Alex Jones shoots Piers Morgan down in Flames… excellent stuff!!
January 12, 2013 at 23:02
-
@ Anthony Harrison. No, My Dear, I would not assert that The Government was
or is my friend. But then I have no desire to shoot any of them, albeit quite
a good idea on occasions. Perhaps.
But then my conception of the use of
guns appears to be entirely different from yours. I enjoy killing animals that
I will eat, and hopefully stone cold dead with one shot. I have seen it done,
although I am not that good. I only hope to get better at it. Watching a Gypsy
Boy killing a Hare on the run with just one shot was pretty amazing. I still
marvel. Oh to be that good. That is guns for me.
But should I ever be
called upon to defend myself, then no doubt I would be better able than
most.
But at least you have felt the right to comment on this Blog, and to do so
several times. This is good. One day in the not so distant future you might
even agree with what is being said about something or another.
Just don’t
quote The Second Amendment while ignoring The First Amendment. I have every
bit as much right to my half arsed opinions as you have to yours.
- January 12, 2013 at 23:17
-
Where did I attempt to deny your right to self expression? Please point
this out. My opinions might seem half-arsed to you, but at least they’re
based on fact: I’ve observed the grim process of UK “gun control” for a few
decades, and take a keen interest in the history of the legislation
attaching to it. I concluded some time ago that guns, and a given
government’s attitude toward their ownership, are an interesting index of
the state of liberty under that government. When I read or hear things that
I know to be factually incorrect about guns and gun laws, I try to correct
these; when people persist in retailing falsehoods about guns I get very
impatient – disagreement is a logical response to claptrap… Your own
opinions on guns, gun legislation and the like, are – shall we say –
somewhat less than well informed. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Some
opinions have more value than others.
- January 13, 2013 at 00:37
-
Dear Mr.Harrison, You just don’t need to be quite so aggressive about
your dissent. And you have been a trifle rude in expressing your opinions.
In fact you made me feel like a real idiot for half a minute. But then I
am rarely totally decimated for very long.
Whether or not my opinions
are less well informed than yours are only your opinion since I don’t have
the time or the patience to discuss what I actually know or think. And in
fact it would make no difference anyway.
But do watch out for a sense
of humour. Dum Dum. You didn’t actually take that seriously. Did you?
Just keep on posting. We like you. Well, I do.
- January 11, 2013 at 20:27
-
Alex Jones is barking mad ’1776′ – ye gods! Unfortunately the context in
which the consitution was written has been completely forgotten, as has been
the fact that it has been amended several times. It is spoken of, as it suits
the argument being presented, as written in stone – a gospel, a holy writ.
Something the iconoclasticc figures who wrote the thing in the first place
would have been appalled by.
The result is an entire country completely
hung up on guns incapable of common sense legislation along the same lines as
planes, trains and automobiles are.
Where to begin with Alex Jones’
‘passionate’ arguments? Factoids???? Well they are quite handy when it comes
to taking a rational look at a situation, or is that just me? Guns don’t kill
people – I refer you to the Eddie Izzard theory: they help. If someone has a
nervous breakdown and access to a semi-automaic and thousands of rounds of
ammo they can kill a lot more people that if they had access to a vase or even
a knife. If guns don’t kill people then why does Mr Jones wish to own
them?
If someone with a gun had been there, they would have stopped it. Has
there EVER been an incident of mass shooting stopped by a civilian with a gun?
Would the people in the dark cinema with one man shooting and everyone
screaming really have been safer if someone else started shooting? really?
That’s macho fantasy I’m afraid. More likely that the citizen with a gun would
shoot a bystander in their fright and adrenaline rush.
And finally – the
batshit nuts argument that more guns should be in schools and then this
wouldn’t happen. Arm the Teachers! Lets just consider some practicalities. In
a High School this would mean hundreds of emotional,
hormonal/emos/goths/jocks/bullies/bullied/rejected/cheated on teenagers would
have ready access to a firearm. To prevent that you’d have to lock the gun
away – rather taking away the quick response aspect of the gun. Then you’d
have to make sure the Teachers could still shoot the gun, that the gun was
kept clean and in good working order, that the ammo was still safe and
operating, that Teachers themselves where not on the verge of a nervous
breakdown and running amok…… wow, weve got a whole regulatory body being
invented before our very eyes…. And don’t even get me started on what kind of
a fucked up society needs guns everywhere in the first place.
America is a lovely place with lovely people, but they really are screwed
up about guns.
- January 11, 2013 at 21:04
-
Mr Jones might want to own guns for all sorts of reasons. I own guns, for
reasons that ultimately are none of your (or anyone else’s) business but
which are similarly varied. I understand that the great majority of
instances in which US citizens use a legally owned firearm to resist
criminals do not entail the gun’s being fired – the presence and threat of
the gun proves sufficient. Makes sense to me. Maybe you don’t like guns –
lots of people don’t, especially in this country with its 90% urban
population and 90+ years of successive governments making guns harder to
own, and demonising them in the process. America has always been a more
violent society than ours – though this needs to be qualified, with many
parts of America being less violent, or at least no more violent, than many
parts of the UK. Where criminal violence exists, not unnaturally people wish
to be armed, and in America they are mostly at liberty to do so; though
interestingly, the parts with the most violence tend also to be places where
the authorities make it tougher for ordinary law-abiding citizens to own a
gun. Go figure.
Like I say, you don’t seem to like guns, which is fine.
But I don’t think you or anyone else with a similar distaste for guns should
be permitted to keep other people from wanting to be free to protect
themselves and their families and their property with a firearm if they feel
the need so to do. Or indeed from owning firearms just because they like the
look or feel of them. I like guns, own a few, and I use them: I also like
them in themselves, as interesting and attractive pieces of art, history and
engineering.
Our society is pretty “fucked up” in various ways, though
not so much on my patch as in the crappier parts of certain cities; if any
of our more “fucked up” fellow citizens wanted to have a go at me or mine,
I’d like to think I’d be able to dissuade them. Makes sense to me.
-
January 12, 2013 at 19:20
-
I don’t dislike guns as it happens. I’ve even shot a few clay pigeons –
I seem to have a natural talent for it. And guns have not been
historically demonised in this country – Dunblane was a turning point on
that front. I think the general view of guns in the UK is pretty
utilitarian; some people have them for work , some for sport. We don’t
have any national mythology attached to guns nor do we have a written
constitution. Our national mythology is attached to longbows (Agincourt
and Robin Hood) and maybe swords (lots of Ivanhoe type stories).but not
guns for whatever reason. I see no issue with people owning guns for
hunting or sport if that is what they wish to do.
I don’t get the
hysterical reaction to any mention of regulation in America. I really
don’t get screaming references to 1776 and this spectre of a suddenly
dictatorial and malign government that would need to be resisted by
civilians. I suspect we are back in mythological territory with that –
driven by the beginnings of the post-pilgrim America and maybe a lingering
memory of the civil war. It seems pretty sensible to regulate who owns
guns and who has access to them and under what circumstances they would be
required to store guns and ammo at their gun club. If I owned a load of
guns and there was a person in my household with a mental illness it would
be obvious to me that the guns and ammo should be put out of their reach.
Why is this an issue? Why do people need to own a semi-automatic? Why the
loophole on sales at gun fairs? Why would anyone in a downtown area in a
modern, well policed city need to carry a concealed weapon? And ranters
like Alex Jones do not help. The Gun Lobby in the USA presents apocalyptic
either/or arguments on the absolute extremes: either we all own guns and
are all safe OR they take all our guns and we loose our lives and freedoms
and we’ll all be slaughtered by criminals. Life the Universe and
Everything doesn’t operate at the extremes – there are many shades in
between. And yet the Gun Lobby is entirely inflexible – No Surrender! No
Change! And they don’t even have the backbone to state that they regard
all those children as collatoral damage to their freedoms. Actually they
didn’t even have the spine to comment until they thought the worst of the
reaction had died down.
There is a blunt truth here. I come from a
compelely different cultural tradition when it comes to guns. I know that.
And to be honest, much as I love America (working there and visiting it),
I simply do not feel safer when I am surrounded by guns, I feel in more
danger. Two countries divided by a common language as somone famous once
said.
- January 12, 2013 at
20:03
-
If one considers that The Second Amendment was originally in support
of The Government against hostile forces, does it not now seem a trifle
odd that the likes of Alex Jones demands the right to own guns against
the hostile forces of The Government itself. At what point did the
honour change? When did The Government become the enemy? At what price
The Second Amendment? But then one might ask at what price The First
Amendment.
Incidentally, Amendment means that any Amendment can be
amended.
- January 12, 2013 at
22:01
-
You neglected the bit about people having the ability to defend
themselves against tyrannical government. Would you seriously assert
that the government is your friend, in 2013? Really?
- January 12, 2013 at
22:00
-
Couple of comments. You probably haven’t observed the guns scene in
UK for as long as I have or with as much interest. Believe me, guns have
been demonised – by the State, with the reflex, greedy, gormless
co-operation of the MSM, and facilitated by our largely urban culture
and a sedentary, complacent, entitlement-obsessed public.
I doubt
seriously that more people are interested in or knowledgeable about
longbows than guns! A somewhat esoteric, whimsical claim on your part. I
recall a childhood in which guns were tremendously attractive – cap
guns, followed by air rifles, plus we all read war stories involving
lots of shooting; and when I was at school in the ’60s lots of my chums
had shotguns or at least access to them – before 1968 and the Jenkins
shotgun registration measure, following the shooting of three London
cops by criminals armed with (unlicenced, natch) handguns – go figure.
(Best theory I’ve seen is that Jenkins controlled shotguns as a
distraction, to show he was “doing something” and to deflect calls for
the reintroduction of capital punishment, to which he was very
opposed.)
You omit to mention the US “hysteria” indulged in by the
anti-gun crowd – you say you have some experience of America so this
surprises me. The groups and forces calling for massive gun control
measures, very often joined with anti-hunting movements, PETA etc, are
very powerful: their propaganda is often extreme, more so than that of
the NRA, or GOOA, the latter organisations having to respond constantly
to fresh threats..
Your view of the efficacy of policing is
optimistic, going on extremely naive! People don’t “need” to carry guns
in a “well policed city”? Tell that to the next victim of a violent
mugging or random attack…
Actually you don’t come from a “completely
different cultural tradition” – you come from a country that has seen
significant gun controls only in the past 93 years, prior to which there
was practically no control at all – and England experienced very little
gun crime. Gun ownership was widespread; the King’s brother could call
for every home in England to have a rifle, extolling the virtues of
rifle practice as a national defensive measure; our own NRA had at least
as many members (some say more) as the US NRA…
We’ve just been
emasculated in terms of the freedom to arm ourselves – most of one’s
fellow citizens don’t even know this, behaving much like gelded
lambs.
I remember wistfully the Pistol Anno Domini meetings at
Bisley, wandering around the crowded trade stalls and ranges with lots
and lots of guys carrying holstered handguns. never gave it a thought –
but it was probably one of the most crime-free spots to be found in our
country.
Your questions about others’ “need” to own this or that gun
are egregiously intrusive and prescriptive. It is not for you, or the
State, or Old Father Time, to dictate to someone what gun he or she
needs for the defence of self, family, home and country.
- January 13, 2013 at
07:17
-
Spot on! Well said!
-
January 10, 2013 at 18:16
-
Is this a good time mention The First Amendment?
- January 10, 2013 at 08:12
-
Back on topic. Alex Jones did not shoot Piers Morgan down, he shouted him
down. Any validity, coherence, or sense, lost in the raving.
I can see and appreciate the argument, but the libertarians are as guilty
of scaremongering as all the other ‘groups’.
A sane spokesman might be a good starting point, because this excitable
fool makes his supporters appear insane. He has valid points lost in the
madness.
As a banned, mad person, I say that no individual should have a weapon that
can kill many innocents.
- January 10, 2013 at 18:18
-
Alex Jones isn’t a Libertarian, he’s a conspiracy nut.
- January 8, 2013 at 23:05
-
Great post Anna. Light blue touch paper and retreat! More please.
-
January 8, 2013 at 22:56
-
That is a lovely story. But what a laugh I had when I realised that I have
been incorrectly spelling Boar. I shall put that down to the fact that I
normally only speak of them in French. Snark.
- January 8, 2013 at 23:09
-
Ah well no wonder my little bit of a joke bombed at #50 then.
But, Elena, as you know the Hunting of the Snark doesn’t happen in
France.
L’animal sauvage en question? It’s yer sanglier you’re referring to, as
hunted and devoured by Obélix
- January 9, 2013 at 11:03
-
The genuine mistakes are always the funniest, don’t you think. I am
particularly good at this.
-
January 8, 2013 at 21:54
-
Molon Labe!
I agree entirely with Alex Jones. A man can defend his
family with a gun.
Where guns are permitted, especially ‘concealed carry’
the crime rate drops.
Look at Chicago with its draconian gun laws. It’s the
murder capital of the US. Over 500 hundred gun murders in 2012.
-
January 8, 2013 at 20:52
-
I thought Ayn Rand was an American. Sorry about that. Okay. Try Morris
West, The Clowns of God. Same idea, different format. Morris West is an
Australian, by the way. Perhaps just read a book.
- January 8, 2013 at 21:52
-
Ayn Rand was born in Russia in 1905 and escaped to the US in 1925
becoming an American Citizen in 1931.
- January 8, 2013 at 22:30
-
Thank you, John Galt. I have read, “When Atlas Shrugged”, twice now,
but with entirely different reactions. On the first occasion I thought
that it was really exciting. And on the second occasion I found it to be
really depressing. I am going to give it another go before much longer,
when hopefully I might discover what it is actually all about.
Don’t
you just love seeing a bully brought to his knees. Unfortunately this
never quite justifies the end result. So there must be more to it. I
hope.
- January 8, 2013 at 22:40
-
I’m not sure you should read it a third time. You’ll end up being
unable to distinguish fantasy from reality.
I’m positive the US congress passed the ‘anti-dog-eat-dog’ act years
ago.
- January 8, 2013 at
23:03
-
I think I will go to bed now, before I find myself enmeshed in an
intellectual conversation that I can’t handle.
But thanks for all
the fish.
-
January 8, 2013 at 20:32
-
”When US citizens are unarmed and naked before the state, then we will see
the real face of fascism in the US.”
It’s sentiments like that which fuel the acquisition of ever larger numbers
of ever more powerful guns. Where does it come from? Where does the idea that
‘they’ are just waiting to impose a fascist dictatorship have its genesis, and
where is the proof?
And in any case, what good would they be against tanks?
Hush my mouth, lest you all run off and buy one….
- January 8, 2013 at 21:03
-
What you say is fair comment.
From my own perspective as a libertarian minarchist, I see the state
itself as being the main threat to its own people as time and again from the
state imposed suicide of Socrates in 399 BC, through the state imposed price
controls of Emperor Diocletian in 301 AD to the monetary madness of the
present day. As soon as a state becomes large enough, it becomes a target of
capture by powerful groups who use it to extort ‘economic rents’ from the
population. The larger and stronger the state becomes the more of the
economy it controls until eventually it becomes a leech consuming all human
social and economic output.
The soviet union was a perfect example of the model which both Europe and
the United States are following, the only difference is that total control
is still at some point in the future. By definition this is totalitarianism
and you are quite correct even an armed populace cannot fight against tanks,
but they can resist as the Maquis did in rural France during World War
II.
It should also be remembered that even the military has a breaking point,
beyond which its soldiers will no longer support the state. This happened on
the streets of St. Petersburg in 1917 and at the Berlin Wall in 1989. Even
tanks are useless if the soldiers in them refused to attack the people as
happened in Moscow 1991.
People must not be afraid of their government, the government must always
fear its people.
- January 8, 2013 at 22:45
-
People must not be afraid of their government, the government
must always fear its people.
How true and when the government
is not afraid of the people we get the police state.
- January 10, 2013 at 18:17
-
The US government shipped over 100,000 US citizens to concentration camps
during WW2: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/internment1.html
The men
who wrote the US constitution knew from bitter experience that rulers always
try to grab more power for themselves.
-
January 8, 2013 at 20:04
-
Brian. Do you mind. We have got more than enough Nipples on another Blog.
We don’t need them on a Gun Blog. And I had more than enough of that when I
was mending aeroplane engines.
-
January 8, 2013 at 19:56
-
Meissen Bison. Ah, I see. So long as it rhymes. So not much to do with
porcelain or wild animals. Or anything much else.
Did we fall out, or even
disagree? I really can’t remember. But I am more than happy to accept that I
said something crass. I make an art form of it, albeit by accident. But then
that was always the best way, don’t you think? Ignorance is always bliss.
- January 8, 2013 at 20:10
-
Like a bull in a china shop, really, but maybe less flagrant on a good
day.
- January 8, 2013 at 20:28
-
Well, I am a Traurean. What else do you expect? But you probably knew
that.
-
January 8, 2013 at 18:53
-
I have got a Shunting Engine Number Plate. It has travelled the length and
breadth of Britain with me, for the last fifty years. And now to France. It
isn’t particularly special. But such fun I had on Steam Trains when I was
young. They were real journeys. And in America as well, I have no doubt. This
was the beginning.
Try reading “When Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand. Nothing much to do with
Steam Trains, but oh so much to do with the mind set. And John Galt. Who is
John Galt?
- January 8, 2013 at 20:37
-
You called? Actually, I’m not real. Just a figment of Ayn Rand’s
imagination. You reading this is just a figment of your imagination. I read
somewhere that I am a representation of what would happen if Prometheus had
changed his mind and decided that rather than having his liver eaten by an
eagle everyday for all eternity, instead he just says “sod that for a game
of soldiers” and buggers off.
Well that’s who I am apparently, the anthropomorphic personification of
an idea of “sod that for a game of soldiers”.
These English Literature folks really should go out and get a life…
-
January 8, 2013 at 16:56
-
the odd dead Bore on the route
… you can find a few here,
too!
Les Animaux Sauvage
Your adjective needs to agree with the noun,
dear, thus: sauvages
-
January 8, 2013 at 17:08
-
Smart Arse. When did I ever say that my French was perfect? Just be
thankful that I remembered the U. Actually, I should have written, L’Animal
Sauvage since I was talking in the singular. But then I know a few of those
as well.
What sort of gun do you need to shoot a Bison?
- January 8, 2013 at 17:19
-
Ha ha! No need for a special permit: a wooden spoon should do.
- January 8, 2013 at 18:05
-
Inserted where?
- January 8, 2013 at 18:25
-
Ah – bestiality in a china shop!
- January 8, 2013 at 18:58
-
Did I miss something? But not to worry. I am blessed by my ignorance
of arseholes.
- January 8, 2013 at 19:10
-
Sorry to have been unclear – simply you don’t need a gun to shoot a
Meissen bison.
-
January 8, 2013 at 16:12
-
Oh Dear, that made me laugh. Are we talking Dum Dum Bullets here? I’ve
heard of them. Although from what I saw they had only injured the poor beast
because they looked decidedly worried, as they insisted I get my arse out of
there tout de bloody suite. And my French Van isn’t all that robust.
PS. Does Mr. Khan have a Branch in Paris? Hopefully somewhere near The
Apple Store. And then I can kill two birds with one bullet. And, believe it or
not, you do occasionally see the odd dead Bore on the route. You just need to
get it in the back of the van before someone charges you with killing Les
Animaux Sauvage. This is an offence in France, so forget claiming on the
insurance. But The Local Butcher is only too happy to keep his mouth shut in
exchange for the Bile Duct, which has mystical qualities, according to The
Chinese.
- January 8,
2013 at 17:24
-
Elena,
Yup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet I’ve heard
Apple might sell the iPoweredassaultrifle if they can integrate the custard
and jelly.
I thought odd dead Bores in France wear red cord trousers and
tweed jackets and moan about how Britain has gone to the dogs since the end
of steam locomotives, Jim Laker and the Great Reform Act and that “The Wife”
can’t get Frank Cooper’s Oxford marmalade in the village (“Amazingly,
they’ve never heard of the stuff!”) and half-past eight in the morning is
time for the first G&T of the day and how the English are ruining this
part of France….. harummph.
In England one may not legally take pheasant
that one has clipped with ones car, but the car behind can
- January 8, 2013 at 17:56
-
Half past eight? Sheesh, I’ve cleaned my teeth with Vodka by then, and
onto the second G&T. But then Vodka is as cheap as water, and I suffer
from Migraines, of which quinine is a know cure. It’s in The Tonic, but no
one drinks plain Tonic. Do they?
I only eat Jelly and Custard in
Trifle, appropriately laced with Sherry. Or Eau de Vie if I have run out
of Sherry, which I frequently do. Can’t think why.
I won’t hear a word
against Apples or Steam Trains. Many is the apple I ate on a steam train
journey to Scotland, when I wasn’t getting pissed. It’s a long way.
And
I never run over Pheasants or Rabbits. I just collect the dead bodies, and
eat them.
- January 8, 2013 at 18:17
-
I concede that the steam locomotive is a Good Thing but only because
it is the only means of transport ever designed to cook a proper Ulster
Fry, so it is.
-
January 8, 2013 at 19:13
-
This is true, though the use of boiler water for the making of tea
to accompany it should be avoided, since boiler water treatment
chemicals are not totally compatable with the human digestive
tract.
By the way, it’s only the ‘Romance of Steam’ when you’re sat with a
drink of something agreeable watching it go past. If you ever have
anything to do with the operation or maintenance of same, romance
fades quite quickly.
- January 8, 2013 at 19:33
-
@Engineer, surely lighting the boiler at 4 am, raking the firebox
out late at night and oiling and greasing every nipple and polishing
the brasswork with all that coal dust was all part of the fun.
-
January 8, 2013 at 22:44
-
@Brian – Oh, absolutely! As is standing in two inches of oily water
in an inspection pit, wrestling a three-hundredweight driving axle
spring with two broken leaves out from the oil-and-flyash encrusted
innards of one, whilst regularly banging your head on the
handily-positioned inside big end crank-webs.
- January 8, 2013 at 22:36
-
Elena, the fun begins when you are taking the dog for a walk through the
vines and the hunters are out looking for boar and you look round and find
there are now three animals following you, the two dogs you started with and
a rather large – slightly larger than my Newfoundland male – boar that is
walking between them. I just kept on walking and some time later the boar
left.
That close encounter allowed me to see why the local hunters have the
guns they do and why I do as well – the boar come down off the mountain
along the path by my house.
- January 9, 2013 at 14:45
-
Please stop! “Dum Dum” bullets forsooth! This is the sort of crass
archaism our tabloids indulge in whenever the subject of guns arises. They
know nothing about guns or ammunition – this doesn’t stop them pontificating
and propagandising of course.
-
January 8, 2013 at 15:21
-
Alex Jones comes across as exactly the kind of crackpot who should not be
allowed a gun.
-
January 8, 2013 at 15:14
-
@ Alan and Brian. Thank you for your reasoned and well mannered
replies.
I live in a different world where guns are just for Hunting. But I
have to tell you that I was shocked rigid when I saw a bunch of Hunters out
after Wild Bore just recently. These were BIG GUNS. I might have thought they
were hunting Elephants if I hadn’t known that we don’t have Elephants in
France. So what sort of guns would these have been?
PS. Where can I buy an Automatic AK 47? These bloody Pigeons are driving me
mad with their billing and cooing at 6 o’clock in the morning. This can only
lead to more bloody pigeons. This has got to stop.
- January 8,
2013 at 15:41
-
Elena, I always buy my AK47s from Mr Khan’s Gunsmiths in Peshawar: nice
hand-carved stocks and engraving. Alternatively, you can swap a couple sacks
of grain (USAid is a very popular brand) for an AK47 in most parts of Africa
when there’s a famine on.
Wild Boar need a big gun because you want to stop them dead and not annoy
them. http://www.wild-boar.org.uk/pdf/WildBoar_shooting.pdf
- January 9, 2013 at 14:43
-
You live in France and know nothing about appropriate weaponry for
hunting sangliers? Very sad. They are tough beasts and require a respectable
calibre, which is why you have probably seen your local chasseurs carrying
rifles chambered in e.g. 300 Win Mag and similar. BTW the AK-47 is by
definition “automatic” – it’s a selective fire assault rifle.
- January 8, 2013 at 14:53
-
The “Care Homes” saga – phase ??? – BBC News 08-01-13 – “Wales child abuse:
Judge appeal to Waterhouse witnesses”
\\
The judge leading a review of
an inquiry into sexual abuse at care homes in north Wales has appealed for
witnesses to come forward.
Mrs Justice Macur is reviewing the Waterhouse
Inquiry, which focused on allegations at homes from 1974
onwards.
\\
Running alongside her review is a separate investigation by
the National Crime Agency (NCA) into the original police handling of the case
and any other allegations made more recently. Last month, the NCA said
Operation Pallial had received information from 105 victims since
November.
Senior officers said the operation had heard from new and
previously-known victims, and offenders must be “investigated and brought to
justice”.
\\
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20946138
-
January 8, 2013 at 14:43
-
@ Brian. Can ordinary people buy fully automatic weapons legally?
- January 8,
2013 at 15:17
-
Elena, Yes, in most of America: see my reply at #19. But is someone who
wants to buy a fully automatic weapon ordinary? For some odd reason I can’t
put my finger on they’ve been illegal in Britain since 1919.
- January 8, 2013 at 15:45
-
Did they even have Automatic Weapons in 1919? Short of a cumbersome
thing on a tripod, that is?
But there is more to it than just buying a
gun. They need to be kept securely locked up these days, if not
always.
And then we need to look at mental health issues. The Mother of
the last crazed boy did know that things weren’t right. But then she
appears to have been a bit crazed herself. And how many guns did she
own?
It certainly won’t be solved by banning guns. Look where
Prohibition got America.
Me? I think that America was amazing, back in
the days of yor, when they finally decided that they had had enough of
Britain. But then I have long been a fan of Mel Gibson. Yer, Yer, I am a
natural born cretin.
- January 8, 2013 at 17:06
-
Elena, For example, the fully automatic Bergmann MP18 was introduced
in 1918 and its design was copied by the British Lanchester and Sten
smgs. I’m sure you still might be able to find a Sten and some Mills
bombs hidden in the roof of a farm building unrenovated by English
settlers. If you’re very lucky a Bren in its green felt bag might still
be there as well. I agree about America, for a country that professes
itself to be so devout they balance that piety with the full range of
sins: drink, drugs (the Mexican civil war is being fought to control
drug-smuggling into America) and murder. If only they could temper with
a smigeon of doubt their admirable can-do spirit and acknowledge that
the American Way might not travel well everywhere. However, I can’t
abide any film with that shortarse Gibson except for the Mad Max films.
I reckon his part in “Tim” was casting to type, except that Tim was a
nice bloke.
- January 8, 2013 at
18:21
-
Look now. I fancy him. Okay. He just needs a good woman like me. I
don’t care if he’s a short arse. I’m not very tall myself.
And
actually, I did find a few odd things in the roof. I just didn’t know
what they were, so I handed them over to the family that previously
owned the house. The fact that they are all raging alcoholics is
neither here nor there. They had a terrible time with the Communists
down the road. The Nazis were the least of their problems. Gentlemen,
one and all, according to local gossip when they have all had a
few.
America isn’t my problem. I will never go there. My time would have
been two hundred years ago when it was vast and unspoiled and there
were adventures to be had. My only real regret is that there aren’t
any adventures anymore.
- January 9, 2013 at 14:39
-
Oh Gawd not again…. Every time the subject of “gun control” arises,
discussion is stymied by exactly the same sort of massive ignorance on
which most of our firearms legislation is based. Automatic weapons have
NOT been “illegal in Britain since 1919″ – if you’re going to post on this
topic, get your bloody facts right! The first Firearms Act was in 1920,
prior to which (and excluding WW1 emergency regulations) Britons were
hardly restricted at all if they wanted to purchase any sort of gun you
care to name – including automatics. Gun crime then was at far lower
levels than it is today. Automatic weapons (that’s “machine guns” in baby
language) were banned from private ownership only in the 1930s – not of
course because of their criminal misuse, since to the best of my knowledge
there was no recorded instance at that time of Brit criminals having used
a machine gun in the commission of crime, but sort of on the nod – the
powers that be just thought it appropriate, rather like some of the less
thoughtful posters here, above. Naturally, this did not prevent in the
slightest the ability of drug dealers to have little turf wars with
sub-machine guns in recent decades….
- January 9, 2013 at
15:02
-
What? You live in England and you don’t know whether a machine gun
had ever been used in the commission of a crime. Tsk, tsk…..
- January 9, 2013 at
15:21
-
Ho ho. Rather than try to save space/time I should have said that
to the best of the authorities’ knowledge, an automatic weapon had
never been used in the commission of crime prior to the legal ban on
these; that is to say, the records are uncommunicative on the subject.
OK?
BTW French gun crime stats are fairly close to our own; one can
still legally own a handgun in France; same applies to semiautomatic
centrefire rifles (banned in UK 1988) though there are quirks about
“non military” calibres. You might find this handy in applying for
your French gun licence – you are planning to do that, aren’t you, if
you don’t possess one already….
- January 8, 2013 at 23:48
-
“Can ordinary people buy fully automatic weapons legally?”
The process is detailed in this video…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu0RwxaMU5k
- January 9, 2013 at 11:25
-
Thanks for the video, Jabber.
Wow, nearly 56,000 views.
-
January 8, 2013 at 14:03
-
Please, please don’t misunderstand me. I have absolutely nothing against
individuals owning guns. I would buy one myself if I could be bothered. But as
it is so far, I have only borrowed them for a day’s shooting.
All of my
children had Air Rifles in their early teens, and learned to shoot with some
accuracy with a Target in the back garden. And I do not discriminate between
boys and girls. I just prefer to see animals shot dead with one shot, and not
left to suffer.
But The Gun Lobby has gone mad. One gun is never enough.
They want more and more, and bigger and better. Just the sort of people who
shouldn’t own guns. And a lot of them don’t hunt anyway. Unless it’s
Humans.
- January 8,
2013 at 13:29
-
To be honest I think the looming enemy so to speak, of the people, as the
corporate state establishes itself globally, will be mechanised.
Drones are
an obvious choice for the playstation generation, drones with a devastating
capacity to inflict precision murder.
Under such auspices then even fully automatic weapons are useless.
In a country of over 200 million people, armed…then any annual figures for
gun crime are going to be high, it is through these seriously in my opinion,
set up black operations as seen in the recent China stabbing of 22 children
and the school incident in the US, which move to disarming the Americans.
They want it and are murdering children to get it…on that basis I would not
want it, better to face the street than a well organised covert machine that
the corporate empire is.
If America falls to fascism….crickey, have you seen the size of the
Navy?
-
January 8, 2013 at 13:16
-
Personally, I find Piers Morgan to be one of the most repulsive people in
the media and that actually takes some doing. At a fundamental level I agree
with what Alex is saying, but there is a point between impassioned belief and
angry rhetoric and Alex quite clearly stepped way over the border. I’ve
enjoyed his InfoWars programme on occasion though as he is pretty much on the
mark as far as most of my hot-button freedom and liberty issues are concerned.
Alex does however subscribe to certain views which way out their even for a
ultra-libertarian.
Gun control in the UK has reached the point now where the legally licensed
public holders of gun licenses is very small in comparison to the general
population at around about 150,000 gun licenses and 600,000 shotgun licenses.
The prevailing attitude of the police when dealing with situations where
legally held guns are used by the owner against burglars (Andy Ferrie et al)
and end up being dealt with as if they were the greater criminals than the
burglars will continue to push levels even further. I foresee a time when only
farmers will be able to hold shotgun licenses and all other legal firearms use
restricted to specialist police officers and the military. I also foresee
further arrests and imprisonment of farmers, soldiers and police for using
their legally held guns in defence.
The political establishment have implemented such stupid and draconian
measures (specifically strict liability offences) that even picking up a
firearm found in the street and handing it to the police is to risk arrest and
imprisonment (e.g. former soldier Paul Clarke et al).
Governments across the world have reacted to every act of gun related
violence with ever more draconian anti-gun legislation. The fact that the
United States gun laws are enshrined in the US constitution is the only
measure which has protected the complete outlawing of guns there and despite
the strength of the US gun lobby and people like Alex Jones, suspect that it
is only a matter of time before this is overturned.
The politicians in all three branches of the US government have no love of
the gun lobby and have a vested interest in disarming the population as it
makes controlling them in ‘times of difficulty’ much easier. The fact that
this opens the door to totalitarian repression is not a coincidence. I suspect
that the US government will wait for a useful opportunity (e.g. Sandy Hook or
similar shootings) to pass the necessary legislation to disarm the people. It
will not be pretty, but given the hatred of politicians for an armed
electorate, it is only a matter of time.
When US citizens are unarmed and naked before the state, then we will see
the real face of fascism in the US.
- January 8, 2013 at 13:44
-
I agree entirely.
- January 8, 2013 at 22:15
-
Like Span Ows I agree with you said and would add one more snippet of
information. Obama is stacking the supreme court in an attempt to get the
right of the people to have arms removed from the constitution.
-
January 8, 2013 at 12:31
-
It’s not about “automatic weapons”. The weapons under discussion are
semi-automatic. There is a major difference.
-
January 8, 2013 at 12:38
-
Really? How many shots can they fire in one burst?
- January
8, 2013 at 12:59
-
Elena, one per squeeze of the trigger: one doesn’t have to manually
eject the spent cartridge, re-cock and reload a fresh cartridge.
Automatics fire as long as the trigger is squeezed and there is ammunition
available, and the gun hasn’t jammed.
- January 8, 2013 at 13:07
-
Elena, most hand guns today are semi automatic. All that means is that
they reload themselves after a shot has been fired – even a revolver is a
semi automatic.
Each shot requires you to pull the trigger on a semi automatic weapon –
just like a pump action shotgun. A fully automatic weapon, on the other
hand, will continue to fire as long as the trigger is held back and there
are bullets in the magazine.
- January 8, 2013 at 13:19
-
@Brian and Ivan.
So quite quick then. None of this Fair Play and
half a chance.
Sorry, being facetious. But some of those guns
displayed in the last School Shooting looked frightfully dangerous to
me. Were any of those privately owned guns fully automatic? Can ordinary
people buy fully automatic guns?
-
January 8, 2013 at 14:09
-
Yup, thats the problem in a nutshell. Too many rounds, too quickly.
None of the guns at the Sandy shooting where automatic.
Automatic guns are strictly controlled and require an uber version
of a UK fire arm certificate. Its rare for someone to have an
automatic in the US. Semi-automatic guns (see video below) are fairly
easy to legally obtain in most US states. If I remember correctly it
only requires the equivalent of a UK CRB check & registration of
ownership to obtain a semi-automatic.
This is the class of weapon under discussion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq8Xuj33u1w The
problem is made worse with extended magazines http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fal7adN5Zpw
- January 8, 2013 at 14:28
-
Elena, Despite the National Firearms Act 1934, the Gun Control Act
1968 and the Hughes Amendment 1986 it is still possible to buy and own
a pre-1986, unimported automatic gun so long as the correct licence is
obtained and duty paid. You need to be a licensed gun dealer to buy
and sell new automatic weapons to the police, armed forces etc.
- January 8, 2013 at 14:34
-
XX Elena ‘andcart January 8, 2013 at 12:38
Really? How many shots can they fire in one burst? XX
ONE!
Semi autos are NOT “burst weapons”, and you lack of knowledge on the
subject just proves why the likes of YOU should have NO input WHATSOEVER,
on something you clearly know NOTHING about!
- January 8, 2013 at
14:38
-
I mean that, of course, politically. NOT on this web site!!!
- January 8, 2013 at
14:54
-
Dear Furor Teutonicus,
How would I know anything about Automatic
Weapons if I don’t ask? Have you forgotten The First Amendment which
entitles me to an opinion, no matter how stupid? And from what I have
seen there are an awful lot of very stupid opinions abounding in
America at the moment. Or do you pick your Amendments to suit
yourself?
And your loss of temper to a basically innocuous question
might suggest that you aren’t one of the best people to own guns. But
then your User Name suggests that anyway.
- January 8, 2013 at 18:35
-
Mein Dear Furor,
Chronic constipation may explain that bloated
feeling and your permanent foul mood. Permit me to suggest an
effective lifestyle change, such as placing the commode on your head
and sitting on the Pickelhaube.
- January 13, 2013 at
07:34
-
XX Elena ‘andcart January 8, 2013 at 14:54
Dear Furor Teutonicus,
How would I know anything about Automatic
Weapons if I don’t ask? Have you forgotten The First Amendment which
entitles me to an opinion, no matter how stupid? XX
And since when di´d thew…what???? Never heard of it…”First
amendment”…. Any way, since WHEN did it aooly outside of….I am
presuming, the U.S.A?
So. It garuntees your right to be stupid? THAT explains EVERYTHING
about the bloody yanks, THAT does!
-
January 8, 2013 at 12:29
-
Having watched The Video I have to say that Alex Jones is exactly the sort
of person who shouldn’t have a gun. In My Opinion. To which I am entitled,
according to The First Amendment. Although I am learning more about The
American Constitution than I ever wanted to know.
Sorry if I’m a bit off
message here.
- January 8, 2013 at 13:41
-
…surely the only message is that you make up your own mind, which you
have done.
- January 8, 2013 at 14:22
-
There is a fine line between Opinion and what is acceptable, as in the
difference between Free Speech and Libel. I remain doubtful that The
Founding Fathers meant that everyone should have the right to own
sufficient weapons to commit a massacre. The original Amendment came from
The British Constitution of the time, giving people the right to bear arms
to defend against invaders, but America left off the crucial bit that
would easily allow America to change The Amendment to suit modern
day.
Sorry. This is a very complicated legal issue. And I would be the
first to defend my right to own a gun. But it isn’t that simple.
- January 8, 2013 at 21:52
-
Elena, that so called crucial bit was left off on purpose. It appears
that the US founding fathers were showing a little foresight in having
an armed population to keep the government in check. In fact it is
needed more today than when it was drafted.
All the shootings that everyone is up in arms about have been in what
are known as ‘gun free’ areas. Now why would a deranged person go there
to kill rather than somewhere there might be people that will shoot
back, after all a notice saying it is a gun free area only keeps the law
abiding from taking guns there.
In the UK with its stringent gun laws we are seeing the first steps
to a police state with the disarming of the law abiding population. That
just leaves the criminals and the police with guns. There are also
attempts to get the police fully armed so they become a paramilitary
force working at the behest of the government and woe betide anyone that
objects.
- January 8, 2013 at
22:41
-
But this deranged boy came from there. And he appears to have had
access to a large number of guns. So hardly a gun free area.
But if
you are advocating shooting The Government, sign me up.
-
January 9, 2013 at 10:50
-
Elena, it was only the school area that was designated as a no guns
area.not the whole neighborhood.
- January 9, 2013 at
11:13
-
Did someone forget to tell that deranged boy about the school
being a Gun Free Area, Ivan?
But you see, it isn’t so much the guns that worry me, it’s the
quantity that are owned by so many.
- January 9, 2013 at 23:08
-
Yes I hadn’t thought of that…
…so many guns in the wrong hands.
Trouble is, how do we take them off of the government?
- January 9, 2013 at 14:29
-
Who gives a 5hit what the Founding Fathers meant, or didn’t mean? The
right to own weapons is ancient, the right to defend oneself
fundamental, and historically those regimes/rulers who enacted the most
restrictive laws against owning weapons were the most tyrannical,
arbitrary and unpleasant. All one needs to consider. Other people don’t
think i should have guns? Tough.
-
January 8, 2013 at 20:23
-
Couldn’t agree more Elena, the guy is a conspiricist knobhead of a high
degree – just looking at his face makes me want to vomit, having Morgan in
there too makes it pretty much unwatchable.
- January 8, 2013 at 20:34
-
But we both managed to watch it, painful though it was. However, I
don’t remember Piers Morgan having very much at all to say. So what’s the
beef?
-
January 8, 2013 at 12:18
-
I must say that I do have some difficulty with the right to own even one
Automatic Weapon within the home. Is this really necessary?
Okay, nothing
much to be done about illegally owned guns of any kind, but will legally
owning an Automatic Weapon help to protect anyone’s rights?
Me? I quite
like ordinary guns because I enjoy shooting various species of Wild Life that
you can eat, but I can’t see an Automatic Gun doing much for Pigeon Pie or
Rabbit Stew. And one shot from a Hunting Gun would be enough to scare anyone
witless around here. If my reelly, reelly vicious dog didn’t put them off
first.
- January 9, 2013 at 14:26
-
Who are you, who is anyone, to ask whether any particular gun I want is
“necessary”? You like “ordinary guns” but you like to think that these
(whatever they are…) represent normality, while the sorts of gun you don’t
use, or don’t want, are just for weirdos, extremists, vigilantes, “gun nuts”
and the like. Extraordinarily presumptuous! I’d like an “assault weapon”
myself – great fun, and interesting. I was planning to get one (legally)
just before the 1988 Act stopped me from doing so. Clearly, this move
improved public safety beyond all recognition and advanced the cause of
civilisation.
-
January 10, 2013 at 18:04
-
The 2nd Amendment was written so that Citizens could; a) protect the
nation against a foreign invader and b) resist their own governments
tyrannical impulses. It has nothing at all to do with hunting, the
Founders envisaged Citizens owning weapons just a powerful as those of any
Army – otherwise how could they resist a foreign invasion?
Alex Jones
is a grade A nut though.
- January 8,
2013 at 12:10
-
What’s needed in every office is a military-trained handgun instructor with
easy access to pwerful weapons and ample ammunition. There would be no
shooting incidents – unless his supervisors disciplined him for poor
performance …. Going Postal.
A New Bill of Rights should include a Right of mental health to protect
everyone.
- January 8, 2013 at 10:24
-
1. The second amendment talks about a ‘well-regulated militia’ so shouldn’t
the rule be ‘Have a gun? Join the militia!’?
2. There has been a lot of talk about banning assault rifles. Isn’t that
exactly the sort of gun that a ‘well-regulated militia’ should have, not those
nasty hand guns that kill kids at home?
3. Ban Obama! Four school killings on his watch! More regulation leads to
more killing. Gun ownership goes up because many Americans see him as a
Marxist Muslim determined to destroy America.
4. Jones will lose ultimately as America will go down the pan, becoming
another Hispanic, spanish-speaking basket-case, especially once China stops
treating the dollar as a reserve currency.
5. Don’t tell America/Americans how to run their own affairs!
- January 8,
2013 at 10:13
-
Gun control in Britain is a farce.
Gun control in Britain means removing
the guns from the general population, not those classed as a freeman and
above.
When I was classed as in, I had invites for shoots every week, not
only that, the gangsters in this country are armed to to the teeth, why,
because they are Masons.
Jones though I know him to be a shill, is correct, our ancestors did not
enshrine in constitution the right to bear arms to be flippant, they did it so
we can protect ourselves from external threats and most important, to protect
us from a Tyrannical crown.
Today we suffer perhaps the most tyrannical crown ever witnessed in this
country as it shifts the entire country on war mode, with the Academies
nothing more than military prep schools.
I have outed two cadet officers recruiting broken children while working in
the special schools, recruiting them into the armed forces, one was sacked
because of it.
Have you noted only Alex Jones is allowed to speak in the same angst level
as that at street level, no PC and rage…. the greatest way to start that
violent revolution, and his government knows it…
The government loves Alex
Jones because he moves the population closes to confrontation with the police,
better with the Green card I believe, no need for violence.
- January 8, 2013 at 14:31
-
XX belinus January 8, 2013 at 10:13
When I was classed as in, I had
invites for shoots every week, not only that, the gangsters in this country
are armed to to the teeth, why, because they are Masons. XX
Oh go and boil your tin foil hat, you pathetic piece of shit.
- January 9, 2013 at 00:02
-
I think that Big Billy Goat Gruff might need two bites to devour a troll
of your ample proportions
- January 8, 2013 at 09:36
-
right_writes, I think Alex is beyond being quietly resolute; he was
animated but informed and showed passion and probably with good reason: I
think he knows that there is real danger of a flashpoint which he obviously
doesn’t want: the Supreme Court has twice come within one vote of ruling that
the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights isn’t an individual right.
Obama has already put two people on the Supreme Court (9 members) who would
vote away what Alex and millions of Americans feel is their basic human
freedom. Obama, now re-elected, will probably have a few more Supreme Court
picks…this is what is probably what is mostly behind the record gun sales etc:
people motivated to buy firearms now.
- January 8, 2013 at 10:39
-
I agree with you Span Ows… Watch the video interview that I posted, and
you will see how the point can be made without making the sort of spectacle
that the odious Morgan laps up.
- January 8, 2013 at 11:38
-
I just have, excellent stuff and thanks for the link; maybe the 911
conspiracy is a bit far for some but the rest is very interesting,
especially the Constitutional Republic not democracy thing and the Mafia
/IRS at the beginning.
- January 8, 2013 at 08:53
-
If that was on main stream TV Anna, Alex didn’t do himself any
favours….
…There is nothing wrong with being quietly resolute is there?
You are right, he did shoot Morgan down in flames, but he also gave the
impression that he was unbalanced. I am a regular visitor to Infowars, indeed
I was watching a fascinating interview between him and Aaron Russo just last
night…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68EHXNMR7QA&feature=player_embedded
…Everyone should have a look at that and listen to the balanced discussion
based on the evidence. Russo knew that he was dying at the time of the
interview, he had nothing to sell.
{ 104 comments }