First the Guns, then the Knives, Now...

[bigrebnc1775]

No, I'm not confusing semi-automatic weapons with automatic weapons.

You must be because it's not that simple to get a automatic firearms permit, and you can only buy firearms that were manufactured before May 1989. But who are you to say what is and isn't needed by the law abiding American citizen? We have that right to defend our self from an over bearing government in 1776 and we also have that right today. You worry about what is left of your right to knife ownership and I will worry about keep my rights intact with may guns.

OH and not every American owns a automatic firearm, not even hjalf that owns firearms own an automatic firearm. Maybe 200,000 have permits to automatic firearms.

LOL @ "who are you". Why stop at automatic weapons, bigrebnc? What about your God-given right to own anti-aircraft missiles? Nukes? You gonna let some Brit shove you around like this?

The second amendment clearly states that if you can carry it then you have the right to keep it. and who's being shoved around? he left.

 

[Colin]

No, I'm not confusing semi-automatic weapons with automatic weapons.

You must be because it's not that simple to get a automatic firearms permit, and you can only buy firearms that were manufactured before May 1989. But who are you to say what is and isn't needed by the law abiding American citizen? We have that right to defend our self from an over bearing government in 1776 and we also have that right today. You worry about what is left of your right to knife ownership and I will worry about keep my rights intact with may guns.

OH and not every American owns a automatic firearm, not even hjalf that owns firearms own an automatic firearm. Maybe 200,000 have permits to automatic firearms.

Lol! What a dumb fucking moron you are! Cuts both ways doesn't it dumbfuck! And by the way! You never answered my question: Why would we need guns to defend ourselves?

 

[Madeline]

You must be because it's not that simple to get a automatic firearms permit, and you can only buy firearms that were manufactured before May 1989. But who are you to say what is and isn't needed by the law abiding American citizen? We have that right to defend our self from an over bearing government in 1776 and we also have that right today. You worry about what is left of your right to knife ownership and I will worry about keep my rights intact with may guns.

OH and not every American owns a automatic firearm, not even hjalf that owns firearms own an automatic firearm. Maybe 200,000 have permits to automatic firearms.

LOL @ "who are you". Why stop at automatic weapons, bigrebnc? What about your God-given right to own anti-aircraft missiles? Nukes? You gonna let some Brit shove you around like this?

The second amendment clearly states that if you can carry it then you have the right to keep it. and who's being shoved around? he left.

So if I can lift a suitcase bomb, I have the right to own one?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, I'm not confusing semi-automatic weapons with automatic weapons.

You must be because it's not that simple to get a automatic firearms permit, and you can only buy firearms that were manufactured before May 1989. But who are you to say what is and isn't needed by the law abiding American citizen? We have that right to defend our self from an over bearing government in 1776 and we also have that right today. You worry about what is left of your right to knife ownership and I will worry about keep my rights intact with may guns.

OH and not every American owns a automatic firearm, not even hjalf that owns firearms own an automatic firearm. Maybe 200,000 have permits to automatic firearms.

Lol! What a dumb fucking moron you are! Cuts both ways doesn't it dumbfuck! And by the way! You never answered my question: Why would we need guns to defend ourselves?

Just because you don't agree with what I said, does that make me stupid. You are asking me to answer your question by repling with another reply that caused your buddy from England to leave this thread. Here in America we have the right to keep and bear arms to defend ourself from an overbearing government. WE had that right in 1776 and we still have that right today. Your buddy made a comment concerning automatic firearms as if every American had one or could get one. that was an incorrect assumption on his part. Not to many Americans own a automatic firearm

But to answer your question directly
"Why would we need guns to defend ourselves?"

I guess you don't need firearms to defend yourself since your bobbies started carring guns when they banned firearms in your country.
So when are they going to have an all out ban on knives in your country? I hear the murder rate with knives doubled sinced they banned firearms in your country

 

[bigrebnc1775]

LOL @ "who are you". Why stop at automatic weapons, bigrebnc? What about your God-given right to own anti-aircraft missiles? Nukes? You gonna let some Brit shove you around like this?

The second amendment clearly states that if you can carry it then you have the right to keep it. and who's being shoved around? he left.

So if I can lift a suitcase bomb, I have the right to own one?

You went from anti-aircraft missiles, to nukes to what is it now? Oh suit case bombs. keep moving to goal post

You don't like people with guns move to england

 

[R.C. Christian]

Britain is runway police state, worse than stasi east germany in many ways. They've let islamaphobia be a pretext to complete government intrusion. This ridiculously retarded country isn't far behind.

 

[California Girl]

No, I'm not confusing semi-automatic weapons with automatic weapons.

You must be because it's not that simple to get a automatic firearms permit, and you can only buy firearms that were manufactured before May 1989. But who are you to say what is and isn't needed by the law abiding American citizen? We have that right to defend our self from an over bearing government in 1776 and we also have that right today. You worry about what is left of your right to knife ownership and I will worry about keep my rights intact with may guns.

OH and not every American owns a automatic firearm, not even hjalf that owns firearms own an automatic firearm. Maybe 200,000 have permits to automatic firearms.

Lol! What a dumb fucking moron you are! Cuts both ways doesn't it dumbfuck! And by the way! You never answered my question: Why would we need guns to defend ourselves?

Guys, y'all need to calm down a tad. Britain does not have our Constitution, therefore, they don't have the right to bear arms. We (Americans) have the right to bear arms enshrined in our Constitution. Now, while both sides may not understand the point of view of the other, them's them facts.

We were provided the right to bear arms so that ordinary Americans can defend the country.... FROM OUR GOVERNMENT. We not only have the right, we have the duty, to overthrow a Government that tries to take our freedoms from us. Maybe it's about time we exercised that right. Then our politicians would really have something to bitch about.

 

[R.C. Christian]

You must be because it's not that simple to get a automatic firearms permit, and you can only buy firearms that were manufactured before May 1989. But who are you to say what is and isn't needed by the law abiding American citizen? We have that right to defend our self from an over bearing government in 1776 and we also have that right today. You worry about what is left of your right to knife ownership and I will worry about keep my rights intact with may guns.

OH and not every American owns a automatic firearm, not even hjalf that owns firearms own an automatic firearm. Maybe 200,000 have permits to automatic firearms.

Lol! What a dumb fucking moron you are! Cuts both ways doesn't it dumbfuck! And by the way! You never answered my question: Why would we need guns to defend ourselves?

Guys, y'all need to calm down a tad. Britain does not have our Constitution, therefore, they don't have the right to bear arms. We (Americans) have the right to bear arms enshrined in our Constitution. Now, while both sides may not understand the point of view of the other, them's them facts.

We were provided the right to bear arms so that ordinary Americans can defend the country.... FROM OUR GOVERNMENT. We not only have the right, we have the duty, to overthrow a Government that tries to take our freedoms from us. Maybe it's about time we exercised that right. Then our politicians would really have something to bitch about.

Careful what you say or you might get put on a list. Constitutionalists are considered extremists and terrorists by Obama's filthy jackboots, jackboots that I don't mind saying I'd love to take a shot at, with a gun that is. I'm already on a list so I can say that. If we just killed 2 each we'd be doing the world a service, FBI, ATF, IRS, Homeland Security, TSA. Any of those maggots would suffice as fodder for a popular, albeit, doomed insurrection.

 

[Ravi]

Glasses? Yes, there has been a call from a researcher in the U.K. to ban glasses and bottles in U.K. pubs and nightclubs.

Fresh call for alcohol glass ban

Alcohol should be served far more often in plastic glasses and bottles to reduce the injury toll from violent attacks, says a researcher.

Dr Alasdair Forsyth, from the Glasgow Centre for the Study of Violence, told a conference that the use of glass as a weapon could be eliminated.

He wants retailers to consider moving to plastic alongside bars and clubs.

A fellow expert said targeting city centres and late-night clubs and pubs should be the priority...

...

The precise number of violent attacks involving glass each year is unknown, although the crime surveys suggest it may run into six figures...

...

"It is much easier to eliminate glass used as a weapon than knives."

He said that his research showed younger people didn't mind using plastic bottles - but that the over-40s were resistant to the idea.

"They claim it keeps the drink cooler, which is absolute nonsense. It's just a matter of making plastic containers socially acceptable."

He said that certain designs of bottle - particularly screw-top bottles, caused particular problems.

As well as making it easier to drink alcohol in the street, the screw-top prevented the neck of the bottle from disintegrating when broken, forming a far more dangerous weapon in the hands of an attacker...

...

'Proportionate response'

Professor Jonathan Shepherd, from the Cardiff University Violence and Society Research Group, said that he favoured focusing on the worst "hotspots" for alcohol-related violence over a full ban on glass containers...

...

"I think that some selectivity and targeting is important - perhaps having no glass in 'alcohol disorder zones' in city centres."

The body which represents the alcoholic drinks industry said that a complete ban on glass would be unnecessary.

Jeremy Beadles, Chief Executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, said: "While we recognise glassing injuries are a serious issue, what is needed is a proportionate response.

"A blanket ban on glass packaging for alcohol would affect shops, restaurants, pubs and consumers without helping to tackle the situations where problems occur...

BBC News - Fresh call for alcohol glass ban

For some reason, this really doesn't surprise me. Perhaps it's because they've all but eliminated gun ownership in the U.K., perhaps it's because there has been a push to ban certain kitchen knives, maybe it is because a woman was carded while trying to buy a pizza cutter.

It seems to that the British population has allowed, and continues to allow, their rights and freedoms to be systematically eroded. It has happened slowly, almost to the point of not realizing what they were doing, one piece at a time, one law at a time, the cummulative effect being a loss of certain freedoms. Why else would six men be arrested for burning the Qur'an?

The British people let it happen. They alone are to blame.

While I think such a ban is stupid and demoralizing and unhealthy there is actually no inherent right to purchase beer in glass bottles in pubs.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Aside from the fact that beer tastes horrible from anything other than a glass. I don't quite understand that phenomena.

 

[Colin]

You must be because it's not that simple to get a automatic firearms permit, and you can only buy firearms that were manufactured before May 1989. But who are you to say what is and isn't needed by the law abiding American citizen? We have that right to defend our self from an over bearing government in 1776 and we also have that right today. You worry about what is left of your right to knife ownership and I will worry about keep my rights intact with may guns.

OH and not every American owns a automatic firearm, not even hjalf that owns firearms own an automatic firearm. Maybe 200,000 have permits to automatic firearms.

Lol! What a dumb fucking moron you are! Cuts both ways doesn't it dumbfuck! And by the way! You never answered my question: Why would we need guns to defend ourselves?

Just because you don't agree with what I said, does that make me stupid. You are asking me to answer your question by repling with another reply that caused your buddy from England to leave this thread. Here in America we have the right to keep and bear arms to defend ourself from an overbearing government. WE had that right in 1776 and we still have that right today. Your buddy made a comment concerning automatic firearms as if every American had one or could get one. that was an incorrect assumption on his part. Not to many Americans own a automatic firearm

But to answer your question directly
"Why would we need guns to defend ourselves?"

I guess you don't need firearms to defend yourself since your bobbies started carring guns when they banned firearms in your country.
So when are they going to have an all out ban on knives in your country? I hear the murder rate with knives doubled sinced they banned firearms in your country

First of all he ain't my buddy. I don't know him from Adam. Right? Secondly, your ignorance of events outside of your little parochial bubble shines through like a pork sausage in a mosque. Our police do not carry firearms, except for a special armed squad. The ordinary police on the street are unarmed. The murder rate with knives is confined to gang type incidents and although regrettable, are a very small proportion of crimes. Concentrate on events you have some knowledge about and you'll not come across as stupid as you currently do.

Oh, and given that I'm not going to be attacked by anyone with a gun, why would I need a gun to defend myself? Are you really telling me that you have concerns for what we do here? Somehow I can't see that. Therefore your motive must be an attempt to ridicule in some way. Fine. Just keep demonstrating what a complete dickhead you are. Actually you seem to do that in almost every post you make.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I smuggled a 357 out of England in 1995 with the help of a buddy at RAF Lakenheath. English gentlemen had it hidden from your stupid police state for years and couldn't bear to see it melted down or do whatever it is the retards there do.

 

[Colin]

I smuggled a 357 out of England in 1995 with the help of a buddy at RAF Lakenheath. English gentlemen had it hidden from your stupid police state for years and couldn't bear to see it melted down or do whatever it is the retards there do.

The only retard around here appears to be you!

 

[California Girl]

Lol! What a dumb fucking moron you are! Cuts both ways doesn't it dumbfuck! And by the way! You never answered my question: Why would we need guns to defend ourselves?

Guys, y'all need to calm down a tad. Britain does not have our Constitution, therefore, they don't have the right to bear arms. We (Americans) have the right to bear arms enshrined in our Constitution. Now, while both sides may not understand the point of view of the other, them's them facts.

We were provided the right to bear arms so that ordinary Americans can defend the country.... FROM OUR GOVERNMENT. We not only have the right, we have the duty, to overthrow a Government that tries to take our freedoms from us. Maybe it's about time we exercised that right. Then our politicians would really have something to bitch about.

Careful what you say or you might get put on a list. Constitutionalists are considered extremists and terrorists by Obama's filthy jackboots, jackboots that I don't mind saying I'd love to take a shot at, with a gun that is. I'm already on a list so I can say that. If we just killed 2 each we'd be doing the world a service, FBI, ATF, IRS, Homeland Security, TSA. Any of those maggots would suffice as fodder for a popular, albeit, doomed insurrection.

I'm not worried about being on a list. I support the Constitution.

However, you seem incapable of viewing Britain as an independent nation and seem to their that Brits should be like us. They are not. Their laws are not our laws, their lifestyle is not our lifestyle. While I don't always necessarily agree with the way they run their country, it is theirs, not ours and if they are prepared to accept a Nanny state - or even desire a Nanny state - that is not our business.

 

[Douger]

No, I'm not confusing semi-automatic weapons with automatic weapons.

You must be because it's not that simple to get a automatic firearms permit, and you can only buy firearms that were manufactured before May 1989. But who are you to say what is and isn't needed by the law abiding American citizen? We have that right to defend our self from an over bearing government in 1776 and we also have that right today. You worry about what is left of your right to knife ownership and I will worry about keep my rights intact with may guns.

OH and not every American owns a automatic firearm, not even hjalf that owns firearms own an automatic firearm. Maybe 200,000 have permits to automatic firearms.

GOOD START When KornHole come knockin at your door.....................

 

[hjmick]

This thread was meant less as a commentary on the state of freedoms in the U.K. and more as a cautionary tale for those of us in the U.S. My point being, it takes only a few fervent activists and little bit apathy by the populace for everyone to slowly lose their freedoms. It was meant to be a reminder that if we Americans want to keep our rights and freedoms, we must remain ever vigilant.

Now, to address the offshoot topic of my OP...

While I recognize that no one, anywhere, has an inherent "right" to purchase alcohol in a glass vessel, to have the government tell you you have no choice just strikes me as wrong. How much of a "nanny state" are you willing to accept? Should I invest in a "sippy" cup company? Because at the rate they're going, the Brits will soon be demanding that everyone must drink from a "sippy" cup because there have been far too many incidents of drinks being purposely thrown in peoples faces.

Oh, and Dr. Grump, I realize the the glass or cup is merely a delivery device for the beverage, but I find that my ales and lagers tend to taste better in glass rather than plastic and if I'm paying $7.00 for an ale with my dinner, it better damn well come in a glass.

 

[Colin]

This thread was meant less as a commentary on the state of freedoms in the U.K. and more as a cautionary tale for those of us in the U.S. My point being, it takes only a few fervent activists and little bit apathy by the populace for everyone to slowly lose their freedoms. It was meant to be a reminder that if we Americans want to keep our rights and freedoms, we must remain ever vigilant.

Now, to address the offshoot topic of my OP...

While I recognize that no one, anywhere, has an inherent "right" to purchase alcohol in a glass vessel, to have the government tell you you have no choice just strikes me as wrong. How much of a "nanny state" are you willing to accept? Should I invest in a "sippy" cup company? Because at the rate they're going, the Brits will soon be demanding that everyone must drink from a "sippy" cup because there have been far too many incidents of drinks being purposely thrown in peoples faces.

Oh, and Dr. Grump, I realize the the glass or cup is merely a delivery device for the beverage, but I find that my ales and lagers tend to taste better in glass rather than plastic and if I'm paying $7.00 for an ale with my dinner, it better damn well come in a glass.

The government hasn't passed any legislation regarding plastic glasses. Neither does it have any such legislative procedures on the books. Let me remind you how you started the thread:

there has been a call from a researcher in the U.K. to ban glasses and bottles in U.K. pubs and nightclubs.

A researcher on criminal violence says this at a conference and suddenly the British government are banning glasses in pubs! Excuse me while I piss my pants laughing!

 

[hjmick]

This thread was meant less as a commentary on the state of freedoms in the U.K. and more as a cautionary tale for those of us in the U.S. My point being, it takes only a few fervent activists and little bit apathy by the populace for everyone to slowly lose their freedoms. It was meant to be a reminder that if we Americans want to keep our rights and freedoms, we must remain ever vigilant.

Now, to address the offshoot topic of my OP...

While I recognize that no one, anywhere, has an inherent "right" to purchase alcohol in a glass vessel, to have the government tell you you have no choice just strikes me as wrong. How much of a "nanny state" are you willing to accept? Should I invest in a "sippy" cup company? Because at the rate they're going, the Brits will soon be demanding that everyone must drink from a "sippy" cup because there have been far too many incidents of drinks being purposely thrown in peoples faces.

Oh, and Dr. Grump, I realize the the glass or cup is merely a delivery device for the beverage, but I find that my ales and lagers tend to taste better in glass rather than plastic and if I'm paying $7.00 for an ale with my dinner, it better damn well come in a glass.

The government hasn't passed any legislation regarding plastic glasses. Neither does it have any such legislative procedures on the books. Let me remind you how you started the thread:

there has been a call from a researcher in the U.K. to ban glasses and bottles in U.K. pubs and nightclubs.

A researcher on criminal violence says this at a conference and suddenly the British government are banning glasses in pubs! Excuse me while I piss my pants laughing!

Yeah, I get it, I read the article, I posted the OP. It was the suggestion of such a ban that motivated me to start the thread. Look, a few years back I scoffed at the idea that certain kitchen knives would be banned in the U.K. I would have never thought people would be carded just to buy a pizza cutter. Six arrested for burning a book? Really? Convicted of murder for defending your home? What the hell?

Piss yourself all you want, but can you honestly tell me that the banning of drinking glasses in favor of plastic cups is not a real possibility? At least in certain problem areas? And if it does happen in those areas, how long before the ban spreads?

As I stated, my OP was not meant as a critique of the U.K. so much as it was meant to be a reminder for the U.S. My point being that the loss of rights and freedoms don't happen all at once, it happens quietly, slowly, incrementally.

For the most part, you folks seem happy with the laws and government you have, good for you. We Yanks tend to be a tad more rebellious...

 

[Colin]

This thread was meant less as a commentary on the state of freedoms in the U.K. and more as a cautionary tale for those of us in the U.S. My point being, it takes only a few fervent activists and little bit apathy by the populace for everyone to slowly lose their freedoms. It was meant to be a reminder that if we Americans want to keep our rights and freedoms, we must remain ever vigilant.

Now, to address the offshoot topic of my OP...

While I recognize that no one, anywhere, has an inherent "right" to purchase alcohol in a glass vessel, to have the government tell you you have no choice just strikes me as wrong. How much of a "nanny state" are you willing to accept? Should I invest in a "sippy" cup company? Because at the rate they're going, the Brits will soon be demanding that everyone must drink from a "sippy" cup because there have been far too many incidents of drinks being purposely thrown in peoples faces.

Oh, and Dr. Grump, I realize the the glass or cup is merely a delivery device for the beverage, but I find that my ales and lagers tend to taste better in glass rather than plastic and if I'm paying $7.00 for an ale with my dinner, it better damn well come in a glass.

The government hasn't passed any legislation regarding plastic glasses. Neither does it have any such legislative procedures on the books. Let me remind you how you started the thread:

there has been a call from a researcher in the U.K. to ban glasses and bottles in U.K. pubs and nightclubs.

A researcher on criminal violence says this at a conference and suddenly the British government are banning glasses in pubs! Excuse me while I piss my pants laughing!

Yeah, I get it, I read the article, I posted the OP. It was the suggestion of such a ban that motivated me to start the thread. Look, a few years back I scoffed at the idea that certain kitchen knives would be banned in the U.K. I would have never thought people would be carded just to buy a pizza cutter. Six arrested for burning a book? Really? Convicted of murder for defending your home? What the hell?

Piss yourself all you want, but can you honestly tell me that the banning of drinking glasses in favor of plastic cups is not a real possibility? At least in certain problem areas? And if it does happen in those areas, how long before the ban spreads?

As I stated, my OP was not meant as a critique of the U.K. so much as it was meant to be a reminder for the U.S. My point being that the loss of rights and freedoms don't happen all at once, it happens quietly, slowly, incrementally.

For the most part, you folks seem happy with the laws and government you have, good for you. We Yanks tend to be a tad more rebellious...

If you were familiar with some of the pub and bar vomitoreums frequented by drunken yobs on Friday and Saturday nights you would understand why some believe plastic glasses would reduce the dreadful injuries from glassing attacks, which occur on an all to frequent basis. Quite honestly they don't deserve to be treated as civilised beings.

Incidentally, plastic glasses are already used on some occassions. Primarily at outdoor events, where pilfering is a problem and breakage and lying glass is dangerous. Talking of a ban is pure hypothesis.

I'm aware of the kitchen knife ban you refer to. Again, this was never a ban. It was once again some do gooder floating an idea. It was never taken up by government. Kitchen knives remain as they always have been. There is no need to ban kitchen knives. We have laws governing the carrying of knives:

"It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches." [CJA 1988 section 139(1)]

The phrase "good reason" is intended to allow for "common sense" possession of knives, so that it is legal to carry a knife if there is a bona fide reason to do so. Examples of bona fide reasons which have been accepted include: a knife required for ones trade (e.g. a chefs knife), as part of a national costume (e.g. a sgian dubh), or for religious reasons (e.g. a Sikh Kirpan).

 

[Ravi]

The pizza cutter incident was store policy, not a law.

Woman, 28, told to prove age to buy pizza-cutter - Telegraph