference to me. Dave Head >Graham > >> >There has *never* been widespread gun ownership in the UK. > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Uh... you think English history of crime was not written down anywhere? You think someone wrote down crime incident records 700 years ago ? There wasn't even a police force to record crime back then you nutcase ! > >I repeat. There has never been widespread gun ownership in the UK. > > Look, I've been arguing this stuff for about the last 25 years on the American > question of gun control. I'm actually really sick of it, so if you don't want > to believe it about England or the UK, don't. I don't care. Facts are facts. > Ignore 'em - doesn't make any difference to me. You have no facts. MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in 1996-1997. TRUTH: The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to the section under violent crime in the British Crime Survey. "The increase in violent crime recorded by police, in contrast to estimates provided from the BCS, appears to be largely due to increased recording by police forces. Taking into account recording changes, the real trend in violence against the person in 2001/02 is estimated to have been a reduction of around five percent." (from Chapter 6- "Violent Crime in England and Wales" of Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002- pdf file) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf Here is a graph from the British Crime Survey. You can see that the gun lobby's claim that violent crime skyrocketed in the England after their 1997 handgun ban is clearly false. [image] Source: Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003 (pdf file) (page 3) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf Between 1997 and 2002, the overall UK crime rate fell by 27% (source). The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends. "Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because 'criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed' are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback." (source). Australia's homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia's homicide rate since their gun buyback (source). Not surprisingly, the National Rifle Association didn't let the facts get in the way of its claims that stricter gun laws had caused an increase in crime in Australia. Attorney-General of Australia, Daryl Williams, pointed out in letter to Charlton Heston that "firearms are being used less often in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery in 1998 compared with 1997." He also stated in his letter, "The 54 firearm-related homicides in Australia in 1998 equate to a rate of only 0.28 per 100,000 people. I have been advised that this compares to a rate which is in the order of 4 per 100,000 in the United States. Now that you have the facts, I request that you withdraw immediately the misleading information from your latest campaign." http://www.guninformation.org/ Graham On Jan 24, 2:26 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 24, 1:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Graham ...the technique will be best put to use in the USA if they get to uppity with their speed enforcement and go putting these things all over. Its gone too far already, actually, and yeah, some of these things _are_ coming up with more holes in 'em than was put in the factory. DPH On Jan 24, 2:26 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 24, 1:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Graham Maybe they ought to be. nate >> > Gunds aren't popular here remember ? > Maybe they ought to be. The UK population has been successfully conditioned into submission through fear. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1997367,00.html "An overwhelming majority of people in Britain are willing to surrender civil liberties to help tackle the threat of terrorism, the nation's leading social research institute will disclose today." Once the people are so conditioned and give up their rights, it's what follows all too much of the time through history afterwards that is particularly scary. > >> > Gunds aren't popular here remember ? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > follows all too much of the time through history afterwards that is > particularly scary. What you mention above is happening far, far more in the USA. We still have habeas corpus here in the UK whilst you guys don't. Bush signed it away. Also, there's quite a move here now against 'government restrictions' for 'terror reasons'. We're smart enought to recognise a hoax. Graham >>>>>Gunds aren't popular here remember ? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > What you mention above is happening far, far more in the USA. Disagree, but I'd say it's about the same - not that EITHER country is in good shape. > We still have habeas corpus here in the UK whilst you guys don't. Bush signed it > away. > > Also, there's quite a move here now against 'government restrictions' for 'terror > reasons'. We're smart enought to recognise a hoax. The difference is, you can't start a revolution because you already let the government take your guns. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>>>Gunds aren't popular here remember ? > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The difference is, you can't start a revolution because you already let > the government take your guns. You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone need guns to change it ? Who would you shoot ? Graham >> >>>>>Gunds aren't popular here remember ? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone need guns to >change it ? Who would you shoot ? The perpetrators of the coup that takes over the government. The usurpers that cook up cockeyed explanations of the constitution to subvert liberty (we're getting closer to reality here all the time on this one) Whatever government twists and turns their logic to subvert the constitution and do what they please. And, in the above scenarios, it is assumed that they've successfully subverted the requirement to hold elections, or otherwise rigged the remaining elections to guarantee themselves power. That's when the ever-present threat of 250 million guns in society will be felt by those that deserve to feel it. DPH >Graham >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone need guns to >change it ? Because voting doesn't change a thing. >Who would you shoot ? As a loyal citizen of the United States of America I wouldn't shoot anyone, of course. (hear that, TLAs?) SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone need >guns to > change it ? > > Because voting doesn't change a thing. Have you considered standing for office yourself or is it simply that you don't agree with the majority view ? > >Who would you shoot ? > > As a loyal citizen of the United States of America I wouldn't shoot > anyone, of course. (hear that, TLAs?) So you don't need a gun then. FYI political change through the use of guns is commonly called terrorism / insurgency. It can lead to civil war. Graham >> >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone need >guns to >> change it ? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >FYI political change through the use of guns is commonly called terrorism / insurgency. Its called revolution. Its how this country came into being in the first place. DPH >It >can lead to civil war. > >Graham > >> >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone need >> > guns > to change it ? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Its called revolution. Its how this country came into being in the first > place. It's called revolution only if your side 'wins'. How many are you planning to slaughter in your revolution btw ? Graham >> >> >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone need >> > guns >> to change it ? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >It's called revolution only if your side 'wins'. It's called revolution if the side which revolts wins. >How many are you planning to slaughter in your revolution btw ? I told you, I'm not planning on slaughtering anyone. But I do reserve the right to change my mind in the future. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >> >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone >> >> > need > guns to change it ? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > It's called revolution if the side which revolts wins. Whoever gets to write the history books. > >How many are you planning to slaughter in your revolution btw ? > > I told you, I'm not planning on slaughtering anyone. But I do reserve > the right to change my mind in the future. So how many might you slaughter in the future ? You'd be right at home in Iraq btw. Graham >> >> >> >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone >> >> > need >> guns to change it ? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Whoever gets to write the history books. Not so. Even if a hostile third party writes the history books. American history books called the Russian Revolution(s) exactly that. A revolution implies a change in government; if the would-be revolutionaries fail, there's no revolution. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone need >guns to >> change it ? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >So you don't need a gun then. Ahh, the point whizzes right overhead again... >FYI political change through the use of guns is commonly called terrorism / insurgency. It >can lead to civil war. Terrorism and insurgency are two different things. Here in America, there was a long time ago, a well-known political change through the use of guns; we called it a revolution. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone need >> >guns > to change it ? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ahh, the point whizzes right overhead again... There was no point. > >FYI political change through the use of guns is commonly called terrorism / insurgency. >It > can lead to civil war. > > Terrorism and insurgency are two different things. Here in America, > there was a long time ago, a well-known political change through the > use of guns; we called it a revolution. If you'd lost you'd have been tried as traitors / terrorists / insurgents. The name depends purely on the outcome. Graham >> >> >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone need >> >guns >> to change it ? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >There was no point. >> >FYI political change through the use of guns is commonly called terrorism / insurgency. >It >> can lead to civil war. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If you'd lost you'd have been tried as traitors / terrorists / insurgents. The name depends >purely on the outcome. "Traitors" they certainly were. "Insurgents" also. And "rebels", which I believe was the preferred British term. "Terrorism" is a matter of tactics; merely using force doesn't make one a terrorist. Some of the revolutionaries could be fairly termed "terrorists" by modern definitions, most could not. Fortunately for them, the term hadn't been invented. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>> >> >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why would anyone need >> >guns >>> to change it ? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >"terrorists" by modern definitions, most could not. Fortunately for >them, the term hadn't been invented. I don't think any of them could have been called terrorists. Terrorists are people who attack civilian populations. I think our founding fathers were honorable men and did not do that. Dave Head >>>> >> >You seem to have forgotten that a government is elected. Why >>>> >> >would anyone need >> >guns [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Dave Head That's a real problem today;some folks cannot distinguish between lawful combatants and terrorists,and think they should both get the same treatment and protections. More "moral equivalency" nonsense. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>>>Gunds aren't popular here remember ? >>>>Maybe they ought to be. >>>The UK population has been successfully conditioned into submission through >>>fear. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1997367,00.html >>>"An overwhelming majority of people in Britain are willing to surrender >>>civil liberties to help tackle the threat of terrorism, the nation's >>>leading social research institute will disclose today." >>>Once the people are so conditioned and give up their rights, it's what >>>follows all too much of the time through history afterwards that is >>>particularly scary. >> What you mention above is happening far, far more in the USA. > Disagree, but I'd say it's about the same - not that EITHER country is > in good shape. When it comes to seeing the future moves of government in the USA with regard to monitoring and micromanaging our lives, it's best to look at the UK. They are very far ahead when it comes to monitoring, nannying, and disarming citizens. However, the racket that is government corruption seems further advanced in the USA. >> We still have habeas corpus here in the UK whilst you guys don't. Bush signed it >> away. >> Also, there's quite a move here now against 'government restrictions' for 'terror >> reasons'. We're smart enought to recognise a hoax. > The difference is, you can't start a revolution because you already let > the government take your guns. Right. The mechanisms are being put in place in the USA, but it's just a spring loaded trap. It is still too early to use any of it in a widespread manner. Springing the trap too early with the population still well armed could have undesirable results. Even though Katrina made for an excuse and successful confiscation of firearms by the US military and foreign military policing on US soil, it still backfired with many resisting (with firearms) relocation dispite the damage to their homes. > >>>>>>Gunds aren't popular here remember ? > >>>>Maybe they ought to be. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > UK. They are very far ahead when it comes to monitoring, nannying, and > disarming citizens. We Brits have no desire to be armed ! Graham On Jan 26, 8:28 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > "An overwhelming majority of people in Britain are willing to surrender > civil liberties to help tackle the threat of terrorism, the nation's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > follows all too much of the time through history afterwards that is > particularly scary. I would be willing to give up some liberties *IF IT ACTUALLY TACKLES THE THREAT*. Haven't yet seen any government actions to that end. Airport "security" is a joke. > On Jan 26, 8:28 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > TACKLES THE THREAT*. Haven't yet seen any government > actions to that end. That's because there isn't one. > Airport "security" is a joke. Yep. another body found in a wheel well. > > "An overwhelming majority of people in Britain are willing to surrender > > civil liberties to help tackle the threat of terrorism, the nation's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > TACKLES THE THREAT*. Haven't yet seen any government > actions to that end. Airport "security" is a joke. Most of it is 'politically correct' tokenism whereas low gun ownership actually does reduce gun crime ! Graham > > > > Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > nate Ppl here don't *want* guns FFS ! Only criminals want guns. Graham >>>>>Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Graham you, bed, make, lie. have fun. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>>>Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > have fun. Do you know any Britons who are hankering to own guns other than criminals ? I don't. Graham >>>>>>>Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Graham This is why you deserve whatever you get, because you have willingly given up the right to defend yourselves. From what, you ask? It doesn't matter. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>>>>>Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> >> I don't. How about your Olympic shooting team? How about those who live in high crime areas? >> Graham > > This is why you deserve whatever you get, because you have willingly > given up the right to defend yourselves. > > From what, you ask? To Graham; Ask George Harrison,stabbed multiple times in his own home. (too late;he's dead) Even the Queen has had intruders in her heavily guarded home.It's just plain LUCK that she wasn't killed. Criminals. Don't try to claim that UK doesn't have robbers,rapists,or murderers,or that your police are everywhere and prevent all such crimes. One doesn't have to be threatened with a gun to have your life at risk.There are other items used as weapons that can also kill or maim. (and not everyone is physically suited for fleeing or using those "other weapons" or martial arts in self-defense.) Besides,there's over 3 million illegal guns in circulation in the UK,according to the Home Office in 2000. UK "gun control" doesn't work. > It doesn't matter. > > nate SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> said in rec.autos.driving: >>>>>>it ? Gunds aren't popular here remember ? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> >>> I don't. Britons are the most thoroughly whipped people on the planet. They not only can't have guns, they have video cameras watching every move they make (and ticketing them for it). And for what? Their subways still get bombed! SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Britons are the most thoroughly whipped people on the planet. They not > only can't have guns, they have video cameras watching every move they > make (and ticketing them for it). And for what? Their subways still > get bombed! Look deeper into that bombing scott... And the drill being run that day that parallels the bombing 100%. While you're at it, check out the moles the UK government had in the IRA and their role in terrorism carried out by that group. Then you'll find part of the mechanism which has caused the UK population to become 'whipped'. >> Britons are the most thoroughly whipped people on the planet. They not >> only can't have guns, they have video cameras watching every move they >> make (and ticketing them for it). And for what? Their subways still >> get bombed! > Look deeper into that bombing scott... And the drill being run that day > that parallels the bombing 100%. I hadn't heard of that before. Found some information via a GIS. Quite interesting. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050808&article Id=821 >>> Britons are the most thoroughly whipped people on the planet. They not >>> only can't have guns, they have video cameras watching every move they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050808&article Id=821 The rabbit hole goes deeper. Witnesses to the aftermath indicates the bombs were *UNDER* (the trains due the deformation being *into* the trains not out of), not in backpacks of the bombers and then there is all the oddities with the bus that was bombed that day as it was taken off route and the behavior of the 'bomber'. Some indications in the media that the 'bombers' had connections to MI5/6. > >>> Britons are the most thoroughly whipped people on the planet. They not > >>> only can't have guns, they have video cameras watching every move they [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > *UNDER* (the trains due the deformation being *into* the trains not out of), not in > backpacks of the bombers What witnesses ? > and then there is all the oddities with the bus that > was bombed that day as it was taken off route Taken off route ? > and the behavior of the 'bomber'. I imagine his behaviour was odd, don't you ? > Some indications in the media that the 'bombers' had connections to MI5/6. LMAO. Not in our media. Where did you find that fairy tale ? God, you guys are real loonies. All this stuff is pure fantasy. Graham > >> Britons are the most thoroughly whipped people on the planet. They not > >> only can't have guns, they have video cameras watching every move they [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050808&article Id=821 Global research my arse/a.s ! The emergency services have been doing drills like that for years. I see nothing curious about a private company doing its own. Coincidence is a funny old thing. Graham [Lines rewrapped since someone can't be bothered to use a compliant newsreader] >> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050808&article Id=821 > Global research my arse/a.s ! The emergency services have been doing > drills like that for years. > > I see nothing curious about a private company doing its own. Why would a private company need to conduct this type of drill? Aren't emergency services a government function in the UK? > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050808&article Id=821 > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why would a private company need to conduct this type of drill? They were doing an in-house drill. Like a 'fire drill' but more elaborate. You have fire drills over there too I assume ? There are some very high profile companies in central London you know who take this stuff seriously. > Aren't emergency services a government function in the UK? Local government ( as in by county or in London by district ) not central gov't. Graham > Look deeper into that bombing scott... And the drill being run that day > that parallels the bombing 100%. OMG. Conspiracy theories now ? Graham > Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > make (and ticketing them for it). And for what? Their subways still > get bombed! Only because your idiotic numbskull President insisted on going to war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. Thanks a bunch. Graham >Only because your idiotic numbskull President insisted on going to war with a >country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. Take some responsibility for yourself; they didn't bomb the UK for the US involvement in Iraq. If anyone's involvement in Iraq was implicated, it was the UKs. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >Only because your idiotic numbskull President insisted on going to war with a > >country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. > > Take some responsibility for yourself; they didn't bomb the UK for > the US involvement in Iraq. The London tube bombs? It was because we backed you lot up with your stupid war that's only made things worse ( as now admitted by GWB ). > If anyone's involvement in Iraq was implicated, it was the UKs. Without GWB, Cheney, Rumseld and all the other loony neo-cons there never would have been a Iraq War. Graham >> >Only because your idiotic numbskull President insisted on going to war with a >> >country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The London tube bombs? It was because we backed you lot up with your stupid war >that's only made things worse ( as now admitted by GWB ). Now you're finally getting it. It was because of your government's actions, not the USs. >Without GWB, Cheney, Rumseld and all the other loony neo-cons there never would >have been a Iraq War. Who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >> >Only because your idiotic numbskull President insisted on going to war with a > >> >country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Now you're finally getting it. It was because of your government's > actions, not the USs. I have never denied that. OTOH without the USA there never would have been an Iraq War. > >Without GWB, Cheney, Rumseld and all the other loony neo-cons there never would > >have been a Iraq War. > > Who is the greater fool, the fool or the fool who follows him? I sometimes wonder. My view is that Blair's totally out of touch with reality now btw and was heading that way back then. Graham >>> >Only because your idiotic numbskull President insisted on going to war with a >>> >country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Now you're finally getting it. It was because of your government's >actions, not the USs. Bullshit. Its because there is yet another bunch of lunatics bent on taking over the world, this particular bunch being religion-driven. The only reason this happened is because Britian is not an Islamic state, and said lunatics want to change that. Look at Spain - they pull out of Iraq and get a train station bombed anyway. This has to do with terrorists, and not any particular government's actions. DPH > Look at Spain - they pull out of Iraq and get a train station bombed anyway. Wrong sequence of events. The got a train station bombed, pulled out of Iraq ( the public demanded it ) and haven't had any more such trouble. Graham > this happened is because Britian is not an Islamic state, and said lunatics > want to change that. The accused 'bombers' in london seemed to be people of an ordinary upbringing. The 'TV warped their mind' defense like that of a kid who brings a gun to school in the USA and snaps killing classmates would fit them better than 'lunatics who want to make the UK an Islamic state'. Given their backgrounds, their hold on radical islam was about the same as any other moron who does something stupid and destructive because he thinks it's cool. > > this happened is because Britian is not an Islamic state, and said lunatics > > want to change that. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as any other moron who does something stupid and destructive because he > thinks it's cool. That seems to be a pretty succinct explanation. I suspect it's as much about kids without a real positive purpose in life as anything else. Graham >> > > > Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Graham Every rational human wants a gun when an intruder is entering their bedroom with a knife at 2:00 AM... > Every rational human wants a gun when an intruder is entering their bedroom > with a knife at 2:00 AM... In the UK, it's better you let the intruder stab you to death. Because if you shoot him, the intruders estate or him if he lives will get everything you own and you will be imprisoned. Gun control is passed by criminals to make working conditions safe for criminals. It's also why it a criminal act to set traps for criminals. It's their form of OSHA. > > Every rational human wants a gun when an intruder is entering their bedroom > > with a knife at 2:00 AM... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > criminals. It's also why it a criminal act to set traps for criminals. It's > their form of OSHA. You gun nuts have some curious ideas. Graham >>> > > > Looks like they'll just need two burning tires. >>> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Every rational human wants a gun when an intruder is entering their > bedroom with a knife at 2:00 AM... Like George Harrison,or the Queen. Of course,idiots like Graham would rather hand-to-hand combat with them,or maybe jump out a window,or even MORE idiotic,call the police and wait for them to arrive.(if they can make it there before he gets knifed like George Harrison.) Graham would watch as they raped his wife or child. At-home burglaries are much more common in the UK than in the US. Because their criminals have nothing to fear,UK law has made it SAFE for them. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >Ppl here don't *want* guns FFS ! Only criminals want guns. Destroying speed cameras is a crime. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > On Jan 24, 1:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > slug, fired from 1/2 mile away, screaming into the lens of the speed > camera... bye... That's being pretty destructive. Better to use a paint ball gun. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Just say 'No' to Windows. -- Department of Defenestration. >> On Jan 24, 1:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That's being pretty destructive. Better to use a paint ball gun. Paintballs will go half a mile? >> On Jan 24, 1:34 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That's being pretty destructive. Better to use a paint ball gun. 1/2 mile is 800+ yards and hitting a camera lens;that's an accuracy the BEST snipers can achieve,with tricked-out rifles and handloaded ammo,an accurate rangefinder,and something to give them wind indications.A difficult task for the average shooter,and people in the UK don't get much shootign practice;I believe even their Olympic rifle teams had to go outside the UK to practice. Not to mention,such firearms are strictly regulated in the UK. Do they even HAVE paintball in the UK? Seems like that would be something they'd prohibit or regulate,too. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Do they even HAVE paintball in the UK? Absolutely. > Seems like that would be something they'd prohibit or regulate,too. Why ? Graham >>Do they even HAVE paintball in the UK? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Graham Because you ban anything else that smacks of individual rights or even individualism. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>Do they even HAVE paintball in the UK? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Because you ban anything else that smacks of individual rights or even > individualism. Such as ??? Graham > > Do they even HAVE paintball in the UK? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why ? For the same reason the English prohibited jousting and other competitions in places like Scotland centuries ago (or so stories go). They don't want the subjugated populations practicing for the real thing. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Drugs may be the road to nowhere, but at least they're the scenic route! > > > Do they even HAVE paintball in the UK? > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > They don't want the subjugated populations practicing for the real > thing. Is that a joke ? Graham >> > Do they even HAVE paintball in the UK? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Why ? because it's a GUN,an evil WEAPON,and it shoots projectiles. UK even bans replica guns. > For the same reason the English prohibited jousting and other > competitions in places like Scotland centuries ago (or so stories go). > They don't want the subjugated populations practicing for the real > thing. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > Eeyore wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > because it's a GUN,an evil WEAPON,and it shoots projectiles. > UK even bans replica guns. Because they're easily turned into the real thing. Ppl living in a civilised country don't need to shoot projectiles. Graham > > > Eeyore wrote: > > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Because they're easily turned into the real thing. Paint ball guns???? > Ppl living in a civilised country don't need to shoot projectiles. Knives and clubs seem to be the weapons of choice among 'civilized' criminals. Less noise to attract attention and more difficult for a victim to defend against (particularly if they don't have a gun handy). SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Just say 'No' to Windows. -- Department of Defenestration. > > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Paint ball guns???? Replica guns. Graham >> > > Eeyore wrote: >> > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Paint ball guns???? No,replica guns are being converted to fire real ammo. In Australia,a man was making handguns in a home shop by the hundreds,for sale;police estimate he already sold hundreds before they caught him. >> Ppl living in a civilised country don't need to shoot projectiles. > > Knives and clubs seem to be the weapons of choice among 'civilized' > criminals. Less noise to attract attention and more difficult for a > victim to defend against (particularly if they don't have a gun > handy). Graham/"Eeyore" would rather that a small woman,handicapped,or elderly person use hand-to-hand combat against a criminal that may be bigger,stronger or more numerous,than the victim have the best possible tool for individual self-defense;a gun. He's a hoplophobe. He cannot conceive that guns can also be used for good.(or that armed self- defense is a good thing) And he's absolutely FOOLISH to drag out that "civilised country" nonsense;I'm sure UK has beatings,rapes,armed robberies,and murders like any other "civilised country".Beatle George Harrison was stabbed multiple times in his own home,in a "civilised" UK city. BBC commentator Jill Dando was shot and killed in broad daylight on the street in front of her London home. Even the QUEEN has had a couple of intruders in her high-security home. It's pure LUCK she wasn't murdered. Law-abiding people EVERYWHERE deserve to be able to defend themselves with a legal firearm,if that's what they believe they need. Their government should not make that decision for them. Gov'ts are cold,impersonal,and uncaring.Police cannot be everywhere,all of the time.They cannot protect individuals. Oh,and the UK has over 3 MILLION illegal guns in circulation,their Home Office reported in 2000. Graham is an idiot. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Graham/"Eeyore" would rather that a small woman,handicapped,or elderly > person use hand-to-hand combat against a criminal that may be > bigger,stronger or more numerous,than the victim have the best possible > tool for individual self-defense;a gun. He's a hoplophobe. > He cannot conceive that guns can also be used for good.(or that armed self- > defense is a good thing) Common sense dictates that avoiding 'tackling' a burglar is more sensible that 'taking them on'. For a gun to be useful you'd have to keep it loaded and on your body at all times. Not very sensible really. In any case burglars avoid confronting householders here. Graham >>Graham/"Eeyore" would rather that a small woman,handicapped,or elderly >>person use hand-to-hand combat against a criminal that may be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Common sense dictates that avoiding 'tackling' a burglar is more sensible that > 'taking them on'. If you're short sighted, that is. If burglars realize that the probability that a homeowner will challenge them is non-zero and significant, they might be more likely to investigate other career options. > For a gun to be useful you'd have to keep it loaded and on your body at all > times. Not very sensible really. Why not? > In any case burglars avoid confronting householders here. Lucky you. In any case, if a law-abiding citizen wants to arm themselves out of real concern for their welfare or simple paranoia, so long as they are responsible about it, what business is it of yours? nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>Graham/"Eeyore" would rather that a small woman,handicapped,or elderly > >>person use hand-to-hand combat against a criminal that may be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > probability that a homeowner will challenge them is non-zero and > significant, they might be more likely to investigate other career options. I suggest you keep your hare brained American ideas to yourself. A surprised householder is always going to be at a disadvantage to a burglar who is probably running on adrenaline. > > For a gun to be useful you'd have to keep it loaded and on your body at all > > times. Not very sensible really. > > Why not? I find it tedious to be chained to a cellphone never mind a damn lethal weapon. I don't *want* one and I'm sure I speak for 99.999% of my countrymen too. > > In any case burglars avoid confronting householders here. > > Lucky you. In any case, if a law-abiding citizen wants to arm > themselves out of real concern for their welfare or simple paranoia, so > long as they are responsible about it, what business is it of yours? Let me tell you something. 'Little old ladies' here aren't clamouring to buy guns ! Graham >>>>Graham/"Eeyore" would rather that a small woman,handicapped,or elderly >>>>person use hand-to-hand combat against a criminal that may be [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Graham Answer the question. What business is it of yours, or the government's? nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>>Graham/"Eeyore" would rather that a small woman,handicapped,or elderly > >>>>person use hand-to-hand combat against a criminal that may be [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Answer the question. What business is it of yours, or the government's? It's everyone's business because of the implications for public safety. There are also laws about carrying knives too. The last change in the law in the UK further restricting gun ownership was as a result of *public pressure* to clamp down on guns. Gun ownership is not a popular cause here, end of story. Graham On Jan 29, 6:43 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>Graham/"Eeyore" would rather that a small woman,handicapped,or elderly > > >>>>person use hand-to-hand combat against a criminal that may be [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > > Answer the question. What business is it of yours, or the government's?It's everyone's business because of the implications for public safety. What implications? Can you prove a correlation between increased gun ownership among the general population and any negative consequences? > There are also > laws about carrying knives too. How utterly asinine. What's next, sharp scissors? Box cutters? > The last change in the law in the UK further restricting gun ownership was as a result of > *public pressure* to clamp down on guns. Gun ownership is not a popular cause here, end > of story. > > Graham- If that is actually true, your country is collectively insane. There's no other explanation for it. No wonder broke off. nate > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> > > > The last change in the law in the UK further restricting gun ownership was as a result of > > *public pressure* to clamp down on guns. Gun ownership is not a popular cause here, > end of story. > > If that is actually true, your country is collectively insane. And we think the USA is totally insane. Just compare the rate of gun deaths will you ? That's all I ask. Graham >>>>>Graham/"Eeyore" would rather that a small woman,handicapped,or >>>>>elderly person use hand-to-hand combat against a criminal that may [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > nate The British have been well-brainwashed. Centuries of suppression and deference to their royalty. Truly "subjects",not citizens. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > The British have been well-brainwashed. Whereas you're simply brain dead ! > Centuries of suppression and deference to their royalty. > Truly "subjects",not citizens. LMAO. Not another nutter who thinks we go round touching our forelocks to Lords and Ladies ?? Do please learn some facts. Graham >>>Graham/"Eeyore" would rather that a small woman,handicapped,or >>>elderly person use hand-to-hand combat against a criminal that may be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Common sense dictates that avoiding 'tackling' a burglar is more >> sensible that 'taking them on'. Yeah,just SURRENDER to them. "take what you want" (some people have been killed even after fully complying with a criminal's demands.Criminals have even killed or maimed victims because they didn't have enough to satisfy the thief.) Suppose the guy takes a liking to Graham's wife,daughter or young son? Decides to rape them? Graham/"Eeyore" would rather depend on the criminals "good will",than try to defend himself and his loved ones. "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." ---------- Jeff Snyder > If you're short sighted, that is. If burglars realize that the > probability that a homeowner will challenge them is non-zero and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> For a gun to be useful you'd have to keep it loaded and on your body >> at all times. That has been shown to be untrue,as many US citizens were able to get to their gun and shoot or drive off their intruders,even during home invasions.A couple of school shootings(Pearl,Miss,and in W.Virginia) were stoped when ODCs ran to their cars,retrieved their handguns,and confronted the shooters,who both chose to surrender. >>Not very sensible really. > > Why not? > >> In any case burglars avoid confronting householders here. UK has a much higher rate of "at-home" burglaries than the US,primarily because the US criminals fear armed citizens more than they fear police,while UK criminals are protected by UK law and have nothing to fear from citizens. Evidently,UK burglars don't care if they burgle while UK citizens are at home.Their victims are taught to "avoid confrontation";thus they must cower while thieves plunder their homes. > Lucky you. In any case, if a law-abiding citizen wants to arm > themselves out of real concern for their welfare or simple paranoia, > so long as they are responsible about it, what business is it of > yours? > > nate SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > That has been shown to be untrue,as many US citizens were able to get to > their gun and shoot or drive off their intruders,even during home > invasions.A couple of school shootings(Pearl,Miss,and in W.Virginia) were > stoped when ODCs ran to their cars,retrieved their handguns,and confronted > the shooters,who both chose to surrender. On top of that, school shootings have very little to do with guns, but rather the prison-like school system in the US that is a daily torture to many a child. > school shootings have very little to do with guns Good Lord ! How idiotic can you get ? Graham > ........ the prison-like school system in the US that is a daily torture to > many a child. Awwww, poor babies. Is it all too stressful for them to do a little learning ? Graham >On top of that, school shootings have very little to do with guns, but >rather the prison-like school system in the US that is a daily torture to >many a child. Yep. Nowadays they even use the terminology of prisons, particularly "lockdown". SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>On top of that, school shootings have very little to do with guns, but >>rather the prison-like school system in the US that is a daily torture to >>many a child. > >Yep. Nowadays they even use the terminology of prisons, particularly >"lockdown". Well.... I vividly remember referring to my elementary school as a prison, for which my mother went off on a real rant about my skewed sense of reality. But back then, in the mid-50's, there were not NEARLY as many incredibly stupid rules and regulations (just saw a new one a couple days ago - no talking during lunch - so the teachers can hear if any kids are choking to death - duh...) as there are now, so I can see why kids would feel that way. I _always_ found the plethora of things that were prohibited to be very depressing and was extremely glad to leave the public school system. Dave Head > Well.... I vividly remember referring to my elementary school as a prison, for > which my mother went off on a real rant about my skewed sense of reality. You were correct. I too recognized prison aspects of the experience while going through it. > But back then, in the mid-50's, there were not NEARLY as many incredibly stupid > rules and regulations (just saw a new one a couple days ago - no talking during > lunch - so the teachers can hear if any kids are choking to death - duh...) as > there are now, so I can see why kids would feel that way. I _always_ found the > plethora of things that were prohibited to be very depressing and was extremely > glad to leave the public school system. Those rules (silent lunch (not all the time though), etc) were around in the 80s when I was in the public schools. The new prison like rules and treatment is just over the top. The schools I was in were run with many prison / occupied country type methods. My favorite was when they couldn't single out specific kids to punish to punish groups or even entire grades. Bullies served as capos and teachers' pet types as trustees. Part of why I object to things I see in society at large now is because it is the school prison control system moving to wider society. For instance, government finds that some people are irresponsible or criminal or whatever and decides then to make new laws to restrict/punish everyone. It's just a like a school/prison. I didn't like it as a kid and I certainly don't like it as an adult. >> Well.... I vividly remember referring to my elementary school as a prison, for >> which my mother went off on a real rant about my skewed sense of reality. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >80s when I was in the public schools. The new prison like rules and >treatment is just over the top. Wow. I had no idea. We didn't even eat in school - I'm not sure there was a cafeteria in elementary school, I don't think there was. Maybe. I _always_ just walked or biked or was driven home and ate there. We didn't have any buses to elementary school, so there were no 'bus kids' to accommodate with a cafeteria. And, BTW, in high and jr. high school there was a cafeteria, but we didn't have to use it. I always walked or biked about 3 blocks to the Candyland Restaurant where I had a couple hamburgers, fries, and a Coke. Fifty cents. Now the kids are not even permitted to leave the school grounds during lunch. The school _is_ treated like a prison in a _lot_ more ways that it used to be, and I didn't even like it then... >The schools I was in were run with many prison / occupied country type >methods. My favorite was when they couldn't single out specific kids to >punish to punish groups or even entire grades. I don't recall that happening so much. >Bullies served as capos and teachers' pet types as trustees. Now, I _know_ that never happened in my schools. While bullies weren't actively hunted down, they were definitely not favored. No f'n wonder so many kids can't learn and/or drop out in a system like that. >Part of why I object to things I see in society at large now is because >it is the school prison control system moving to wider society. For >instance, government finds that some people are irresponsible or criminal >or whatever and decides then to make new laws to restrict/punish >everyone. It's just a like a school/prison. I didn't like it as a kid >and I certainly don't like it as an adult. I sure don't, either. Dave Head > Wow. I had no idea. We didn't even eat in school - I'm not sure there was a > cafeteria in elementary school, I don't think there was. Maybe. I _always_ > just walked or biked or was driven home and ate there. We didn't have any > buses to elementary school, so there were no 'bus kids' to accommodate with a > cafeteria. I don't recall anyone being allowed to leave for lunch until HS. There was no cafeteria, everyone had to bring their lunch. Depending on the grade the fold out tables would be set up in the gym or some other large open area. As I understand it a number of HS now aren't allowing students to leave for lunch either. > And, BTW, in high and jr. high school there was a cafeteria, but we didn't have > to use it. I always walked or biked about 3 blocks to the Candyland > Restaurant where I had a couple hamburgers, fries, and a Coke. Fifty cents. > Now the kids are not even permitted to leave the school grounds during lunch. > The school _is_ treated like a prison in a _lot_ more ways that it used to be, > and I didn't even like it then... Yep. No going out, because some kid did something wrong once or somebody did something wrong to a kid once. Or so is the excuse they use. >>Bullies served as capos and teachers' pet types as trustees. > Now, I _know_ that never happened in my schools. While bullies weren't > actively hun |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message