peacefuljeffrey 0 #26 November 4, 2004 Quote"There's no possible way you can justify calling legal behavior a breach of the public peace." You can if you have things called Anti Social Behaviour Orders. "Nahh! Not rotten enough!" -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #27 November 4, 2004 " "Nahh! Not rotten enough!" " Good to smile now and again though. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #28 November 4, 2004 Quote" "Nahh! Not rotten enough!" " Good to smile now and again though. Banning guns Banning fox hunting Putting cameras on every street corner to supervise the people Passing "ASBOs" Outlawing free speech (stuff you can't say about racial groups, etc. if you so desire) Working to end trial by jury Working to end grand juries Please, give me something to smile about with regard to what is going on in England lately. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #29 November 4, 2004 QuotePlease, give me something to smile about with regard to what is going on in England lately. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=34604; Well I found it funny... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #30 November 4, 2004 Quote Banning guns Banning fox hunting Putting cameras on every street corner to supervise the people Banning Guns - Banning Fox Hunting - Putting Cameras on Streets - Seriously though - Why would you have a problem with a camera?! Would you object to a police officer standing or patrolling the street?! Can he/she not watch you then? Whats the difference - policing our public places with the aid of technology is a good thing - Now if they put them in your house fair-enuf! Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #31 November 4, 2004 Me too... Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #32 November 4, 2004 "Please, give me something to smile about with regard to what is going on in England lately." Dunno, I live in Scotland, how are things with you in Alaska.Banning guns..Not lately. Banning fox hunting ...Good thing IMO. Putting cameras on every street corner to control crime and anti social behaviour.....Good thing. Passing "ASBOs" ...Time will tell if they are good, bad or indifferent, from MikeD's informed posts (he will have to apply this legislation), I think they will be good. Outlawing free speech (stuff you can't say about racial groups, etc. if you so desire). What, you mean limiting incitement to riot, or not giving terrorists a soapbox. Not lately, but a good thing. Working to end trial by jury, Working to end grand juries.... Not going to fly.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #33 November 4, 2004 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A polling place is no place for a citizen to carry a firearm. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is that? Because criminals or terrorists could never show up to do innocent people harm at a polling place? You make me laugh PJ. "Terrorists" couldn't give a fuck about harming people voting. Or didn't you notice all the polling stations that weren't attacked by terrorists on Tuesday. And even if one of these "terrorists" did decide to blow up your local polling station, how would you and your little gun stop them? Maybe if you were really quick on the draw you could shoot all the shrapnel out of the air before it tore everyone to bits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dingley 0 #34 November 4, 2004 I'm touched by the concern shown for this poor man, especially as he seems to be one of those limp-wristed scare-de-cats you dislike so much. What other reason could there be for him to feel the need to take a gun to a polling booth? I know; maybe he wanted to shoot a hole in the ballot card, so that there'd be no hanging chad confusion (he could even blow the smoke from the barrel before re-holstering). Maybe pussy-liberal style counselling would cure him of his irrational fear. Think how much happier he'd be if he didn't feel the need to play 'armies' every time he left his house. Cue surreal NRA propoganda, along the lines of... 'man, leave our 2nd ammendment alone...a gun's a tool, just like a handkerchief. Imagine if he'd been carrying one in his top pocket, and a gust of wind blew it into some dood's face. It could suffocate him! Handkerchief suffocations cause more deaths each year than mortality-inducing happy-tools ever do...etc etc' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #35 November 4, 2004 WHat SkyCop said. The guy was "carrying" to make a point. The point was made. He ran for the publicity. Oh yeah... Something to smile about in Britain?... A nice sensible FLEXIBLE legal procedure that not only curbs antisocial behaviour while preserving freedoms for the majority. It suits us and it works in our favour on so many levels! Why not come over and see how it works at first hand? Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #36 November 4, 2004 ...I'm assuming this would make him feel "disinfrancised" (i have no idea how to spell that)... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No problem, these things happen. In my work I read police reports every day. Some of the things I see would make you cry: "The subject past my patrol car at a high rate of speed..." "The intruder knocked a whole in the wall..." "The victim said she saw to men behind the building..." "The vehicles break lights were not working..." Etc., etc. And don't get me started on grammar and puctuation. It doesn't inspire confidence. On the lighter side, remember George Carlin's take on cop-speak: "Officers apprehended the alleged susect as he emerged from the edifice." Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #37 November 4, 2004 QuoteQuote...apparently even Republicans are susceptible to irrational fear and knee jerk reactionism. Irrational fear is what won Georgie Boy the election..... 9-11.... turrurist.... America Safe..... Hence the reason I added (As if you didn't already know that) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #38 November 4, 2004 "And don't get me started on (Cops') grammar and puctuation. It doesn't inspire confidence." Yes... But surely you're referring to "Georgia" cops! Didn't they recently fire on a "suspect" 60+ times..... Hitting the suspect ONCE in the arm? Seriously, most cops are gradually forced into writing "departmentalese" and are more concerned with getting the report past the "checker" (who's commonly some retired cop supplementing his pension ). One of the things which upsets me is having a report returned because the "checker" doesn't understand some word I've used, and pressure is continually on me to "Dumb Down and Fit in"!!!!!!!! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #39 November 4, 2004 A cop friend once was assigned undercover duty at a public restroom. He said it was a quiet day. When he wrote his report, he closed by stating that his efforts were "fruitless." Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #40 November 4, 2004 Yew gotta prahblum wit frootluss? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fruitlesswitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #41 November 4, 2004 QuoteQuote Banning guns Banning fox hunting Putting cameras on every street corner to supervise the people Banning Guns - Banning Fox Hunting - Putting Cameras on Streets - Seriously though - Why would you have a problem with a camera?! Would you object to a police officer standing or patrolling the street?! Can he/she not watch you then? Whats the difference - policing our public places with the aid of technology is a good thing - Now if they put them in your house fair-enuf! If there were so many police officers posted on the street that I could not leave the sight of one without being in the sight of another, I would consider myself to be living in a POLICE STATE, and YES, I would be just as displeased and angry about it. The people in the U.S. are assumed to be FREE, and are NOT assumed to be constantly up to criminal no-good, so keeping them under constant surveillance is WRONG, and I object to it. So in answer to your question, YES, I would be just as opposed to having a cop in every place there is a camera. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #42 November 4, 2004 QuoteYou make me laugh PJ. "Terrorists" couldn't give a fuck about harming people voting. Or didn't you notice all the polling stations that weren't attacked by terrorists on Tuesday. I also noticed that terrorists have not blown up a single U.S. building since the ones they destroyed on 9/11/01. Three-plus years. That doesn't mean I take for granted that they are not intent on doing so in the future, and possibly plotting to do so as we speak. QuoteAnd even if one of these "terrorists" did decide to blow up your local polling station, how would you and your little gun stop them? Who said blow up? What if they tried a hostage takeover of it, like that Russian school? Are you saying that if ten terrorists tried to take over a polling place where 150 people are voting, and say, 20% of those people were carrying guns, that the terrorist event might not be thwarted by an armed resistance from citizens? Even if casualties were suffered, it would be better than what subsequently happened when NO ONE was armed to defend that school in Russia. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #43 November 4, 2004 Quote Even if casualties were suffered, it would be better than what subsequently happened when NO ONE was armed to defend that school in Russia I agree whole heartedly.... Give guns to all the kids and let them protect themselves Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #44 November 5, 2004 ...If there were so many police officers posted on the street that I could not leave the sight of one without being in the sight of another, I would consider myself to be living in a POLICE STATE, and YES, I would be just as displeased and angry about it... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A few years back a history-buff listed some interesting stats... He said that the U.S. has more police officers per capita than did nazi Germany in the late 1930's. In addition, we have computers, sophisticated communications equipment, helicopters, night vision goggles, etc. If nazi Germany was a police state, what does that make us? At times politicians try to prove how "tough" on crime they are by claiming we need "more cops." No, we don't. In fact, we have too many cops. We have so many cops that these guys are under pressure to harass citizens, in the absense of any evidence of criminal activity, in an effort to ferret out minor violations and "prove" they're doing their jobs. Perhaps it's time to create another thread... Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #45 November 5, 2004 QuoteI also noticed that terrorists have not blown up a single U.S. building since the ones they destroyed on 9/11/01. Three-plus years. That doesn't mean I take for granted that they are not intent on doing so in the future, and possibly plotting to do so as we speak. Yup, you carry on believing that, afterall your government relies on you doing so to give them an easier ride. Maybe though you might want to pause in your paranoia and just ask yourself the following questions: 1. Since 9/11, how many terrorist plots have come to fruition in the USA? 2. Since 9/11, how many terrorist plots have been thwarted in the USA? 3. Since 9/11, of all the people arrested for having anything to do with terrorism, how many have been convicted? See, in the UK, of all the 700+ people arrested in relation to terrorism, so far *NONE* have been convicted. If terrorists are everywhere you'd have thought that your government might have caught some of them by now. QuoteWho said blow up? What if they tried a hostage takeover of it, like that Russian school? Are you saying that if ten terrorists tried to take over a polling place where 150 people are voting, and say, 20% of those people were carrying guns, that the terrorist event might not be thwarted by an armed resistance from citizens? For the umteenth time you are getting your towelheads all mixed up. Chechnyans (go look up where it is on a map for fucks-sake) want Russia to give them independence. Russia has been persecuting them on and off for nearly two centuries. Russia has committed countless inhumane acts against the Chechnyans. There have been countless disgusting acts by both sides. But, and this is the point you seem to be misunderstanding: They have fuck-all to do with Al-quaeda or SH or OBL. You're living in a fantasy world. Firstly, Al-quaeda as a network of efficiently working terrorist cells is a figment of your governments imagination, secondly, even if they did exist, why the fuck would they hold a US polling station hostage rather than blow the fucking thing up, and thirdly, if they do exist and they do want to blow up US polling stations, why didn't they flood accross the Mexican and Canadian borders this week and do just that? Do some fucking research for crying out loud. Look at the evidence rather than blindly regurgitating the crap that your government keeps feeding you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
