water cannon

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by unreasonable

I agree fully - I only go back to the UK for a few days every couple of years these days, but when I meet family and friends they are often very angry about constant surveillance. Most of them seem to think it has become widespread because the police and local authorities use it as a stealth-tax mechanism. The feeling is that any minor transgression by a member of the largely law abiding middle classes is criminalized and followed up with full bureaucratic efficiency, while the real criminals are largely left alone since dealing with them is difficult and expensive. I do not remember anyone, however, suggesting that the answer is to arm the citizenry.

Having just watched the PM's speech on the telly, I get the impression that Mr Cameron is trying to tap into that mood and attempt a turn around in the state of British society. I wish him all the best, but suspect that the established forces defending the status quo will be too strong.

that's exactly the spirit unfortunately. Heck, there's vans that go around with cameras to check on who paid road taxes or not! The approach they use is not even intelligent! You know how much time and efforts police forces put into "fighting" against people that drive uninsured and with no road tax paid? It's ridiculous that with the amount of technology we have nowadays we still have this problem, and if you get hit by one of these irresponsible scum your insurance won't even cover for it!

I mean, what's the limit of crap one can get before rebelling? It's insane.

The answer is not to arm the citizens, but to re-design the police forces around the needs of a modern society. The right to have firearms should have nothing to do with public order.

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The answer is not to arm the citizens, but to re-design the police forces around the needs of a modern society. The right to have firearms should have nothing to do with public order.

I am so happy we have found something that we can agree on!

(Unless you are just being satirical )

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by unreasonable

I am so happy we have found something that we can agree on!

(Unless you are just being satirical )

I wasn't man, I really mean it. It's obvious that there's something broken in the system and that we all want to live in a safer society (we're not the SPECTRE), it's that we're trying to do it from different approaches.

The right to have a firearm (if deemed suitable for it by a competent panel) should be there regardless of your belief/interest in firearms.

Depriving citizens of their rights won't make a society safer,it will only boost crime, see what happened with proibitionism. What really scares me is that the Orwellian view of modern society is becoming a sad reality in Britain: they don't want you to think, they give you the illusion of freedom and then do what they want with you.

It's sad, but it's a one way ticket to a sad, sad future, human nature is capable of too many perverted things to be contained like that

[Vengeanze]

What? We all gonna hug now? Be sure I won't turn my back to that aft hunter.

We need a new topic!

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Vengeanze

What? We all gonna hug now? Be sure I won't turn my back to that aft hunter.

We need a new topic!

you better not, got still some IKEA spares I could throw at you

[ElAurens]

I will offer one reason why myself and my countrymen are so easily upset about the reaction to fireams ownership by those who are not citizens of the US.

There is a resolution working it's way through the United Nations that in effect would ban private ownership of firearms worldwide, thus abrogating the national soverenity (sorry about spelling, not had my tea yet) of signatory nations. American gun owners are very aware of this effort of the UN and it will be a cause of much consternation when the international community trys to interfere with the people and laws of the US.

Have a good week gents, I'm off to work.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I will offer one reason why myself and my countrymen are so easily upset about the reaction to fireams ownership by those who are not citizens of the US.

There is a resolution working it's way through the United Nations that in effect would ban private ownership of firearms worldwide, thus abrogating the national soverenity (sorry about spelling, not had my tea yet) of signatory nations. American gun owners are very aware of this effort of the UN and it will be a cause of much consternation when the international community trys to interfere with the people and laws of the US.

Have a good week gents, I'm off to work.

As opposed to the US involving itself with the people and laws of the international community? There is some innocent hypocrisy there, but as always I'd much rather be with the US than against it and I have admiration for the USA's willingness to put itself in harm's way for the good of everyone.

I agree with your sentiments though I'm pretty sure that the international community will not be able to "force" the US to comply. For my part the UK lost its sovereignty a while back and I just love seeing my taxes not being used in the UK but going to help shore up the economies of other European countries.

Personally I'd go down the Norwegian route of being in the European Economic Area but that's part of a debate that's bigger than this forum and a little bit further away than the riots.

Hood

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Vengeanze

What? We all gonna hug now? Be sure I won't turn my back to that aft hunter.

We need a new topic!

Waves of Arguments have been thrown into the fray, their broken bodies now twisting on the barbed wire. Huge armoured Rebuttals have ground the front line Arguments into the mud of no-man's-land, only to fall prey to concealed Ripostes. Meanwhile the special forces - hordes of highly trained Fallacies - have created chaos in the rear areas. The front lines are static. The combatants are exhausted, all reserves committed.

An erie silence falls over the field.

Peace in our time?

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I wasn't man, I really mean it. It's obvious that there's something broken in the system and that we all want to live in a safer society (we're not the SPECTRE), it's that we're trying to do it from different approaches.

The right to have a firearm (if deemed suitable for it by a competent panel) should be there regardless of your belief/interest in firearms.

Depriving citizens of their rights won't make a society safer,it will only boost crime, see what happened with proibitionism. What really scares me is that the Orwellian view of modern society is becoming a sad reality in Britain: they don't want you to think, they give you the illusion of freedom and then do what they want with you.

It's sad, but it's a one way ticket to a sad, sad future, human nature is capable of too many perverted things to be contained like that

Britain is an interesting case indeed - it went from being one of the most free societies (in the particular sense of small government with minimal interference in economic and social life) at the start of WW1 in 1914, to one of the most unfree (except in social life) in the non-communist world, by the end of WW2. 31 years only.

The reason of course was that only this degree of state mobilization of the nations resources could save the country from being gobbled up by the Germans. I am sure most would agree that this was a very real threat, and not some conspiracy theory invented by the establishment in order to boost their power.

Then once this new equilibrium was established, the majority of the population decided that it preferred the new deal. There was no going back.

Personally I can live with that - my take is that all developing countries sooner or later have to co-opt the majority of the population into their economic systems through some mechanism of positive rights and redistribution, otherwise development stops. The UK just did it very abruptly due to war - other states have done it as a response to the threat of revolution or economic stagnation.

The problem then becomes how to manage the moral hazard or free-rider problem, when there is a growing constituency of welfare providers who increase the size of their power base by calling for "more resources", and so are not motivated to restrict the distribution of public funds. Sadly the police seem, in some respects, to have been co-opted by this group.

I am not convinced that there is any answer to this problem except that of a major moral revolution spurred by a religious revival, which brings its own disadvantages, to put it mildly, (speaking as an unbeliever).