65 posts in this topic

as an unarmed society we can't!

Imagine if we were an armed society, you think it would be any better?

Nope! Those idiots would be even more dangerous than they already are, and half / most of them are armed anyway

But we're not an unarmed society in reality, we have armed response

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if we were an armed society, you think it would be any better?

Nope! Those idiots would be even more dangerous than they already are, and half / most of them are armed anyway

But we're not an unarmed society in reality, we have armed response

yeah but they're on the Government's side so that's a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as an unarmed society we can't!

You can keep guns.... we're just restricted on what type. Also I sincerely doubt guns would help in a protest, how would you get your point across, shooting up Downing Street? Its as delusional as the people who think owning a gun will "stop a tyrannical Government".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but they're on the Government's side so that's a moot point.

No, they are on the publics side, if there is a report of someone carrying a weapon on the streets, the armed response will be called

You can keep guns.... we're just restricted on what type. Also I sincerely doubt guns would help in a protest, how would you get your point across, shooting up Downing Street? Its as delusional as the people who think owning a gun will "stop a tyrannical Government".

Yep, and thankfully we don't have concealed weapons permits, so anyone with a gun license has to keep it locked up / use it in permitted areas iirc

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they are on the publics side, if there is a report of someone carrying a weapon on the streets, the armed response will be called

when it comes to protests they tend to be the ones protecting the Government as is the way when you have large gatherings outside Government buildings also as if protests work any more.

As a side note when the coalition got in they said they were going to repeal a good few laws and legislations that they felt were unneeded and it seems nothing ever came of that so you could expect the same from Labour if they ever get in again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when it comes to protests they tend to be the ones protecting the Government as is the way when you have large gatherings outside Government buildings also as if protests work any more.

As a side note when the coalition got in they said they were going to repeal a good few laws and legislations that they felt were unneeded and it seems nothing ever came of that so you could expect the same from Labour if they ever get in again.

Depending on where the protests are, and what the protests are about, and if there are two conflicting groups protesting at the same time, then yea they can be there to keep order if something kicks off, but you generally do not see any weapons on the streets unless there is a threat of weapons already there

I love the UK for that, yes we do get the odd shooting by some gun owner who loses the plot, or some gang fight, but in general, there is next to no gun crime here

Knifes yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on where the protests are, and what the protests are about, and if there are two conflicting groups protesting at the same time, then yea they can be there to keep order if something kicks off, but you generally do not see any weapons on the streets unless there is a threat of weapons already there

Well that wasn't the case with the Jarrow March which was a peaceful protest which when they reached downing street they were met with cannon emplacements despite them being unarmed and still nothing was done and i doubt anything has changed since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that wasn't the case with the Jarrow March which was a peaceful protest which when they reached downing street they were met with cannon emplacements despite them being unarmed and still nothing was done and i doubt anything has changed since then.

Seriously, a protest from 1936? That's hardly relevant now, I mean back then they used to shoot deserters and people who refused to join the Army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that wasn't the case with the Jarrow March which was a peaceful protest which when they reached downing street they were met with cannon emplacements despite them being unarmed and still nothing was done and i doubt anything has changed since then.

As I said, "Depending on where they are protesting"

Of course they are going to be met with force if they protest on downing street, :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, "Depending on where they are protesting"

Of course they are going to be met with force if they protest on downing street, :/

it doesn't matter where it is peaceful protests should be done where they're most effective.

Seriously, a protest from 1936? That's hardly relevant now, I mean back then they used to shoot deserters and people who refused to join the Army.

those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it it's because people put relevant by dates on events we end up seeing things happen time and time again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesn't matter where it is peaceful protests should be done where they're most effective.

I completely see your point, but when it gets to downing street, they can't take any chances, it could be peaceful as a ploy to get close to the PM

Imagine if they tried protesting at the White House, water would be the least of their worries ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely see your point, but when it gets to downing street, they can't take any chances, it could be peaceful as a ploy to get close to the PM

Imagine if they tried protesting at the White House, water would be the least of their worries ;)

Well if the PM(s) didn't over inflate their position then they wouldn't be at risk they're elected to "Run" then country not "Rule" it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if the PM(s) didn't over inflate their position then they wouldn't be at risk they're elected to "Run" then country not "Rule" it.

Agreed, but they do, and have always done, and no matter what they did, there would always be people who disagreed / wanted to harm them, so a heavy police hand is always going to be there

Gone are the days of a clip around the ear and sent home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with mobile phone policy - to block it until you request otherwise. Except they block some odd sites too that don't need blocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need that here in the States. Good for you UK!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need that here in the States. Good for you UK!

So you're for against big government when it doesn't suit your agenda but when it's something you do agree with, you're all for it?

As Elizabeth Warren once said "Republicans say they don't believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends. After all, Mitt Romney's the guy who said corporations are people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're for against big government when it doesn't suit your agenda but when it's something you do agree with, you're all for it?

As Elizabeth Warren once said "Republicans say they don't believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends. After all, Mitt Romney's the guy who said corporations are people."

Elizabeth Warren is an idiot. So is Mitt Romney. My point is the fact about porn. Porn should be done away with period. If you don't understand that, then maybe I should sign it to you:

post-248407-0-07374700-1356221617.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Warren is an idiot. So is Mitt Romney. My point is the fact about porn. Porn should be done away with period. If you don't understand that, then maybe I should sign it to you:

I disagree, it shouldn't.

Free speech anyone?

You seem to be into protecting the constitution big time (which is good, but maybe I'm mistaken and you're not), why not protect that part, too?

Glassed Silver:mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, it shouldn't.

Free speech anyone?

You seem to be into protecting the constitution big time (which is good, but maybe I'm mistaken and you're not), why not protect that part, too?

Glassed Silver:mac

You are right. I aquiesce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in free speech, even that I don't believe in. I don't take kindly to people messing with free speech.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Daily mails drive to do this, and have you ever been on their site? nearly all the news articles are with scantily clad women.

this is going to be implemented in the most idiotic way. buy a new computer and it will ask if you have children in the house and then you will tailor the Internet filters to block porn, but people who don't know how to use the filters already probably don't even know how to set up a computer in the first place, so will let there children set it up and they will simply bypass this filter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250809/Victory-Mail-Children-WILL-protected-online-porn-Cameron-orders-sites-blocked-automatically.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be honest, blocking porn has nothing to do with free speech, its all about flap flap flap flapin to you're hearts content!

i havent seen a porno that discussed difficult topics like the syrian crisis or something!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be honest, blocking porn has nothing to do with free speech, its all about flap flap flap flapin to you're hearts content!

i havent seen a porno that discussed difficult topics like the syrian crisis or something!

Free speech covers more than eloquent discussions.

Glassed Silver:mac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Warren is an idiot. So is Mitt Romney. My point is the fact about porn. Porn should be done away with period. If you don't understand that, then maybe I should sign it to you:

LOLOLOL

So you think you're more intelligent than Elizabeth Warren? Wow, I cannot even comprehend how deluded that makes you. Also you want porn banned? You should move to Saudi Arabia and see how that works out for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.