A free country Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Australian RR Forums » Idler Chatter » Archive to 2017 » A free country « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 94.197.122.86
Posted on Tuesday, 30 December, 2014 - 11:06:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

I have just heard a total misconception about free countries. A Cuban guy thought that because Scotland isn't splitting from the UK that the English would punish them for trying by suppressing their culture to make them more English. Then joked that we would ban bagpipes and kilts.

Firstly tartan, bagpipes and kilts are largely a Victorian invention. And Cardiff is in Wales.

Secondly the Scots are equal person for person and due to local conditions they get a wee bit more. So reprisals would never even cross any bodies mind.

It just shows how the non free simply don't get it. Which is why so many things go wrong when the west tries to install democratic governments.

(Message approved by david_gore)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vladimir Ivanovich Kirillov
Frequent User
Username: soviet

Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2013
Posted on Sunday, 04 January, 2015 - 14:25:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Well Bob, free countries, that's a curly one. I once talked to a Ukranian lady and she told me she should would have never immigrated to the land of the free USA. I replied that USA was indeed a free country because you are free to get shot anytime, and for free. But really Bagpipes are strange things because my best friend The Mad Scot has just got his bagpipes back from a restorer that took over a year to restore them. He can't play them at all, and he won't let me touch them. He'll lend me his car or lend me money any time but the Baggies are strange so as we live at my property together I've decided to drive him crazy by constantly pestering him to play the things. We need to crank these suckers up hard at 3pm in the morning to get rid of a mongrel of an Asian Storm Bird that flew here without a visa or passport just to sit in my tree and make a delightful sound starting at midnight and ending at 6pm.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, 05 January, 2015 - 11:55:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

I find the USA view on guns weird. Their main plank of reason seems to be a tyrannical government may use the military against its own people. In the UK this would be impossible simply because the army etc is made up of British people who won't attack other British people. Plus the army generals will only obey lawful orders.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Howlett
Prolific User
Username: bobhowlett

Post Number: 131
Registered: 9-2010
Posted on Wednesday, 07 January, 2015 - 21:35:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Vladimir .
We will have to get together soon .you live in my location and my mum is Russian. She came over to Australia in the 40's as a displaced refugee, half the family went to the USA, Texas and the rest turned up here
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vladimir Ivanovich Kirillov
Frequent User
Username: soviet

Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2013
Posted on Thursday, 08 January, 2015 - 00:12:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Yes well Bob, the Americans ARE weird about guns and that is why when I go there I never drink because you just never know that the bloke next you isn't packing a 38 down the back of his pants. They need those guns and lots of innocent people receive bullets in themselves free of charge but the right to bear arms is in the US Constitution which takes a lot to change, hence they blast away at each other with wild abandon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jan Forrest
Grand Master
Username: got_one

Post Number: 733
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Thursday, 08 January, 2015 - 01:39:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Just after WWI we nearly got a similar 'right to bear arms', but it was severely watered down by the conservatives who were thinking about all the well trained demobbed soldiers who had a righteous disagreement regarding the way they had been used as cannon fodder. However it was possible to obtain the equivalent of the USA's 'concealed carry permit' for self-defence well into the 1950's. Even after that a Firearms Certificate had to be issued on request except for known felons with specific convictions and/or had been given prison sentences over a certain time limit - not including any time off for good behaviour. But the 'carry' part was now limited to necessary transportation between place of purchase, gun range, storage, home, etc. Also they weapons had to be unloaded along with any clips, magazines, etc.

Originally shotgun permits could be obtained over the counter of any post office on production of the fee and some form of ID. Following the murder of a policeman in the late 60's the issuing of SP's was given to the firearms & explosives section of the county police. Oddly the cop had been shot with a pistol, not a shotgun! After a couple of high profile multiple shootings there was a small, but very vocal group that claimed taking guns out of the hands of lawful civilians was the only way to stop a repetition of such slaughter and the government of the day, ever mindful of losing votes when their lead in the polls was already precarious, was happy to ban virtually all firearms ownership and seize all privately held guns.

When it becomes criminal to own a guns then only criminals will have guns! Guess where nearly all the guns are now ...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Geoff Wootton
Grand Master
Username: dounraey

Post Number: 592
Registered: 5-2012
Posted on Thursday, 08 January, 2015 - 02:00:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Hi Vladimir

I love your humorous texts. However, lets put the record straight. I have lived in the US for 10 years now, across various states, and have never heard a gunshot. The US is a very peaceful society. One spinoff of the right to bear arms is house burglary, particularly here in Florida, is very low. I always feel safe in my house. I am not a card carrying member of the NRA and in an ideal world there would be no guns allowed, however this is not going to happen anytime soon in the US. Here's a thing - I doubt very much the murderous thugs in Paris today would have been able to kill 12 people if they had carried out their attack in Florida or Texas.

Geoff
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, 08 January, 2015 - 06:30:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

I discount the idea that in USA that terrorists wouldn't dare, because nutty teenagers have done exactly that.

Whether it's a terrorist bullet or a nutty teenager one is just as dead and the ideology of the criminal makes no difference.

Last year a burglar got shot and wounded by a farmer.

The judge said to the burglar that if you break into farms, you know that the farmer has a shotgun, then getting shot is the risk you take.

A local farmer to me keeps a BSA 12 gauge unloaded with the rounds not far away. Last year he caught some thieves nicking his red diesel. The sound of Ely trap shot going off and they fled. Leaving a Toyota Ute. He claimed the Ute and registered to the farm. The thieves can't reclaim it without getting nicked. The local plod know who the thieves are but can't prove it, so the plod said they have no problem with the Ute, and called it restorative justice.

I think the founding fathers meant it was ok to wear short sleeved shirts in the summer, the right to bare arms.

I think giving a child a gun for Christmas is asking for trouble.

To get a shot gun permit in the UK is still easy providing one has a valid reason. Self protection is not a valid reason, sports shooting is valid. The gun and rounds must be secured in a locked cabinet.

For sports stuff single shot rifles are allowed. But not magazines and self loading rifles.

On clay pigeons shoots we don't allow contestants to have rounds, the rounds are supplied two at a time and spent rounds have to accounted for. So no rounds can go missing.
Also its am offence to fire a gun near a public place such as a road. If an accident happens then the shooter is liable regardless of intent and the permit will be removed and guns seized until the owner can sell them or in serious cases the guns destroyed.

When I worked for plod a cop used my vice to damage guns beyond repair before the guns we taken away. He used smash the breach in with a club hammer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Gore
Moderator
Username: david_gore

Post Number: 1500
Registered: 4-2003
Posted on Thursday, 08 January, 2015 - 09:38:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

I grew up with guns as a bank officer's son and from the age of 12 used to go to the annual "practice" shoot where the banks and local police used their annual allocation of bullets from the previous year for target practice. The highlight for me was being allowed to participate under my father's supervision after rigorous instruction on technique and safety. It is fair to say I more than held my own with the adults involved as the bank .38 calibre Smith and Wesson revolvers were more accurate than the Police "clip up the butt" pistols which were prone to jamming especially in rapid-fire use. In my teenage years, I spent a lot of time on country properties which included having to shoot disabled stock [especially lambs and calves whose eyes had been pecked out by crows who would wait till the lamb died from dehydration/starvation to eat the carcase if the eagles didn't get there first], snakes who decided the homestead and farm sheds would make a good home and pests such as feral pigs, dogs, cats, foxes and rabbits. I prefer to shoot with open rather than telescopic sights making my own adjustments for distance and windage.

However, I am a strong supporter on restricting gun ownership to those who have a demonstrated and legitimate need for immediate access to firearms and have the legislated locked storage facilities for safe keeping of the firearms and ammunition. Every independent comparison I have seen between US deaths from accidental/inappropriate use and/or storage of firearms and the equivalent statistics for Australia has shown the Australian statistics are substantially lower and the related statistics for crime rates do not prove the US "right to ownership" of firearms has achieved lower crime rates.

Declaration - I have to make a declaration of interest in his matter. In the mid-1980's, my cousin was murdered by her husband by being shot in the head at point-blank range whilst sitting on a lounge chair in her home holding a 4 month old baby. They lived in a NSW country town and the husband kept a .22 calibre rifle in the bedroom wardrobe. This was before the Port Arthur massacre and the implementation of our current gun laws; if these laws had been in place at the time, my cousin would still be alive enjoying her children and grandchildren. The saddest aspect is the baby who is now an adult has an insatiable need to know everything about her mother and whilst the family have done their best to meet her desire, she is paying and will continue to pay the highest price of all for our neglect of her right to know her mother in preference for the right of her father to keep an unsecured firearm in the family home and it is debatable whether there was a legitimate need for the father to own the firearm in the first place.

Unfortunately, this experience will continue to be repeated today and into the future. It cannot be eliminated completely thanks to the criminal element however I believe a substantial and significant reduction can be achieved as the Australian experience post-Port Arthur has proved. I was never a fan of the Prime Minister who championed our laws however I give him full credit for doing something which has greatly benefited our society in the subsequent years.

I will be crucified by US supporters of the NRA however I have a thick skin, strong beliefs and the certain knowledge that the day will come when the US finally accepts that the Second Amendment was intended to ensure a militia was available to fight any future foreign invaders after they defeated the British in the War of Independence. I doubt the Founding Fathers had any other intent for the Second Amendment other than fighting future wars with foreign invaders and certainly not fighting amongst themselves. IMHO this Amendment has been prostituted by later Court decisions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted on Thursday, 08 January, 2015 - 11:21:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

The consequences of murder are far reaching and I have met people whom have lost someone close due to murder and they are permanently damaged by it. It's forever.

Guns can't be un-invented. We're stuck with them. So gun control is the only solution. There are legitimate reasons in the UK for guns. Sheep farmers need guns to protect the sheep from dog attack. Same with chickens and foxes. Rifles are better though because something like a 303 Enfield will stop a dog or fox instantly. But a AK47 is just about useless.

I don't own or desire a gun, I have no need for a gun. In the UK the chances of being burgled is very low. I had a bike stolen if I had a gun and shot the guy dead it would be a seriously gross over reaction, which is plain murder.

Once a gun culture like the USA takes hold the cat is let out of bag. It then leads to unsuitable people owning them. Which then leads to so many guns that any two bit punk can easily get one.
This is possible in the UK but two bit punks haven't got 2k to pay for one, so instead the use knives which require close contact and the danger of getting hurt real bad.

I often hear guns don,t kill people kill people. Yes sort true but allowing a super effiecnt tool to do it with is so dangerous.

Sometimes I get angry and my whole self momentarily goes out of wack, I check it instantly and only I know.

Most people have this happen but for some it last say for 2 seconds just enough time to pull a trigger. If they only have their fists then someone gets a black eye instead of dead.

The UK police aren't armed in general, a lot of them wouldn't be able to pass the test for UK armed police. This would mean a lower standard. If a cop gets scared he may shoot someone. Nearly every time a cop shoot someone by mistake it was because he was scared.

The UK police maintain 24hour armed police patrols in every part of the UK just in case. They are never more than 45 mins away.

Smith and Wesson was the gun that jammed when a luney tune tried to kidnap HRH Princess Anne. The luney tune was very lucky. Unfortunately for him he's been in Broadmoor asylum for 40years he will die in there. 1974 The Mall London.

Incidently the media always say Rolls-Royce when the limo was an Austin Princess.

The murder of 12 French people because of a cartoon is against the Muslim religion. The modern Muslims explain that God is not an old man sitting in a cloud and has no form. Therefore drawing a picture is misrepresentive. The punishment is to disapprove, not murder. My Muslim friends are horrified over what's happening and are very watchful of young people being corrupted by lies. Also the local Muslims take an ecumenical approach in that they are mindful of other religions and non religions.

My take is that this mayhem and murder will fizzle out because there simply isn't enough terrorists to do what they are trying to do.

To take over the UK would need millions. The Royal Navy would simply blow them out of the water. Plus the unofficial navy would go into action. We have a long tradition of pirates.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jan Forrest
Grand Master
Username: got_one

Post Number: 739
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Thursday, 08 January, 2015 - 23:01:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Just a point of fact: The 'offence' was one of portaying an image of Muhammed rather than Allah. That was the excuse for the previous Danish murders, although they weren't carried out by Muslims. The basis of the anger is that of iconism, which Islam considers to be blasphemous.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, 09 January, 2015 - 05:55:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

I thought it was God in the cartoon. It was Mohammed. A French muslim said that it's an insult but murder is disproportionate and freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy.
Another said that he wasn't so thin skinned to take insult any further than insulting them back.

Which is very British even if they are French. Hurling insults is a UK national sport.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, 09 January, 2015 - 10:17:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Tonight a Muslim mate ( Muslim atheist) He said that the punishment for blasphemy is disapproval. He is pissed off at being told of what he should be insulted by and if you can't take criticism then hard luck and as for a Muslim flag over Buckingham Palace he will stand behind the army handing out the ammo. As he demolish a lump of Dundee cake and then dived into a Christmas pudding.

The whole idea of taking the world over is completely mad, it's just not possible and they will come to a sticky end. Hilter bombed London, and it didn't work why would blowing stuff up in cities work if wholesale bombing doesn't.

He does make me laugh because he gets so animated about all this gangsterism as he calls it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob Reynolds
Prolific User
Username: bobreynolds

Post Number: 214
Registered: 8-2012
Posted on Friday, 09 January, 2015 - 14:55:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

"The whole idea of taking the world over is completely mad, it's just not possible and they will come to a sticky end."

It might not be possible by force, but by gradual infiltration until they outnumber everybody else.

It was said on a recent TV programme that there's more muslim babies than British babies now being born in London, and in 50 years time Britain will become a muslim country.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jan Forrest
Grand Master
Username: got_one

Post Number: 742
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Friday, 09 January, 2015 - 21:54:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics": Mark Twain.

The birth rate amongst Muslims is likely to be based on the same statistical anomaly that prompted Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of blood' speech in 1968. Are we being swamped by hordes of blacks, Indians, Pakistanis, Asians, or are we (mostly) living in harmony?

As pointed out elsewhere; it's a British 'sport' to slag off all other races. Why not? We're clearly the superior country! We gave the World Everything Of Worth that they have today even though we lost a lot of warriors stealing ... er ... acquiring it.

In the last few years there has been a rise in provable use of excessive force by British police officers. Most likely this is due to the proliferation of small electronic devices capable of recording audio and video without using bulky tapes. In response many officers will arrest someone under the pretext of infringement of 'Section 44 of the Anti Terrorism Act' if they record an officer. Fortunately our legislators had a rush of blood to the brain and reworded the section and inserted it again under Section 58 (?a?) to reinforce the absolute requirement that the officer must have 'reasonable grounds' to believe that the recordings may (not just could) be used for purposes of terrorism. Even so, all too many cops haven't bothered to read the act again since they left training college and are blithely unaware of Section 58 and so continue to unlawfully enforce the old Section 44.

Relevance? In conversations with others on many forums we've come to the agreement that there will be rivers of blood in the not so distant future. It won't be blacks on whites, whites on Asians, or anything of that kind, but all of us rising against The Establishment, armed police and part of the armed services. I say 'part' because I cannot envisage all of the British Army following unlawful orders to fire on a mixed race throng of 'insurgents' on UK streets.

"A little revolution now and then is good for the soul of a nation": Deliberate misquote.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, 10 January, 2015 - 09:34:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Ah statistics.
The Muslims are 4.4 % of UK pop.
and 5.5% in England only.Some of those are Muslim atheists some just go along for the social bit and assuming that they wish the rest of the population is untrue. As time progresses these Muslims will have children but some will be half Anglo Saxon some will have no religion, meanwhile the rest 95% anglo Saxons will be doing pretty much the same. So the country becoming Muslim is not going to happen. A lot of Muslims have vested interests in the UK and are happy with the status quo.
Islam is a religion not a race. Primarily they are Asian.

The terrorists are in for hiding to nothing because even though they have killed 4000 people at 911 the Evil USA Still thrives. At that rate they will simply run out of terrorists.

It's sounds brutal but we just shed a few tears for the victims bury them clear up the mess and carry on as normal and the status quo remains.

The terrorist that killed in Paris have been killed by the French.

Often one a group of malcontents will blame the guys in charge for their lot, they think if they were in charge things would be better. They fight for independance and get it. Then they find their no better off and the guys they fought weren't actually ripping them off.


I have never had trouble with the police and individual officers are individuals and some get "excited" but I just stay calm and be pleasant. My wife is the same.

IMHO when someone is born they get a full set of human privileges. If they turn out bad then they lose some of the privileges, depending on what they did wrong.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, 10 January, 2015 - 09:43:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Forgot.
A little revolution at the polling station keeps our elected politicians on their toes. That's why a democracy is unbreakable. At the moment UKIP party is causing David Cameron a bit of a problem. UKIP won't be a viable government but will be useful to keep the rest in line.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vladimir Ivanovich Kirillov
Frequent User
Username: soviet

Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2013
Posted on Sunday, 11 January, 2015 - 10:33:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

There should be a social experiment, preferably funded by middle eastern oil money and it should be televised on the internet. The ingredients are one dyed in the wool, totally fundamentalist, terrorist type, male. Plus 57 fairly attractive but un ridden females. Lock them into a big mansion, set the clock ticking. Dreams aside the reality of this heaven is that in IMHO it would became a hell almost instantly. I have heard that the Chinese symbol for trouble is a picturegram depicting two females under the same roof. My point is that the real terrorists lost it in the upstairs department a long time ago. I can find no evidence of any rock star and or billionaire ever trying such a caper. One woman can be a vicious beast on her own for reasons you may never fathom but a whole stack of them together now that is just plain nasty. And they are going to take over the world are they? I'd be amazed if they could take over the Falklands let alone run the place in some organized manner. I have as much fear of them as I do of the meat ants on my property and these meat ants are a real pack of commies if I have ever seen any. But I think the Americans should try a bit of splendid isolation again especially since they made a total mess out of Iraq and have finally admitted that the presence of weapons of mass destruction justification was due to some clerical error or some other vague amorphous unknown element. To the point Uncle Sam has really screwed the pooch when it comes to proving there is a justification for invading other countries. Why can't they be honest like this "ok chaps we are trillions of dollars in debt, there is no way in the next century we can pay, but we do have a rather large military industry and we do have a rather large young men no job situation so can somebody name a country where we can go in guns blazing, flag flapping and leave a great bloody mess and get paid for it" What ! North Korea ! No No we are in this for a buck not a bailout!"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob UK
Unregistered guest
Posted From: 94.197.122.71
Posted on Monday, 12 January, 2015 - 06:12:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

I can see the USA going isolationist again because of shale gas. They don't need the oil or the endless trouble. They have Mexico to sort out.

Argentina wants the Falklands which has been British before Argentina was a country. The Falklanders voted to stay British so that's that British they are. Unfortunately the Argentine government who pose as a democracy seek to ignore the will of the people of Falklands.
However some Argentines do not go along with the government policy of getting the Falklands at the cost of making Argentine a laughing stock on the world stage.

The brain less idiot terrorists will one by one get killed and kill each other.

The error that the terrorists are making is that when people are cornered and scared they don't surrender they fight back. This galvanizes the rest. Killing heads of State does nothing because no one person is in charge of democracy, the king is dead, long live the king.

I read somewhere that it's not 70 virgins but 70 grapes and a load of food.

(Message approved by david_gore)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jan Forrest
Grand Master
Username: got_one

Post Number: 750
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Monday, 12 January, 2015 - 09:49:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IP

Unfortunately, just like the Hydra, if you cut off one head 2 more replace it. IS wants to conquer the world 'in the name of Allah' and are happy to hide behind the sacrifice of child/women suicide bombers.

Did Winston Churchill capitulate when the Luftwaffe bombed London into rubble? Will they when they are only 'sacrificing' valueless women and children?

They have the advantage of guerilla warfare so they have no real centres to bomb/attack. Kill a few here and a few there, but you will miss the central nexus of control except by good luck. Even then, refer to my first paragraph!

In centuries gone by all cultures and faiths have used 'The Word of God' to excuse all sorts of atrocities. Today is the turn of Islam. Tomorrow, who knows? If God exists she would weep at what we do in her name!