Christmas shoppers and children terrified by armed police on streets with machine guns

Although I understand and respect your opinion TrueBrit,

So, if the UK was hit as we were in France last year by armed terrorists carrying AK 47s or equivalent automatic weapons and the police arrived on the scene unarmed (or having much less firepower in comparison to the terrorists) and scores more innocent civilians were gunned down what would be your reaction?

Would you not have wished that the plod retaliated in order to neutralise said terrorists if they had the possibility?

Warmest

Respects

Lags

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: nonspecific

Those individuals who feel safer for their presence ought to remember this:

If you are so fearful that you need an armed policemans presence to make you feel secure, you are a pretty pathetic sort of Briton, and need to grow yourself a backbone.

As for not being alarmed by their presence, as the Police Force Facebook recommends, of course not! Why would British citizens feel at all concerned about the presence of heavily armed police walking around the streets of major cities? It is not as if we are waiting for evidence of a fascist undercurrent in government after all. We already have that. We have no right to privacy, we have no freedom from surveillance what so ever, we are not permitted to prevent our money being used for immoral military activity, the peddling of influence around the world, in places that most Britons would rather our government stayed the hell out of. They control us with laws we do not agree with, with courts who dispense injustice, with propaganda we paid for but is a threat to our freedom, our liberty, and the manifestation of our will as a people.

But the armed Police? Who is worried about them? After all, the Police are nothing more than paid agents of the crown, whose job is to do whatever they are told to do, to ensure the continuity of the establishment, under the guise of protecting the public and having an eye to our security as a nation! And let us ignore that the Police Forces around the country have been involved in undermining the democratic process in this country, by sending undercover agents into otherwise peaceable protest groups, and goading them into illegal activity. Lets ignore that these individuals have, under their assumed names, started relationships with women in those groups, resulting in offspring no less, and then sneered at them after their true nature has been revealed! What POSSIBLE threat could arise from armed members of an organisation that the people cannot possibly trust if they are informed enough to form an opinion at all, walking the streets of our major cities, or anywhere else for that matter?

I find all this PRECISELY as disturbing as the facts insist that I must. When we have a government I trust, I will trust its agents to the point where I would permit them walking about armed to the eyeballs. But until I trust my government, I refuse to accept that a population which is not generally armed itself, ought to have to put up with a police force which totes rifles around without their being an active situation which demands a tactical response.

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
Poor Brits.. I imagine it is partly that attitude that got their guns jacked from them in the first place. I guess an armed Officer is worse than an isis clown running around with a machete attacking shoppers.. /s

Well yes to me it is as there are no isis killer clowns to my knowledge?

I've always thought of machine guns as automatics. Those are semi autos right? We are not allowed automatics here, but plenty of homeowners have semi autos, including ones hat look like those pictured. Id be more worried if the cops started dressing like a sheik while carrying any weapon

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: pikestaff
How many boys would just love it if the policeman took the mag out, cleared the bolt, and gave the firearm for the boy to have a really close look at ? Not that the policeman would actually do that !

If someone tried to give my kids a weapon created only for intimidation or killing humans I would beat them with the big end.

And before anyone calls me snowflake or lefty looney or any of those other macho nonsense so called insults I have no issue with guns for hunting food.

So you're using the threat of violence to intimidate anybody (including your children) who dares to be interested in something you don't like?

At least now we know why the police feel safer being armed!

a reply to: nonspecific

Could they just be carrying to protect the Christmas shoppers? You know, large crowds make very good targets for terrorists and they may just be out as a show of force deterrent. Maybe after the holidays, things will go back to normal.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: pikestaff
How many boys would just love it if the policeman took the mag out, cleared the bolt, and gave the firearm for the boy to have a really close look at ? Not that the policeman would actually do that !

If someone tried to give my kids a weapon created only for intimidation or killing humans I would beat them with the big end.

And before anyone calls me snowflake or lefty looney or any of those other macho nonsense so called insults I have no issue with guns for hunting food.

So you're using the threat of violence to intimidate anybody (including your children) who dares to be interested in something you don't like?

At least now we know why the police feel safer being armed!

No not the threat of violence but the actual use of it if someone was to try and encourage my child to get involved with automatic weapons because it was cool.

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Lag, I am glad you bought that up.

Read my signature.

What does that tell you about how concerned I am with maintaining my mortal life, if the cost is an armed police presence in every major city?

I expect every Briton who is worthy of being called such, to share that ideal, that core belief, that principle trumps mere mortal existence, without exception, without question, and in every conceivable circumstance. Unless I am permitted to carry a blade in my defence, I see no reason why firearms officers ought patrol our cities streets.

Now, in the case of the French attacks, the armed response could have been a damned sight faster, and I have no problem with the British Police Forces organising their rapid response units so that they can be anywhere in the cities or suburbs within three minutes of an attack beginning. But I absolutely refuse to accept the idea that armed police wandering about ought to occur unless there is an actual, significant, and immediate threat, to a specific target area.

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: nonspecific

Up in Vizland ...

Bonus stars for the reference!

I believe that the UK police should have better access to armed resources, but there's still something distinctly uncomfortable about seeing the good ol' British Bobby carrying a rifle on routine patrol.

It's the balancing act between wanting them to have the tools to do the job, and not wanting such a public reminder of what that job might sometimes involve.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: nonspecific

Could they just be carrying to protect the Christmas shoppers? You know, large crowds make very good targets for terrorists and they may just be out as a show of force deterrent. Maybe after the holidays, things will go back to normal.

What good would that do then?

If I was a terrorist (and I assume we are talking evil Muslims here) and I arrived in Newcastle to find police with machine guns I would simply drive to the next large town or city and cause my mayhem there?

originally posted by: nonspecific
No not the threat of violence but the actual use of it if someone was to try and encourage my child to get involved with automatic weapons because it was cool.

What's wrong with that? They are cool.

Does it change things if the weapon isn't automatic? Because I'd put very good money on rifles in the OP being semi-automatic. You don't tend to lay down suppressive fire in a shopping centre full of people. Well, not unless you're Russian special forces.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: nonspecific
No not the threat of violence but the actual use of it if someone was to try and encourage my child to get involved with automatic weapons because it was cool.

What's wrong with that? They are cool.

Does it change things if the weapon isn't automatic? Because I'd put very good money on rifles in the OP being semi-automatic. You don't tend to lay down suppressive fire in a shopping centre full of people. Well, not unless you're Russian special forces.

Nope any weapon designed solely for the purpose of either intimidating, oppressing or killing humans would elicit the same response.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Lagomorphe


Now, in the case of the French attacks, the armed response could have been a damned sight faster, and I have no problem with the British Police Forces organising their rapid response units so that they can be anywhere in the cities or suburbs within three minutes of an attack beginning. But I absolutely refuse to accept the idea that armed police wandering about ought to occur unless there is an actual, significant, and immediate threat, to a specific target area.

Sadly the French learned by their mistakes after the terrible attacks in November 2015 and now have a more armed presence.

The thing is mate, those 3 minutes that it takes for the quick reaction force to arrive is probably 3 minutes too late...

The 5 to 10 minutes plus the 3 minutes is a hell of a long time for a scumbag do empty a couple or 10 of AK 47 chargers into a crowd...

I can tell you as a fact that ever since the terrorist attacks of last year and the fact that the police, gendarmerie and even the army are now patrolling the streets/railway stations/airports etc... of the largest cities over here with automatic firearms that the majority of people walking the streets feel much safer in the knowledge that they have these armed response and deterrent units to protect them.

Warmest respects

Lags

originally posted by: GodEmperor
Didn't Nazi Germany have a cop with a machine gun on every corner?

Is Britain Nazi Germany ? I think that is a very poor comparison. Not very informed one at that
I will back off however knowing this is a "conspiracy site"

originally posted by: Bedlam
Even better, it gives you a great way to stage an armed assault by dressing up like a British cop and smiling at everyone as you approach your target.

Now you have done it....made me rip snort

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: nonspecific

What curfew? That's not happening in the UK, might be in the post at some future date all the same.

That was my point mate, it's a slow yet slippery slope and once the machine guns are out there and acceptable there is not a great deal we could do about it is there?

You know as a US citizen and have heard that same speech for the last 40+ years , I would say if I were you I wouldnt hold my breath or go on a hunger strike....
Oh , HADES , I forgot . As a Progressive Liberal Tree Huggin Hippie I helped start that sh**

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Then perhaps their convictions are not strong enough.

I feel nothing but disgust when I see armed policemen in any other situation than the following two:

Guarding sensitive sites, government installations and the like, or responding to an active situation.

Again, I do not want to feel safe. I want to feel free. I accept that I cannot have both, and any attempt to have my cake and eat it too, will result in the ultimate destruction of my freedom, and the freedom for all time of the British people. Therefore, I do not give a damn, with the greatest of respect, what works for the French. What I care about is whether or not my people are free while they walk the world, and when compared with the amount I care about protecting life... Its a no brainer. I would rather be free and dead, than live because I accepted tyranny, and that is what we have going on at the moment, more and more of it as days go by.

Perhaps if we citizens were permitted to be equipped for our own defence, the issue would not exist. Perhaps if we had not been taught, for no good reason, to hide away from certain things, to cower rather than fight, to hide rather than stand for something, this would not be an issue, because every person wishing to attack our population would be looking at Granny ramming a bayonet up them faster than you can say "From the hot end of a Lee Enfield".

The guns are nothing more than individual monkey-bar pieces that can be assembled into a playground for children to play on.

a reply to: nonspecific


This is why you have armed police they received threats. But notice the ominous part at the end of his speech. Not sure how to take the last part of his statement.

It's not what we may be used to in the UK but anyone who has a child that sobs at the sight of armed police needs to attend a class in parenting because they are a bloody failure.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
Poor Brits.. I imagine it is partly that attitude that got their guns jacked from them in the first place. I guess an armed Officer is worse than an isis clown running around with a machete attacking shoppers.. /s

Well yes to me it is as there are no isis killer clowns to my knowledge?

I figured they were there to prevent that.