Guns and Nazi Teabaggers

I'm quite sure that afghanistan has all sorts of terrain, and people who have been living in it for many thousands of years. They're quite good at tiring out armies, and sending them home, and they've been doing so for thousands of years.

The issue with the war on drugs is not simply that pot should be legal (we all know that pot should be legal, if it was as simple as that, it would be legal). It's that it's as excellent tool for taking away your other civil liberties. In many states, for instance, the fourth amendment hardly exists anymore, all they need is a cop to say he smells something funny, or for a poorly trained dog to fake an alert, or simply for it's handler to say that it smelled something.... and there goes the fourth amendment. And even aside from that, attacks on the fourth amendment in general are often motivated by the war on drugs, or use it as an excuse.

Or, if you speak freely against drug prohibition...... guess what, you're in legal danger, because... only druggies want drugs legal. There's a million judges waiting to sign a search warrant for you.

The point isn't simply that drugs should be legal. It's getting people used to the idea that they don't have the right to control their own brains, or to the idea that saving the kids from some abstract menace is a valid reason for tearing down the legal frameworks protecting them, and simply getting people used to overbearing militarized law enforcement presence and involvement...... not to mention locking up SO many political prisoners that we have the largest prison population in the WORLD. And people you lock up for liking alternative thinking are also the people who might contest conventional political thought, and offer alternatives or worthwhile rhetoric.


My overall point is that there is a war, and they are winning by leaps and bounds. It's a totally legal and open civil war. It's even got people used to the idea that we could have a war against an abstract menace lurking out there in society, and now it's combined with the war on terrorism, and all the bullshit that goes with that.

Even when drugs are legal, which will presumably happen, the damage has been done, we have a massive militarized indigenous police force with a very violent, authoritarian mentality, the judges and lawyers who are at home in this framework (there are not going to be very many who have been on the bench longer than there has been a war on drugs, at this point), and all of it allows massive abuse of the system for tiny trivial "offences". If they can send you to jail for having cannabis flowers, what can they NOT rationalize sending you to jail for?

And they will probably use the legalization of drugs, before they fold, to greatly strengthen the precedent for militarized attacks and detentions on US citizens doing harmless things.

They are (or have) weeding (weeded) out the nice guys. To fit in in law enforcement, you have to be pretty heartless and fanatical.

It will never be an overt fascist occupation. As I'm fond of telling various conspiracy nuts, the plan isn't for the illuminati to take over the world, the plan is for you to be so obsessed with the illuminati, and the mainstream to be so obsessed with their smartphones, that nobody notices that the takeover happened years ago.

And no number of guns will save you from an entirely indigenous system that has been deeply rooted for decades, and is still growing in strength (both as far as legal precedent for brutality and lack of rights, and GREATLY in technological ability) as we speak.

 

I imagine it is paradise for you

Well, here, No. 10 regulary have media press briefings.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news-type/press-briefings/
And there is an influential radio show too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj9z
I think you guys have a similar thing too.
I also realise that certain people within government have good relationships with various political commentators etc.
It's all about 'getting the message out there'. Why shouldn't they?
I guess you have a better appreciation for US TV than I do, but I can say that the BBC tends to stick to what is verifiable, and only occasionally drifts into speculatiion - they do tend to be the place that politicians etc gravitate to - ITV, C4 and 5 (news) prioritised in that order.
RT seems to base whole news reports on speculation, and what some random blogger might be saying.
It also doesn't seem to have any descenting voices.
I guess they don't tend to get the big hitters on, so kinda have to make something with what ever they can.
I have found a few gems on there, though.
This? Mmm, seems a little flimsy to me.

 

I agree with what you're saying, however, I'm not at a place where I will start shooting cops because of this.

In my younger days, I was VERY vocal about it. I wrote letters to local papers. I even fucking went to the police station and attempted to survey them on the moral implications of criminalizing the sick and dying for using cannabis. And this was in the southeast. If enough people were doing that, the policy would change. I even went places with cops intentionally zooted out of my skull and stinking like bud. And in the meantime of all of these attempts to basically provoke my way into a court of law and defend myself on my principles, I was growing the shit. Then like I said, I grew up and stopped growing it, stopped selling it, and started only purchasing it well below the felony threshold. I guess you have to pick and choose your battles in life.

In terms of if there were some kind of sinister illuminati ploy, they would probably WANT us all baked as it makes a person less prone to violent reactions.

I am very very aware of the disintegration of our civil and human rights over the course of the 20th century and now into the 21st. The drug war has probably been the single most harmful institution to our freedom in the history of our country. But violent outbursts are not the way to go about fixing this, as we still do have some means of democratic ability and peaceful persuasion. When it comes to my guns, and people coming onto my property attempting to take my means of defending my life and liberty, then the bullets will start to fly.

 

Sex and violence ...

boring.

next idea ?????????????????????????????????????

 

I'm not saying we should all go kill a cop.

But I am saying that I'm afraid guns are not what we need. They would never be able to take up american's guns, but they'd also never try.

For one thing, they make people feel safer, like they're more in control....

It would be great if just having guns protected you, but I think that while most people slept, (they still haven't woken up) we've run strait into fascism, but, again, the most dangerous kind, because it's our friends, neighbors, kids, whatever, because it's been so slow and carefully done.

Hell, even a lot of the people in charge don't seem to see what they've done.

 

I feel the same way about most American News. They only say what is okay for us to hear! The White House has been hand-delivering America's media, easily since WWII!

 

Most?

What did you expect the government to be doing?
Providing a travel guide with, attractions and accommodation advice?

 

those were the days when racial purity [and other purities right up to drugs]
mattered.

 

25

First UK citizens can legally own guns, there are around 1.8m legally held guns in England and Wales and I believe the number of people having gun licenses has actually gone up since strict gun laws were introduced in 1997.

OK the number of people who have died as a result of police shootings in England & Wales - in 2012 it was ONE, in 2011 it was TWO, in 2010 it was ONE, in 2009 it was TWO, in 2008 it was 3 ….

 

25

A number of pro-gunners have asserted this but I can find no evidence for it.

In fact I’m not even sure if such a statistic could be produced since criminal definitions are so different depending on each country.

And both the UN and the US Bureau of Justice warn against such comparisons.

The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cic...y_seventh.html

Different definitions for specific crime types in different countries: The category in which any incident of victimization is recorded relies on the legal definition of crime in any country. Should that definition be different, and indeed this is often the case, comparisons will not in fact be made of exactly the same crime type. This is particularly the case in crimes that require some discretion from a police officer or relevant authority when they are identified. For example, the definitional difference between serious or common assault in different legal jurisdictions may be different, and this will be reflected in the total number of incidents recorded.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_surveys_3.html

Note: BJS cannot validate any data obtained from non-BJS sources, nor does BJS encourage comparisons of national data due to differences in classifications of crimes and methodological differences.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ijs.htm

Definitions of offences vary between countries due to both legal differences and statistical recording methods. For example, the USA and Canada do not appear to include minor assaults, intimidation, and threats within their definition of violent crime. However, New Zealand does include these crimes in its definition, and these offences comprise approximately half of all violent crime in this country. Also, New Zealand does not include sexual offences in violent crime, whereas Australia, USA, Canada, England and Wales do.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/repo...section-2.html

Additionally, the Home Office's July 2000 "Review of Criminal Statistics: A discussion document" indicates how difficult it is compare crime rates between their own forces, let alone conducting international comparisons, stating that amongst the England and Wales' Police:
"There is some confusion in what is counted as a recorded crime......(there are) two contrasting approaches to recording crimes that are currently in use by police forces. The first is a "prima facie" approach, by which the police accept all crime reports at face value and seek to include in their crime figures every apparent criminal event that comes to their attention. The second approach is the more traditional one, termed the "evidential", whereby the police sift and evaluate those events reported to them and only in those cases where they believe on the basis of the known facts that a crime has actually taken place do the police then record a crime. ......the lack of consistency makes it impossible to compare forces in a reliable fashion."
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/repo...section-7.html

 

Sig

As I’ve said this kind of question is very important in understanding the pro-gun mentality because as stated I think a pro-gun stance is a symptom of a certain mentality, a way of looking at things.
So once again - how would you arrange healthcare?

As I’ve pointed out you seem to have an affinity to individualism, kin and very localised thinking, while dismissing the wider polity. That fits in with what I’ve postulated.
You talk of the good stable people in your area and contrast it with the lazy scroungers you see occupying other areas. Seemingly to justify where you put your attention, can you explain your thinking in that?

And I repeat you are so not afraid that you wish for three ‘just in case’ at least one of which you have in a safe by your bed which you know you can open in under 5 seconds.

That attitude seems to be that since you are doing ok it doesn’t matter if other are not? Again it seems to display an individualistic approach to things.

Again I must have missed them can you actually point to these examples?

Localism is great but it is very limited, take the example you gave of a pending food and water shortage, such a thing would need national and even international action. As I say you seem to be ignoring or dismissing wider social and political problems. And the ones that are likely to be first effected would be in just those impoverished areas you are dismissing.

I ask again - How do you know these peoples problems are of their own making and why do you think most people in hardship are there because they are lazy scroungers?

 

You realize what that means right

If you (reverse time, and) observe that data, the rate of people shot by cops TRIPPLES! Your country is a fascist shithole, with the cops gunning down old ladies left and right! (if you reverse time) :willy_nilly:



For reals though, britan is a nanny state, and for all the sacrifice in rights that it takes to be that, is sort of... a drunk nanny... but that's not the point.

 

What on earth are you talking about?

It's probably Europe, and it's probably dated...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...e-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

What on earth are you talking about?
Gunning down old ladies left and right?
How many people have been shot by police in the US since 1990?
If we were to throw stat's at each other and compared both countries fairly - I'm living in bleedin' paradise.

164

 

Roo

Dr Who anyone?

Actually the figures go up and down they’re normally around the 1-2-3’s but there was a 6 in 2005. Thing is that the police here don’t as a rule carry guns only special units have them. They do make mistakes (someone was shot for carry a chair leg) but they are not exactly gunning down old ladies left, right and centre as 25 would seem to have us believe.

Sorry the ‘Nanny State’ thing is an over used jib often sneered by ill informed right wingers and often means different things to each of them. I mean I knew one person that thought that giving any public assistance to anyone in need made such a state a ‘nanny state’ which as pointed out to them would have included such fluffy nice states as Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany.

 

Wrong thread.

 

Joan your just going to confuse him with all that sensible talk.

 

Well, to his great credit, he has changed his sig graphic. Now it's just silly and paranoid instead of blatantly ignorant. The former condition doesn't get under my skin near as much as the latter, RH.

 

Do you consider owning guns paranoid? Or just the thought that the gov't might impose harm on us?

 

Dammitt, I missed a Right to Bear Arms argument......... I'm off to polish my arsenal.

 

As long as you bear arms with bare arms. Preferably in your pj bottoms.