UK.. We Messed Up Letting The Government Take Our Guns..

reply to post by skalla


I'd ask my Mum, but she still uses the aluminium pans she had for a wedding present so I doubt she'd remember.
Pretty sure mine was still free though. But that might have been because my dad was on the sick with his back and ribs in plaster and Mum just did dinner time cleaning at the working mens club.

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by EvanB

If the public had a real deterrant against crime and bad governance.. Would Maggie have taken the kids milk?

Answers on a postcard to ....

Maggie took milk in 1970?

So, to answer your question, unless you think something passed in the 1968 Firearms Act would have stopped her, yes. She would.

1970? Really? They were still handing it out in my infant school in 1979. I'm not sure why people would have taken to the streets with arms over that muck. They used to leave it festering all morning by the radiator, by the time we got it it was yogurt.

Yep. According to wiki.

The Conservative party under Edward Heath won the 1970 general election, and Thatcher was subsequently appointed Secretary of State for Education and Science. During her first months in office she attracted public attention as a result of the administration's attempts to cut spending. She gave priority to academic needs in schools,[43] and imposed public expenditure cuts on the state education system, resulting in the abolition of free milk for schoolchildren aged seven to eleven.[44] She held that few children would suffer if schools were charged for milk, but she agreed to provide younger children with a third of a pint daily, for nutritional purposes.[44] Her decision provoked a storm of protest from the Labour party and the press,[45] leading to the moniker "Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher".[44] Thatcher wrote in her autobiography: "I learned a valuable lesson [from the experience]. I had incurred the maximum of political odium for the minimum of political benefit."[45][46]

I remember getting it. And being a milk monitor.

And Viscount biscuits. Whatever happened to them?

reply to post by Alfie1


When electoral mandate fails, as it does frequently, if the right choice can be made through fear of reprisal and that choice ultimately protects the people, then YES. I do believe that the violent or potentially violent response is warranted.

Just look at the GOP in the US right now. They repeatedly go contrary to the will of the people. This is a situation where elected officials are failing to do their jobs as elected by the people. How else can we get them to do the right thing.
Look at parenting. Part of what gets your children to follow the rules is fear of punishment. Be that punishment being placed in a corner for a time, spanked or having their favorite toy taken away it is the fear that makes the rules stick. Adults are no different. If our governments will not follow the will of the people, the people must have a way to force them. That is just one of the precepts the USA was founded upon.
I will keep my guns thank you very much and hope that I never have cause to use them. In truth, I would be perfectly happy to leave them in the cabinet and only pull one out when I want to kill some dastardly paper for fun. I have no desire for violence, in far too lazy for that. However, I want the option to be available should things take a turn for the worse.

Originally posted by Suspiria

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by EvanB

If the public had a real deterrant against crime and bad governance.. Would Maggie have taken the kids milk?

Answers on a postcard to ....

Maggie took milk in 1970?

So, to answer your question, unless you think something passed in the 1968 Firearms Act would have stopped her, yes. She would.

1970? Really? They were still handing it out in my infant school in 1979. I'm not sure why people would have taken to the streets with arms over that muck. They used to leave it festering all morning by the radiator, by the time we got it it was yogurt.

Yep. According to wiki.

The Conservative party under Edward Heath won the 1970 general election, and Thatcher was subsequently appointed Secretary of State for Education and Science. During her first months in office she attracted public attention as a result of the administration's attempts to cut spending. She gave priority to academic needs in schools,[43] and imposed public expenditure cuts on the state education system, resulting in the abolition of free milk for schoolchildren aged seven to eleven.[44] She held that few children would suffer if schools were charged for milk, but she agreed to provide younger children with a third of a pint daily, for nutritional purposes.[44] Her decision provoked a storm of protest from the Labour party and the press,[45] leading to the moniker "Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher".[44] Thatcher wrote in her autobiography: "I learned a valuable lesson [from the experience]. I had incurred the maximum of political odium for the minimum of political benefit."[45][46]

Yet according to the real actual facts, it was Labour in 1968 that did it.

www.christopherengland.com...

She just extended it to under 7.

I remember getting it. And being a milk monitor.

And Viscount biscuits. Whatever happened to them?

reply to post by EvanB


Dear EvanB,
You Sir are as deluded as the Americans you're being empathic with. The US government has zero fear of it's armed citizens, why would it? Honestly now think long and hard about your statements - a major global military power in fear of armed citizens, with inferior weaponry, no air support, no ground support, no drones, no training... seriously?

Having or not having guns is irrelevant - standing up for your rights is the key and as i've said many times on these very forums if Americans were so enamoured with their right to bear arms, in the sense of it allowing them to stand up to a tyrannical government, why are they not marching on Washington with their guns, instead of getting fatter, stupider and more paranoid and deluded sitting in front of the computer.

Is anyone actually living in the real world nowadays or is everything in cloud cookoo land? It sure seems like it to me.

Edit - Btw these forums are now a gun anti-gun joke and all I read is just blah blah blah blah blah every day. What happened to the real content with depth and guts to it (more Slayer69 please!)

T

reply to post by wmd_2008


Who would of guessed someone that uses so many emoticons would have no real grasp of a civil war scenario in the US, and doesn't understand asymmetrical warfare. I guess you think the US would just drone attack it's civilian population into the ground to get the rebels.. that would win them some support.

reply to post by Seede

During WWII you people were allowed guns and you were almost decimated by your enemy. That alone should tell you that it should never happen to your loved ones and that you should do all that you can to avert that from happening.

Why does that sound like you think my Granny was hanging out washing with a pistol in her knickers while my Grandad was away in the Desert Rats?
The only weapon she had she used getting chocolate and stockings off Yanks behind his back.

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by Unalien
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Right - handguns outlawed so therefore no handgun violence -- Right?
Except mate - 2005 4,360 cases of handgun violence, 2006 - 4,672, 2007 - 4,173 2008 - 4,172 2009-4,274 2010-3,743 2011-3,105

So yeah - now the ONLY ones with handguns are the bad guys using them on all the sheep without them.

I don't see your point, I don't know where you're talking about either. If you're talking about chicago still, laws will not work there, because as I've said several times, they are surrounded by guns.

Ahh. I think I see the cross-purpose here.

Yes, Chicago is surrounded by guns. So is every other city in the US. Why is it that the two cities with the strictest controls still manage to have some of the highest rates of gun-related deaths? If it was just because "they are surrounded by guns" then there are hundreds of other cities that are not only surrounded by them but full of them too. What is it about those two cities that makes them different?

If "being surrounded by guns" is the reason why gun control doesn't work, why does Liverpool still manage to have such a high rate of gun crime?

Originally posted by Hopeforeveryone
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Maybe, just maybe, there's other sociological forces at work behind the increase in violence, other than a gun ban. How would we ever know if legalising guns would have prevented the increase or decreased it. Your statistics prove nothing.