SAS hero jailed: Sergeant sentenced to two years after gun found


Recommended Posts

He broke the law. I don't see how this is so hard for people to understand. There's no iron fist here,Hardly.

its it that big a deal? can they just look the other way? or let him off with a slap on the wrist ?

He broke the law. I don't see how this is so hard for people to understand. There's no iron fist here, we're a democracy. I wouldn't call it foresight considering most nations with restricted guns seem to be doing just fine. I can't imagine them going "yup, in 2012 they'll be needing guns".

Maybe it made sense to allow people to have guns at the founding of America to protect the republic in its infancy, but now? Hardly.

because they try to soften the blow by talking about his military record but then ream him. ok, yes, he broke the law but, here judges do take into consideration those circumstances and even sentence him to a parole sentencing. but I agree, he did break the law.

they used him to make an example out of him.if not, why the publicity?

He broke the law. I don't see how this is so hard for people to understand.

There's no "iron fist" here, we're a democracy. I wouldn't call it foresight considering most nations with restricted guns seem to be doing just fine. I can't imagine them going "yup, in 2012 they'll be needing guns".

Maybe it made sense to allow people to have guns at the founding of America to protect the republic in its infancy, but now? Hardly.

I wish you would take a trip the U.S/Mexican border and sit there for a few days and watch how many illegals come over carrying drugs and then ask yourself if guns were banned would they come through this border? Guns are tighly regulated in Mexico but the drug cartels have no problem getting them.

its it that big a deal to look the other way? or let him off with a slap on the wrist ?

Yup else it sets a precedent for other people to do the same.

I wish you would take a trip the U.S/Mexican border and sit there for a few days and watch how many illegals come over carrying drugs and then ask yourself if guns were banned would they come through this border? Guns are tighly regulated in Mexico but the drug cartels have no problem getting them.

And you use your weapons to shoot these illegal Mexicans from entering?

Yup else it sets a precedent for other people to do the same.

Just curious has any U.K celebs gotten off lightly for anything?

Yup else it sets a precedent for other people to do the same.

And you use your weapons to shoot these illegal Mexicans from entering?

No I don't. Are you advocating shooting illegals?

Just curious has any U.K celebs gotten off lightly for anything?

No I don't. Are you advocating shooting illegals?

Not at all but you brought up illegal immigrants entering your country when I said it might have made sense of weapons when America was founded and still in its infancy.. why did you bring up Mexicans?

I'm not sure about celebrities; I don't really pay much interest to them.

Not at all but you brought up illegal immigrants entering your country when I said it might have made sense of weapons when America was founded and still in its infancy.. why did you bring up Mexicans?

Because You cant ban guns here and expect them to go away when you have people crossing over to the U.S illegally with drugs and not expect them to be bringing guns over to arm their gang members. If we did shoot illegals on sight the world would be livid.

Because You cant ban guns here and expect them to go away when you have people crossing over to the U.S illegally with drugs and not expect them to be bringing guns over to arm their gang members. If we did shoot illegals on sight the world would be livid.

Or perhaps you should just police your borders better? (I'm not saying its easy, but surely that is something that should be done anyway).

Or perhaps you should just police your borders better? (I'm not saying its easy, but surely that is something that should be done anyway).

There's parts of the border that is policed heavily and they still manage to dig tunnels to get through and that's just the parts that policed heavily. If they can dig tunnels and they find them all the time think of the other thousands of miles along the border they're coming through freely. The Mexican government even hands out pamphlets that tell the illegals how to cross the border safely. There's a show on tv or there was (don't know if its still airing don't watch tv anymore) called border wars, they catch illegals all the time but still they get through.

There use to be a time when there were parts of the country where everyone owned a gun,hunted and did what regular folks do and no one would worry about someone shooting them or someone breaking in. My grandma is 90 years old and kept her front door unlocked for years until a few years ago when someone broke in. I don't blame the crime and murder on the gun culture because we've always had a gun culture I blame it on the popularity of the gang culture and the media glorifying thugs. But whenever this guy gets done serving his time I wouldn't have a problem with him living here and owning as many guns as he wish's.

Saying that you shouldn't kill someone that's trying to kill you because of the criminals family is hilarious. You think the criminals family gives a damn about me if I die? Funny though when ever some thug gets killed or arrested for murder their family come out and say he was a good kid or the cry and say my baby! My baby! Sure ur baby just got killed because your baby was trying to kill someone else.

While he/she might be a criminal, we respect his/her human rights. It's just that we take away their privelages (freedom), not their human rights. Guns infringe on human rights so that's why we restricted them (NOT outlaw). There are some guns for a good purpose and that is hunting. So our governement is not controlling us, just ensuring we don't go "trigger happy". Too many people here gone crazy thinking they can do what they like without considation for other people around them. Heck you can get a licence to have weapons. Just same as licence to drive. Just need to have a very good reason why you need a gun here and self-defense is not one of them.

On the other hand the border- we get boats of asian people trying to come here (asylum seekers), we have the navy looking after our border. They do not shoot anyone unless absolutely threatened unlike your country who tears up cars or arrest or kill people as they enter your country. People here are not arrested, just processed at a facility offshore (quarrintine), paperwork, and they are welcome in.

Just curious has any U.K celebs gotten off lightly for anything?

No I don't. Are you advocating shooting illegals?

Yeah some celebs got off real lightly because they can afford the best lawyers.

Not much that can be done about that unfortunately.

While he/she might be a criminal, we respect his/her human rights. It's just that we take away their privelages (freedom), not their human rights. Guns infringe on human rights so that's why we restricted them (NOT outlaw). There are some guns for a good purpose and that is hunting. So our governement is not controlling us, just ensuring we don't go "trigger happy". Too many people here gone crazy thinking they can do what they like without considation for other people around them. Heck you can get a licence to have weapons. Just same as licence to drive. Just need to have a very good reason why you need a gun here and self-defense is not one of them.

On the other hand the border- we get boats of asian people trying to come here (asylum seekers), we have the navy looking after our border. They do not shoot anyone unless absolutely threatened unlike your country who tears up cars or arrest or kill people as they enter your country. People here are not arrested, just processed at a facility offshore (quarrintine), paperwork, and they are welcome in.

We kill people at the border? A country surrounded by water is way different than thousands of miles of land that's not protected it would take a hell of a lot of man power, time and money to secure every inch of it. Atleast with the U.K you can use radar and see the boats coming on a land border thousands of miles long you can't do that. In regards to the trigger happy comment I have to laugh a little because the only time I go trigger happy is when I'm shooting a watermelon or something like that lol. Shooting off a bunch of rounds makes me happy lol.

Its happening and a lot of people don't like it. I guess that's where we differ the British seem to except laws regardless. As far as the U.S banning dogs. No the U.S doesn't ban any breed that I know of. Certain cities have bans but as a whole the U.S doesn't.

You clearly have no clue about the UK, so because we petitioned the government to ban handguns we suddenly accept any law regardless because we are ruled by an iron fist?

Get real.

The US is no more 'free' than any other first world country, you are just naive enough to think you are.

You clearly have no clue about the UK, so because we petitioned the government to ban handguns we suddenly accept any law regardless because we are ruled by an iron fist?

Get real.

The US is no more 'free' than any other first world country, you are just naive enough to think you are.

If you want to believe that, that's fine and I'll agree we aren't as free as we use to be but we still have the freedom to protect ourselves if need be I can still own certain things that I can't some where else. Isn't that some form of freedom?

We are free to protect ourselves, the difference is we don't need guns to do it because the average criminal doesn't have access to a gun, and just because we are banned from owning handguns doesn't mean we aren't free.

If anything we are more free because the government didn't just outlaw guns on a whim, the people petitioned the government to ban handguns, look up the Snowdrop Campaign.

We are free to protect ourselves, the difference is we don't need guns to do it because the average criminal doesn't have access to a gun, and just because we are banned from owning handguns doesn't mean we aren't free.

If anything we are more free because the government didn't just outlaw guns on a whim, the people petitioned the government to ban handguns, look up the Snowdrop Campaign.

Id rather bring a gun to a knife fight but that's personal preference. Your people banned guns because you're afraid of yourselves. Kind of ironic really a country that conquered the world at one point in time now the citizens have conquered themselves by forfeiting the ability to arm themselves. Sure you don't need guns now but what if your government grew out of control in your eyes. What if it grew to the point to where you didn't like it. You going to stage protests and just get beaten back? Or will you just take it and deal with it? Never underestimate what a government with power can do, not saying its happening or will happen soon i'm just saying it could and how would you deal with it.

The law is the law and being a war hero doesn't give a person the right to break the law.

Id rather bring a gun to a knife fight but that's personal preference. Your people banned guns because you're afraid of yourselves. Kind of ironic really a country that conquered the world at one point in time now the citizens have conquered themselves by forfeiting the ability to arm themselves. Sure you don't need guns now but what if your government grew out of control in your eyes. What if it grew to the point to where you didn't like it. You going to stage protests and just get beaten back? Or will you just take it and deal with it? Never underestimate what a government with power can do, not saying its happening or will happen soon i'm just saying it could and how would you deal with it.

Technically our armed forces are still loyal to the queen and not the government which means that under special circumstances, say if the government were to try to impose some form of tyrrany or dictatorship the queen could theoretically order our armed forces to remove the government by force, and we have a political constitution that limits what governments can and cannot do. We aren't as powerless as you think, and we achieve it without 8,000 people a year capping each other's asses :laugh:

  • Like 1

Id rather bring a gun to a knife fight but that's personal preference. Your people banned guns because you're afraid of yourselves. Kind of ironic really a country that conquered the world at one point in time now the citizens have conquered themselves by forfeiting the ability to arm themselves. Sure you don't need guns now but what if your government grew out of control in your eyes. What if it grew to the point to where you didn't like it. You going to stage protests and just get beaten back? Or will you just take it and deal with it? Never underestimate what a government with power can do, not saying its happening or will happen soon i'm just saying it could and how would you deal with it.

Our monarch has the ability to dissolve parliament and take control of the country if she wanted to. You don't need guns to overrun a government.

No one is afraid of guns, you keep making the same ridiculous assumption. It is legal for us to own shotguns and .22 weapons if we have a legitimate reason for doing so.

We don't need guns to feel 'free' or 'safe'.

  • Like 3

Our monarch has the ability to dissolve parliament and take control of the country if she wanted to. You don't need guns to overrun a government.

No one is afraid of guns, you keep making the same ridiculous assumption. It is legal for us to own shotguns and .22 weapons if we have a legitimate reason for doing so.

We don't need guns to feel 'free' or 'safe'.

From one tyrant to another I see. I have a legitimate reason to own my guns to. Today its not like the 1950s when everyone owned guns and everyone got a long. Now we have to deal with gangs and drug addicts and mad men. I bet you can see where i'm going with this don't you. A lot of anti's live in big cities as well they see a gun like an AR-15 and see no need for one but tell that to a rancher living on the border of Mexico, if hes out there mending his fence and an illegal crosses into his land and begins to shoot at him, hes gonna need something to fight back. Don't think illegals don't come armed either because they do.

Your people banned guns because you're afraid of yourselves. Kind of ironic really a country that conquered the world at one point in time now the citizens have conquered themselves by forfeiting the ability to arm themselves.

Yawn. :sleep:

We didn't ban guns, we placed restrictions on their ownership. And we did so based upon evidence that they posed a threat to society. The UK is far from the only country to impose such restrictions, so let's not turn this into a UK vs. US debate. In fact it's the US that is at odds with the rest of the world on this matter and suffers one of the highest rates of firearms fatalities as a result. It's not because we are "afraid" or that we're sissies - it's because it's the responsible and informed thing to do.

You talk as if the US has absolutely no restrictions on firearms when that simply isn't the case.

From one tyrant to another I see. I have a legitimate reason to own my guns to. Today its not like the 1950s when everyone owned guns and everyone got a long. Now we have to deal with gangs and drug addicts and mad men. I bet you can see where i'm going with this don't you. A lot of anti's live in big cities as well they see a gun like an AR-15 and see no need for one but tell that to a rancher living on the border of Mexico, if hes out there mending his fence and an illegal crosses into his land and begins to shoot at him, hes gonna need something to fight back. Don't think illegals don't come armed either because they do.

What are you blithering on about, tyrants?

I'm not anti-gun, and I don't live in a big city, what other completely wrong assumptions are you going to make up next?

Yawn. :sleep:

We didn't ban guns, we placed restrictions on their ownership. And we did so based upon evidence that they posed a threat to society. The UK is far from the only country to impose such restrictions, so let's not turn this into a UK vs. US debate. In fact it's the US that is at odds with the rest of the world on this matter and suffers one of the highest rates of firearms fatalities as a result. It's not because we are "afraid" or that we're sissies - it's because it's the responsible and informed thing to do.

You talk as if the US has absolutely no restrictions on firearms when that simply isn't the case.

Responsible thing to do. Yep that's why there was a gun ban in effect at a certain school in Virginia and at a certain theatre in Colorado, gun bans work so well. The U.S isn't at odds with anyone We're not fighting the world to keep our 2A right. 8000 deaths vs the number of gun owners is ridiculously small so don't try to spin it as its triple that number.No the U.S has restrictions of guns you are correct and I never said we didn't.

What are you blithering on about, tyrants?

I'm not anti-gun, and I don't live in a big city, what other completely wrong assumptions are you going to make up next?

Who did we fight to dissolve ourselves from? Let me give you a hint. It has to do with King and country.. And in regards to the big city comment a lot of people that live in big cities don't take into consideration why someone might want to own an AR-15 or AK-47 I wasn't targeting you per say I was just making an argument. And you're not anti-gun? Could of fooled me. I have yet to see a pro gun statement come from you.

Maybe I shouldn't have said that. At the time when I first found out about the story it kinda made me angry more because of the law than anything else. Sure he broke the law he as to do the time. Still think its a crappy law, which I know the majority of people there think its a just law. I mean I have a handgun sitting right next to me now and I look at it and think if I was in the U.K id get 2 years for that??

Thanks for clarifying :) I am personally fine with this law, considering the "gun culture" in the UK (i.e. I don't feel unsafe without a gun here and I don't believe anyone should be allowed to carry guns here), but considering the problem with guns in America and your views on guns, I can see why you wouldn't be happy with such a law. I think it's just important to see this from the view of someone who lives in the UK?most of us would probably feel more unsafe if people (like this man or otherwise) were allowed to carry handguns, and if the police hadn't punished this man for him having this handgun and ammo.

-snip-

You're back peddling so fast it's making me dizzy! :D

So our country isn't free because we have restrictions on hand guns eh? (Although we can, and i do, own rifles and shotguns)! What a load of pish.

I live it in Scotland where we happily tuck in to many a haggis. So, i'm over in the good ol' US for a holiday but i fancy a taste of home.. but oh no! America has banned haggis!

That's fine, i'll drown my sorrows with a nice gulp of Absinthe... *gulp* ARGHGH *spits out, what the hell is this crap? Oh yeah that's right, the main ingredient of Absinthe is banned in the US.

Shall i go on? Or do you finally realise you're no more free than us just because you can carry a hand gun?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Yup, that's a doozy right there 😄
    • It's a bundle of tools created by a variety of people, so things can go wrong sometimes. It's a great addition to Windows, and I use a lot of the tools on a daily basis. Also, it's still a 0.**** release so quick updates are to be expected 😉
    • Oh, I did. And it's even worse than I was hoping! Besides a lot of techno-babble jargon (yes I understand 100% of it but it's still all just techno-babble) there's 2 key points that make me super-weary about even considering testing this out. -- By default, after installation, a relay is automatically set up, so you do not need to care about that. * Non-chatmail apps use email servers as a long-term message archive while chatmail clients use email servers for ephemeral instant message relay. * Supporting the full variety of classic email setups would require considerable development and maintenance efforts, and complicate making chatmail-based messaging more resilient, reliable and fast. -- Basically, the end-user device is the 'server' (relay) so there is NO ARCHIVING whatsoever because every message is necessarily ephemeral. Great for techno-paranoia (and for illicit activities preferring no tracks to cover) but terrible for everybody else. It's also ironically contradictory to engineering principles of redundancies besides the transport layers due to the explicit absence of any persistent storage. Instead of 'classic email address' retaining multi-GB messaging archives on its server, now every device must retain 100% of those storage demands. (Email messages were originally meant to be short correspondences, not the multi-MB attachments boondoggle that now exists with unlimited spam engines flooding every potential recipient.) Any device swap or reset (or loss) makes the entire message history go bye-bye forever... lest there's an off-device auto-archival "relay" mechanism that's really a separate server that holds onto all transported messages (an email server) that utilizes 'chatmail email address' identities (like an email server) and its own persistent storage archive (like an email server). But... this solution is hoping to exist alongside real-world email address identities (based on the email server relay pathway) but simply render messages in chat thread format in an ephemeral manner (with contents being encrypted, and messages auto-expiring) ... In the end, it's a chat app/experience for the Web3/P2P-at-all-costs zealots. (I have accts on all sorts of federated web3 services so I understand the technical and non-technical alike.) For any practical users, however, it's just another service to download/install, register, cross-share id cards/qr codes, but know that there's no history/archive whatsoever (by design) so no account/message recovery whatsoever... update the device, install a bummed update patch, or dare upgrade your device... all history, poof, gone. Ya gotta start everything over again like they're a brand new person.
    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!