Europe’s Leading Rabbi: Jews Must Begin Carrying Guns

a reply to: stumason

I was having trouble finding it as well. The shootinguk website just advises to say you want it for sporting purposes.

a reply to: WilsonWilson

Indeedy, then it's down to the Police to provide a reason for you not to have a gun. Obviously, you have to meet all the other requirements for safe storage etc...

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

Isn't that the same in the US (depending on the State, obviously), such as the requirement in some states to have an FOID or similar?

Yes, we need to register weapons. We don't have them telling us they feel we can't be trusted with one. Well, unless you have a felony or are mentally unstable. Then they must have proof. At least here in Florida and I'm not up on all the individual states laws.

a reply to: stumason

I think it's pretty pathetic that you wimps don't even allow your own Soldiers to be armed in the streets. Instead they are just left as sitting ducks to be hacked up by extremists. What a brilliant strategy for survival you English have. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

In the UK you cannot own a gun for personal protection. It's not a legitimate reason to apply for a licence.
Whatever the solution is increased gun ownership is never going to be part of the solution here.

In the UK, you don't have to give any reason for applying for a gun license. The onus is on the Police to provide a reason fro you not to have a gun, not you to provide a reason why you should.

Here is a link to my local Constabulary's application form

You always agree with the police or whoever has the final say? I'd rather have the right than a corrupt institution to have it. I'm not saying it's corrupted but there's room for it being abused.

No we dont always agree with the police, thats why we have courts.
But yes you are right about a corrupt institution... to the very core.
That being said, last time I looked, the US system was just as corrupt.
At least we dont have police murdering kids with guns, or tazering naked young autistic girls walking along the highway who are already obviously confused.
Not having guns everywhere does have its perks. Our police arent trigger happy shuddering wrecks fearful of the nutcases with guns all over the place.

But as long as we're law abiding citizens, we can have our guns. Yes, our governments are corrupt but they are never going to take away our guns. Freedom isn't free. You might be a sitting duck with that line of thinking. All those immigrants flooding your country is a cause for alarm. We have more people here. A whole hell of a lot more. You see how things are progressing for you now, wait until you catch up with our numbers.

64,097,085 You
316,000,000 Us

a reply to: stumason

Well, I don't have a tv and don't spend my day watching tv.

But is the video inaccurately portraying the actual streets in Birmingham, or were those buildings photoshopped?

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
The bad element in your country are going to have weapons. They don't respect your laws. I wouldn't want to be gimped that way.

The bad element in their country DOES have weapons. The Kray Brothers were just one example.

Oh wait, the mafia is in England, but they aren't as classy and cool as their American counterparts.

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: stumason

I think it's pretty pathetic that you wimps don't even allow your own Soldiers to be armed in the streets. Instead they are just left as sitting ducks to be hacked up by extremists. What a brilliant strategy for survival you English have. ~$heopleNation

The soldier was in civvies on his way to work from his home. Why would he be armed? So, once again, an American displaying an unearthly ability to fail, in epic style......

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: stumason

I think it's pretty pathetic that you wimps don't even allow your own Soldiers to be armed in the streets. Instead they are just left as sitting ducks to be hacked up by extremists. What a brilliant strategy for survival you English have. ~$heopleNation

The soldier was in civvies on his way to work from his home. Why would he be armed? So, once again, an American displaying an unearthly ability to fail, in epic style......

Was he attacked because he was a soldier or not?

What was the purpose for a soldier being killed in your country, civvies or not?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: stumason

Well, I don't have a tv and don't spend my day watching tv.

It was all over the interwebs, but hey ho.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
But is the video inaccurately portraying the actual streets in Birmingham, or were those buildings photoshopped?

Yes, yes it does. That video only shows a few streets in a very small area. Birmingham is a big City (England's second city) with a population equal to Los Angeles (3.7 Million in the greater Metro area). Would you judge the entire of LA based on a few streets?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Apparently, but what has that got to do with him being armed on his way into work? You're twisting the facts.

As it happens, Soldiers on guard duty at the gates are armed and when I lived in Northern Ireland every soldier was issued with a weapon they had to keep on the person, even if they were only going down the shops.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

In the UK you cannot own a gun for personal protection. It's not a legitimate reason to apply for a licence.
Whatever the solution is increased gun ownership is never going to be part of the solution here.

In the UK, you don't have to give any reason for applying for a gun license. The onus is on the Police to provide a reason fro you not to have a gun, not you to provide a reason why you should.

Here is a link to my local Constabulary's application form

You always agree with the police or whoever has the final say? I'd rather have the right than a corrupt institution to have it. I'm not saying it's corrupted but there's room for it being abused.

No we dont always agree with the police, thats why we have courts.
But yes you are right about a corrupt institution... to the very core.
That being said, last time I looked, the US system was just as corrupt.
At least we dont have police murdering kids with guns, or tazering naked young autistic girls walking along the highway who are already obviously confused.
Not having guns everywhere does have its perks. Our police arent trigger happy shuddering wrecks fearful of the nutcases with guns all over the place.

But as long as we're law abiding citizens, we can have our guns. Yes, our governments are corrupt but they are never going to take away our guns. Freedom isn't free. You might be a sitting duck with that line of thinking. All those immigrants flooding your country is a cause for alarm. We have more people here. A whole hell of a lot more. You see how things are progressing for you now, wait until you catch up with our numbers.

64,097,085 You
316,000,000 Us

They will never understand what it means to have rights. They believe they have the right to exercise freedom of speech on an American website, but the American website honors the rights of freedom of speech, because it has to. But our Constitution guarantees the rights of "We the People of the United States".

We the people afford England the right to freedom of speech on our American websites, but can we go to England websites and complain about their government?

The United Kingdom laws of freedom of speech

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.[120] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[121][122][123] sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),[124][125][126] incitement,[127] incitement to racial hatred,[128] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[127][129][130] glorifying terrorism,[131][132][133] collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[134][135] treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch,[136][137][138][139][140] sedition (no longer illegal, sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (with effect on 12 January 2010)),[137] obscenity,[141] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[142] defamation,[143] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[144][145] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[145] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,[145][146] time, manner, and place restrictions,[147] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

So they are NOT permitted legally to say they want the monarchy abolished, but how interesting it is that they use this American website to promote that idea.

But negative right means they are to be inactive. And if they get on this American website to be anti-Semitic, they are breaking their laws. Sorry, we can't keep affording them the right to do that, they are breaking their law.

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: stumason

Well, I don't have a tv and don't spend my day watching tv.

It was all over the interwebs, but hey ho.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
But is the video inaccurately portraying the actual streets in Birmingham, or were those buildings photoshopped?

Yes, yes it does. That video only shows a few streets in a very small area. Birmingham is a big City (England's second city) with a population equal to Los Angeles (3.7 Million in the greater Metro area). Would you judge the entire of LA based on a few streets?

Go to Watts and then ask that question.

a reply to: WarminIndy

What a load of bollocks...

Yes, we can call for the Monarchy to be abolished, if we so wish. Oh look... Here is one such organisation doing just that.

In practice, one can pretty much say whatever you like, provided it isn't promoting violence, or religious/racial hatred for example or in breach of a court order.

Just another example of you reading something, without actually knowing anything about a topic, then opening that mouth of yours before engaging your brain.

a reply to: WarminIndy

How about you answer the question? Oh, that's right, you've realised you've been a bit of a plank by trusting a video on YouTube made by racists and now won't acknowledge that perhaps, the video just might not be a fair representation....

a reply to: WarminIndy

And who is being "anti-Semitic"?

Jeebus H Christ...

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: WarminIndy

What a load of bollocks...

Yes, we can call for the Monarchy to be abolished, if we so wish. Oh look... Here is one such organisation doing just that.

In practice, one can pretty much say whatever you like, provided it isn't promoting violence, or religious/racial hatred for example or in breach of a court order.

Just another example of you reading something, without actually knowing anything about a topic, then opening that mouth of yours before engaging your brain.

Yes, that's all in the quote, I misquoted the quote even though I only copied and pasted the quote.

You can say you want to abolish the monarchy, yes, but the moment you endorse any violence to do it, then you break the law. The law also states you may not make racist statements against religions, but you do it all the time when you talk about the Jews. So why are Muslims not to be touched, when British Muslim incite violence all the time?

You are defending your British Muslims but have a problem with Jews with guns...why are the Jews allowed to be spoken of that way when it is illegal? Are you not going to be prosecuted for anti-Semitism as long as you defend British Muslims?

originally posted by: stumason
The soldier was in civvies on his way to work from his home.

Oh ok Friend, And on his way home walking out of a London Army Barracks? Tell me Mr. so called Proud Englishman, Why would you attempt to distort such a story of horror?

Why would he be armed?

Well the question Sir! Is why the hell should he not have been armed? I smell a rat, and not of the English origin.

So, once again, an American displaying an unearthly ability to fail, in epic style......

Oh no my friend, I think what we clearly have here is a closet mercenary with motives, who has attempted to sugar coat the brutal slaughter of an innocent Man. I just hope they have an eye on you over there, just to be safe. ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: WarminIndy

How about you answer the question? Oh, that's right, you've realised you've been a bit of a plank by trusting a video on YouTube made by racists and now won't acknowledge that perhaps, the video just might not be a fair representation....

Is that video not accurately portraying the street in Birmingham or not?

Listen, it is your own people who are making these videos of many places in England. So it is to your own country members that you have to deal with and say they are wrong for making videos. We can post the videos from all over England if you wish, there are more.

Funny, it is many times the Muslims who are making these videos and you have problems with one man who decides to show us Birmingham. Really sad.

I realize your cultural expression it to be lenient, but you can only be lenient to a certain point. They are abusing your leniency. But don't you think it is a problem when you have in your country signs in restaurants that say you may not go into their places, because you aren't Muslim?

You are ok with that? Of course you are ok, you are Northern Irish, I forgot how lenient your government is toward the Irish.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Yes, that's all in the quote, I misquoted the quote even though I only copied and pasted the quote.

Quoting something and actually understanding something are two different things...

originally posted by: WarminIndy
You can say you want to abolish the monarchy, yes, but the moment you endorse any violence to do it, then you break the law.

Duh.... The same as if you said you wanted to overthrow the President by violent means - the Smith Act - Go on, start a website advocating the violent overthrow of your President and see how quickly the Secret Service or the FBI kick your door in.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
The law also states you make not make racist statements against religions, but you do it all the time when you talk about the Jews.

No, actually - criticism does not equate to "racist" comments about a religion (even though one cannot actual be a racist with regards to religion, that's called being a bigot instead). As long as you not advoating violence or restricting someone elses rights based on their religion, it's not a crime. The same applies in the US - go on, go an start a buisiness and hang a sign saying "No Blacks" or "No Jews", for example - see the Civil Rights Act of 1964...


And exactly how do "I do it when I talk about the Jews"? Please point out just one thing I have said that is anti-Semitic.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
So why are Muslims not to be touched, when British Muslim incite violence all the time?

Huh? What are you jibbering on about now?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
You are defending your British Muslims but have a problem with Jews with guns...

When did I do any of that? I don't have a problem with "Jews with guns", you plank, I have a problem with them being a special exemption from the law.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
why are the Jews allowed to be spoken that way when it is illegal? Are you not going to be prosecuted for anti-Semitism as long as you defend British Muslims?

WTF are you on about? You have clearly lost your marbles. Again, point out where I have been "anti-Semitic" or, for that matter, "defended British Muslims"..