water cannon

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by von Pilsner

Many problems do have more than one solution and not all answers are correct for everyone.

If the guy likes the current laws in the UK then he likes them, it does not make his opinion wrong or bad.

I agree, but mine is honest curiosity, it's my curious nature, I want to understand and compare with my position.

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

you did, gonna go home and dismantle my IKEA stuff looking for microphones now lol

Oh my goodness too funny we had a couple guys in the office a week ago from the netherlands and I asked them if they'd come over and help me assemble some furniture I bought from IKEA like 6 months ago. lol

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by Vengeanze

Bad spelling, posts about swedish bikiniteam and polarbears, socialist pov. And I thought I really stood out as a swede.

2nd amendment is not about freedom as a hole but freedom to bear firearms. A major difference there. When talking to pro-guns I get the feeling that they think I want to severely limit their freedom which is totally wrong - just a tiny bit of it.
Reason I highlight the year the 2nd amendment was adopted is because life was different back then. People needed guns to hunt and protect them selfs from wild animals plus that the lawenforcement system was more or less non existing compared to today.
I totally support the right to bear arms in 1791 and actually I support it for people who live lifes similar to back then (like some distant places like Alaska). However, I can't see the need for a gun when living uptown Dallas (as an example).

Actually only the polar bears would really distinguish you from a Brit.

As for the second amendment, I'm afraid you are missing the context. The second amendment was certainly about freedom as a whole, as a matter of fact it's the second amendment that ensures all of the others.

You have to remember the context, mate. We had just tossed out the Brits by force of arms for infringing on our freedoms, of course the second amendment was about freedom. The founding fathers held as a given that free men had the absolute right to defend themselves, and that free communities had the right to band together to defend their communities (the militia), that's why the bill of rights was added later......it was simply unfinished business. (business that the original framers considered self evident).

You may disagree, but I certainly don't feel like we live in a safer world than they did. The majority of the framers of the constitution were rarely in danger of bear attacks, and I doubt many of them hunted except for sport. The predators they were concerned about were the two legged kind, both the typical dark alleyway variety and the political oppressor type. None of that has changed, if anything it has gotten worse.

I happen to like a lot of you guys, even if I think that your political views are divorced from reality. I don't believe that guns are the answer to all of your problems, but I don't believe they are the cause of any of them.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm sorry man, but guns are still legally imported in the UK everyday.

Thank you for finally talking to me like I'm an adult.
I know guns are imported, I'm not (as you may have thought) stupid.
I know that the main route into Manchester for Guns in the 80's and 90's was through the use of baggage handelrs at Manchester airport who were also being paid by the gangs. I know you can't stop it.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

so is it because you're afraid for your children? I'm afraid for my children too, but it's not fear of firearms, they're the last of my concerns, I'm afraid of the shallowness of our society, of paedos, of poor education, of wrong values.

I'm sorry, and I'm not taking the mick, it's still not clear why you're against firearms.

I can't put it any simpler than I just don't like them (Don't get me wrong, I have a bookshelf full of Millitary history, firearms history, etc.. I undersand thier millitary value). I just don't like the fact that a machine designed to kill people could be made more easily available for use by the general public.

I'm sorry that this 'catch all' law means you can't shoot stuff, but for every responsible firearms person there will be someone who isn't as responsible.

I share the same concerns,but you're assuming I'm 'against' firearms, I'm not. I just don't see the need for anyone to own a semi or fully automatic weapon in the UK, or a handgun for that matter.
If anything I'd like to see illegal possesion more firmly punnished.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

No they haven't, in fact they haven't changed a thing after the Cumbria shooting, which was quite surprising to me actually. Please if you have time and really care about the topic, spend some time reading the regulations.

Eh? you say they don't regulate firearms then tell me to read the regulations..?

I don't care a lot about this topic. The reason I'm still here is because of the way you spoke to me, not to change your mind or to have mine changed.
I'm standing up for myself.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I am not talking about prohibitionism, I'm talking about a campaign like the one against smoke, why doesn't that happen? Please answer to this, because as a non-British citizen I struggle to understand the self-destructive attitude of binge drinking. Brits have one of the most driven and effective ways of gathering together and make things happen, but why it happens only for certain things? Alcohol has done way more victims than any gun massacre, still it's acceptable in our society.

I cannot explain the British attitude to alcohol. It baffles me. It's a symptom of the same problem that caused the looting sprees, no prospects, no interest in the future, no concept of consequence and selfishness. There is a real 'screw you, I'll do what I want' attitude around at the moment.
Again we're off track here.. The British are a strangley self destructive race, I don't know why.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

One of the things I've done in my life and that I'm very grateful for is following a Krav Maga course, and I (unfortunately) put it to use in 3 different situations. Of these three, only one was under a firearm threat, and I've surprised myself on how quickly I reacted. I was at a light with my window down, a guy runs towards me as he was crossing the road and points a gun at my face shouting me to get out: I raised my hands, quickly grabbed the pistol and pushed it towards my windscreen, jamming it with his hand between my window and the windscreen, then moved forward until he let go

.

I just got lucky with my experience. I just tried the whole " I'll do what you want, just relax and don't shoot me" I also asked that he leave me my wallet and take the money and cards as the wallet was a gift from my dead mother (it was a gif but she's not dead!) I was basically trying to get him to slow down a bit so I could think..

He looked over his shoulder as he was taking the cards out of my wallet and at that point I just thought that if he looked over his shoulder again I'd hit him as hard and as fast as I could. He looked over his shoulder again and I ended up with a broken hand

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Are you really telling me you can't even defend your own opinion to a stranger?

No, what I meant was I don't need to justify myself, you questioned my intelligence and my ability to make informed decisions.. My opinion is out there now.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

there is right and wrong in everything, it's all about validating the two sides. And I would still defend my ideas, being in the same room would actually help, since I find communicating via forum extremely frustrating and mutilated in terms of quality. We might argue, we might agree or agree to disagree, who knows. I can come to Manchester (my fav pub is there) and talk with you about guns, aeroplanes and rights, but I'd rather talk about these things than pretend it's all ok in our society.

There is not right and wrong in everything. Is a pencil right or wrong? Or a duck? And who's right and wrong are we using? Yours or mine? (they may differ)

There is no right and wrong with guns. You've used the argument that guns are neither good nor bad, yet you're quite happy to put right and wrong into use when talking about them. Gun usage can never be classified by using such emotive terms as 'right and wrong'. Necessary or not necessary is the ony criteria.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You still haven't told me why a Spitfire is better than an Enfield.

I dunno..
Because a Sitfire is a classic WW2 Warbird (which I like) and Enfield is a London borough (which I'm not as keen on)?

I'll sum up.. You like to own guns, I don't see the need to own one. You see the regulations as erroding your freedom. I just see it as another bit of legislation that doesn't affect me in any way.

Guess what, we probably like different foods, and football teams, and TV shows,

To say that you jumped all over my post because of the way I said it just sounds like a poor excuse for some poor behaviour.

All I said was I don't want more guns.

Can we move on now?

[Vengeanze]

Originally Posted by BadAim

Actually only the polar bears would really distinguish you from a Brit.

As for the second amendment, I'm afraid you are missing the context. The second amendment was certainly about freedom as a whole, as a matter of fact it's the second amendment that ensures all of the others.

You have to remember the context, mate. We had just tossed out the Brits by force of arms for infringing on our freedoms, of course the second amendment was about freedom. The founding fathers held as a given that free men had the absolute right to defend themselves, and that free communities had the right to band together to defend their communities (the militia), that's why the bill of rights was added later......it was simply unfinished business. (business that the original framers considered self evident).

You may disagree, but I certainly don't feel like we live in a safer world than they did. The majority of the framers of the constitution were rarely in danger of bear attacks, and I doubt many of them hunted except for sport. The predators they were concerned about were the two legged kind, both the typical dark alleyway variety and the political oppressor type. None of that has changed, if anything it has gotten worse.

I happen to like a lot of you guys, even if I think that your political views are divorced from reality. I don't believe that guns are the answer to all of your problems, but I don't believe they are the cause of any of them.

Makes sense.

[baronWastelan]

Back on topic:

Essex police charge man over water fight planned on BlackBerry Messenger

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

Back on topic:

Essex police charge man over water fight planned on BlackBerry Messenger

Thank you baron, I was under the impression that I had already seen the most moronic possible use of police power. It seems that I was mistaken. I suspect that the worlds police forces will have to work really, really hard to top this one........I give 'em a week.

I do have one question though, was the picture intended to represent the offenders or the coppers?

[ruggbutt]

Britons, your government says you will submit. You will bow to their whim. No matter how stupid they act.

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by ruggbutt

Britons, your government says you will submit. You will bow to their whim. No matter how stupid they act.

"Speak roughly to your little boy, And beat him when he sneezes: He only does it to annoy, Because he knows it teases"

[baronWastelan]

You have to understand, these seemingly harmless squirt gun fights almost always escalate into something serious. A spray here, a splash there, then someone pulls out a can of silly string in retaliation. Next thing you know, water balloons are being hurled indiscrimately. I won't go into further details as this is a forum accessable by children, but you can review the last 100 years of the Roman Empire to get an idea of where this all leads to.