Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards...

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 24 Oct 2013 10:29 #1

  • novum
  • novum's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 17151
  • Likes received: 8024
Published on 23 Oct 2013

1365 = 1

1.1365 = 1,283,305,580,313,352
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 24 Oct 2013 10:42 #2

  • cantata
  • cantata's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2481
  • Likes received: 2679
Can't look at it. :( Can't stand to see either of that pair (among others) as much as open their twisted celeb mouths.

But I must say, ee by gum, Russell Brand is getting much good publicity for HIMSELF off Truther stuff. A new market has been found.
"...Wyrde saves oft the man undoomed
if he undaunted be....". (Beowulf).

"The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths... Beautiful people do not just happen". (Elisabeth Kubler-Ross).


:cavalier
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Chuck Random

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 24 Oct 2013 11:06 #3

  • Frog
  • Frog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder 
  • Government is simply a conspiracy against a nation!
  • Posts: 2072
  • Likes received: 1701
Russell Brand is a slimy piece of shit and his appearance on AJ's show and his involvement with David snake in the grass Icke should be ringing alarm bells with anyone with two active brain cells. Brand is a completely controlled fraud set lose on the truth movement to hoover up the young and the gullible celebrity infatuated would be escapees of the system. His sole purpose if to trap them in a level two trap with all the other Icke and Jones fucktards who don't have the smarts to see a crock of shit when it's under their noses. I dare say he will be making a few quid out of his campaign just like the controlled muppets Icke and Jones et al.

Who would like to place bets on Brand being a major draw on the launch of David Icke's TV farce channel 'The People's Voice'? With Icke's ideas of peoples freedoms and obsession with personal wealth creation I doubt the peoples voices will be heard.

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." William James
Last Edit: 26 Oct 2013 12:59 by Frog.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: cantata

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 24 Oct 2013 11:34 #4

It's all the transcendental meditation Brand's being doing, his head's disappeared up his own arse, he should get back on the Heroin :D
Russell Brand is getting much good publicity for HIMSELF off Truther stuff. A new market has been found.
As far as potential exploiters of the truther market go he's among the least worrisome imo...
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: cantata

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 26 Oct 2013 05:13 #5

  • i-baster
  • i-baster's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 339
  • Likes received: 162
I like RB. Enjoyed his show on FX too. Good guy I think.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 26 Oct 2013 12:44 #6

I hope so IB, I've been following some posts on facebook that were clearly anti-Brand so he's gone up in my estimations, read this:
DO NOT FALL FOR THIS MAINSTREAM PARADED SHILL!!

When some gets paraded around mainstream media calling for revolution you should pay close attention to what he is calling for. Note the depiction of himself as being a reformed drug user to appeal to the drug using communities and non drug using communities.

Communism comes from the Latin word communis, which means "shared" or "belong to all".
In the schema of historical materialism and its subcategory dialectical materialism (the application of Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics to historical materialism), communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where the people are free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism to collective ownership.

Russel Brand is calling for a revolution to have;

1: A centralised government = Karl Marx=Rothschild
2: The same amount of wealth for everyone/social egalitarianism = Karl Marx=Rothschild
3: All based on the mass redistribution of wealth = Karl Marx=Rothschild
4: A centralised administration to run it all.

The wolves will appear in sheep’s clothing many times over gathering their sacrificial lambs.

There’s a lot of information out there on communism and I suggest everyone do a bit of research. This guy no doubt has some great points, but in the end he is being paraded around perpetuating the end of capitalism and a centralized one world, communist administration to run it all. . .
Know your enemy!

Communism>Naziism>Zionism!!!
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 26 Oct 2013 14:42 #7

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
I watched the first two minutes and found it to be inane.

I think Russell Brand is basically a good bloke, but he's too heavily caught up in CT bullshit.
No War But The Class War
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 26 Oct 2013 15:07 #8

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
I hope so IB, I've been following some posts on facebook that were clearly anti-Brand so he's gone up in my estimations, read this:
DO NOT FALL FOR THIS MAINSTREAM PARADED SHILL!!

When some gets paraded around mainstream media calling for revolution you should pay close attention to what he is calling for. Note the depiction of himself as being a reformed drug user to appeal to the drug using communities and non drug using communities.

Communism comes from the Latin word communis, which means "shared" or "belong to all".
In the schema of historical materialism and its subcategory dialectical materialism (the application of Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics to historical materialism), communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where the people are free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. In Marxist theory, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism to collective ownership.

Russel Brand is calling for a revolution to have;

1: A centralised government = Karl Marx=Rothschild
2: The same amount of wealth for everyone/social egalitarianism = Karl Marx=Rothschild
3: All based on the mass redistribution of wealth = Karl Marx=Rothschild
4: A centralised administration to run it all.

The wolves will appear in sheep’s clothing many times over gathering their sacrificial lambs.

There’s a lot of information out there on communism and I suggest everyone do a bit of research. This guy no doubt has some great points, but in the end he is being paraded around perpetuating the end of capitalism and a centralized one world, communist administration to run it all. . .
Know your enemy!

Communism>Naziism>Zionism!!!

That exemplifies the kind if pig ignorant drivel CT culture encourages people to stuff their heads with.
No War But The Class War
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 26 Oct 2013 15:17 #9

Source was "The Worldwide truth movement"!
www.facebook.com/groups/164009042778/?hc_location=stream
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 26 Oct 2013 15:41 #10

  • Frog
  • Frog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder 
  • Government is simply a conspiracy against a nation!
  • Posts: 2072
  • Likes received: 1701
Chuck Random wrote:
I watched the first two minutes and found it to be inane.

I think Russell Brand is basically a good bloke, but he's too heavily caught up in CT bullshit.

This from someone who doesn't respect or recognise the importance of the Second Amendment! Understanding the conspiracy involved with the States attempt to remove the right to bear arms isn't really that difficult to grasp. :roll:

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." William James
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 27 Oct 2013 00:26 #11

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Frog wrote:
Chuck Random wrote:
I watched the first two minutes and found it to be inane.

I think Russell Brand is basically a good bloke, but he's too heavily caught up in CT bullshit.

This from someone who doesn't respect or recognise the importance of the Second Amendment! Understanding the conspiracy involved with the States attempt to remove the right to bear arms isn't really that difficult to grasp. :roll:

Who's talking about the second amendment? Doesn't really affect me here in northern England.

I have always thought, though, it's a bit weird the way all these gun nuts go on how they need their firearms to protect themselves from government tyranny, then in the next breath are going on about all the awful tyranny the government is up to that they're doing fuck all about. Guns owners in America seem to spend all their time massacring helpless wildlife in the name of 'sport', shooting each other, shooting themselves and occasionally leaving their guns lying around so some disgruntled youth can go on the rampage around school.
If they actually used their firearms to resist government tyranny they may have a point. Although they obviously don't have tanks, cruise missiles and helicopter gunships like the government does. At best, they hide away in some isolated retreat and wait to see if the impending invasion of UN troops will actually occur up this decade.
No War But The Class War
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 27 Oct 2013 01:24 #12

  • Frog
  • Frog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder 
  • Government is simply a conspiracy against a nation!
  • Posts: 2072
  • Likes received: 1701
What does your geolocation have to do with your understanding of the second amendment and its importance, or the reason there is a conspiracy to remove the right to bear arms? :think:

The rest of your rant and fallacies demonstrates the point I was making!

Discernment or lack there of was the original point being made.

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." William James
Last Edit: 27 Oct 2013 01:38 by Frog.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 27 Oct 2013 10:35 #13

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Frog wrote:
What does your geolocation have to do with your understanding of the second amendment and its importance, or the reason there is a conspiracy to remove the right to bear arms? :think:

The rest of your rant and fallacies demonstrates the point I was making!

Discernment or lack there of was the original point being made.

You're right - I probably wouldn't understand "the conspiracy" if I lived in Texas, but I don't know what ths "conspiracy" is supposed to be.

And I don't think my points are fallacies. Though obviously target shooting can be a sport in itself, like archery has become, guns are a tool whose function is to kill other life forms. It's what they're for.

So how exactly do they help Americans resist government tyranny? What's this big difference in America to over here?

These people carping on about their right to parade around with semi automatic rifles to make them feel like they've got a big dick do fuck all about anything apart from when they occasionally lose the plot and go on a killing spree. They just sit there imagining if they lose their guns they'll all suddenly be herded into FEMA camps for no reason.

So please explain the fallacy you think you perceive. And whatever this here conspiracy is supposed to be. It#'s a pretty ineffectual one whatever it is.
No War But The Class War
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 27 Oct 2013 11:58 #14

  • Frog
  • Frog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder 
  • Government is simply a conspiracy against a nation!
  • Posts: 2072
  • Likes received: 1701
Chuck Random wrote:
Frog wrote:
What does your geolocation have to do with your understanding of the second amendment and its importance, or the reason there is a conspiracy to remove the right to bear arms? :think:

The rest of your rant and fallacies demonstrates the point I was making!

Discernment or lack there of was the original point being made.

You're right - I probably wouldn't understand "the conspiracy" if I lived in Texas, but I don't know what ths "conspiracy" is supposed to be.

You seem to lack the ability to see or understand any conspiracy regardless of the evidence which supports it! Hence the reference to your lack of discernment.
And I don't think my points are fallacies. Though obviously target shooting can be a sport in itself, like archery has become, guns are a tool whose function is to kill other life forms. It's what they're for.

Most people in the US who are legal gun owners shoot targets it's called practice so that in the event they should need to defend themselves or their country they have the ability to do so. That's not indiscriminate killing as you're fallacious primes is attempting to imply. Of course guns are designed to kill the issue is the intent when they are used for that purpose.
So how exactly do they help Americans resist government tyranny? What's this big difference in America to over here?

Grab a dictionary and look up the word deterrent. The difference between the UK and the US is the majority of the UK population don't have that deterrent. Our constitution also states that the people have the right to bear arms!
These people carping on about their right to parade around with semi automatic rifles to make them feel like they've got a big dick do fuck all about anything apart from when they occasionally lose the plot and go on a killing spree. They just sit there imagining if they lose their guns they'll all suddenly be herded into FEMA camps for no reason.

The reason they are taking the action they are is to assert their rights which is a position their government has forced upon them. They didn't open carry in the past because they had no need to assert that right! The ratio of ownership to killing sprees is tiny as you well know.

I think there is enough evidence for them to be concerned about the actions of their government. As said your discernment is flawed so your rational is hardly reliable.
So please explain the fallacy you think you perceive. And whatever this here conspiracy is supposed to be. It#'s a pretty ineffectual one whatever it is.

Sure here ya go...
Chuck Random wrote:

Who's talking about the second amendment? Doesn't really affect me here in northern England.

I have always thought, though, it's a bit weird the way all these gun nuts


ad honinem and guilt by association. Do you realise how many legal fire holders there are in the US? The percentage of violations by legal holders as a percentage is tiny.
go on how they need their firearms to protect themselves from government tyranny, then in the next breath are going on about all the awful tyranny the government is up to that they're doing fuck all about.

Defending their second amendment right is doing something about it.

Guns owners in America seem to spend all their time massacring helpless wildlife in the name of 'sport', shooting each other, shooting themselves and occasionally leaving their guns lying around so some disgruntled youth can go on the rampage around school.

Game shooting is classed as sports shooting and the result of it provides food for the table. Trophy shooting is also classed as sports shooting and only serves the ego. Most sport shooting is for game. If you think other wise please provide research that demonstrates that trophy shooting is more prolific than game shooting.

Again vast majority of gun owners are responsible and the percentage of errors in relation to total ownership is tiny.

The majority of shootings are crime related and you can't legislate for people who ignore legislation.
If they actually used their firearms to resist government tyranny they may have a point.

So your solution is the incitement of violence to prove their case? Humm and you call them nut jobs! Gun owners are lawful citizens which is born out by the statistics.
Although they obviously don't have tanks, cruise missiles and helicopter gunships like the government does.

Humm tyranny is proportional to the military disparity between State and civilian population. I.e the more advanced the States military power is over the primitive weapons of the people the higher the rate of tyranny. Which is why the civil wars against swards and muskets were balanced as the population were capable of being equally matched with regards to weapons technology.
At best, they hide away in some isolated retreat and wait to see if the impending invasion of UN troops will actually occur up this decade.

They aren't hiding they are prepared to defend them selves as is the intention of the second amendment.

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." William James
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 27 Oct 2013 14:24 #15

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Frog wrote:
You seem to lack the ability to see or understand any conspiracy regardless of the evidence which supports it! Hence the reference to your lack of discernment.

I see and understand lots of conspiracies. But do encounter a lot I don't believe in if I find the evidence to be unconvincing.
[/quote]

You certainly don't seem to have the ability to recognise a conspiracy no matter how obvious it maybe. They don't come much more obvious that 9II! It would be interesting to know which conspiracies you deem worthy of your recognition.
In this particular case I don't know what conspiracy you're referring to.

In this tread as has been state twice it was used as an example of you inability to be discerning! And the reference was to your failure to recognise the importance of the second amendment. The conspiracy is the States intention to disarm the American people in total violation of their constitution! All of which would be obvious to a child of five with average cognitive ability.

Most people in the US who are legal gun owners shoot targets it's called practice so that in the event they should need to defend themselves or their country they have the ability to do so. That's not indiscriminate killing as you're fallacious primes is attempting to imply. Of course guns are designed to kill the issue is the intent when they are used for that purpose.
You can't carry guns in the UK but you can still go target shooting -
www.goshooting.org.uk/
I don't think target shooting is an issue.

I think you'll find that that site caters primarily caters for section 4 which covers smooth bore shotguns. The types of shooting grounds they cover cater for various disciplines as well as game rounds/layouts.

For section 1 firearms which covers semi and fully automatic smooth bore repeating shot guns with a capacity over three rounds and rim or centre fire rifles. Rifles maybe used on shooting grounds such as Bisley for example.

Section 4 and 1 guns can be carried in public provided licensing conditions are met.

You can no longer use hand guns in the UK which was brought in following the Hungerford incident. Ryan was a licensed holder despite the fact that he had been found in possession of illegally held guns previously and had threatened people with them. All of which was known to the constabulary issuing his licence and the police firearms officer had recommended his licence should be revoked. All of which is in the public domain. The Chief constable responsible magically retired when he should have been charged for criminal negligence and dereliction of duty. As a result of the incompetence of the Police Ryan retained his licence and the State instigated a ban on private hand gun use and ownership in the UK. Private ownership of hand guns in the UK was heavily regulated as are section 1 and 4 firearms then and now.

As predicted at the time gun crime would not be effected by the new legislation which all the evidence indicated. Gun crime has increased regardless of the abuse of law abiding individuals rights to legally own and use hand guns in the UK.

The British constitution states that the people of the Britain have the right to bare arms! That right is denied to the people of Britain in direct contravention of the constitution, due to the categorisation of arms as firearms and licensing legislation applied to firearms.

Grab a dictionary and look up the word deterrent. The difference between the UK and the US is the majority of the UK population don't have that deterrent. Our constitution also states that the people have the right to bear arms!

Oh come off it. Like guns were any kind of deterrent at Waco or Ruby Ridge. Like guns have been any kind of deterrent to Americans losing their homes and forced into makeshift tent cities. Like guns were a deterrent to the Patriot Act. Like guns have been any kind of deterrent to any of the bullshit the US government decides to do.

What exactly has been "deterred" because of guns that can or has happened in the UK where they aren't legal (but there is still a lot of them - I could probably get one if I really wanted to) [/quote]

Clearly you're not well versed on the situation at Waco...no surprise there!

I would be surprised if there haven't been a few situations where firearms have been a deterrent in repossession cases in the US.

It's also a fallacious argument as the issue isn't about repossessions, which anyone with a braincell would know! The point of the second amendment is to allow the American people to form a militia, in order to defend themselves against enemies domestic or foreign.

A growing number of the American people are fully aware of the fact that the State is their primary enemy, which constitutes a domestic threat to their liberty and constitution. The State knows that the American people are in a position to defend themselves which is clearly a deterrent. Neither of which are difficult concepts to grasp for anyone with average intelligence.

Growing numbers of the British population are also becoming aware of the fact that the State is a domestic threat to our population. The reason our constitution and rights to bare arms are denied is pre-emptive State policy.

The per capita ownership of legally held guns in the UK is extremely low and the ownership of section 1 firearms is a small fraction of total ownership figures. I seriously doubt you would obtain a section one license easily especially for a centre fire. Having said that I would imagine you would have no trouble obtaining a firearm in the UK going by the statistics of handgun related crimes. None of which are in circulation due to theft or negligence on the part of private owners, as was the case prior to the ban.
The reason they are taking the action they are is to assert their rights which is a position their government has forced upon them. They didn't open carry in the past because they had no need to assert that right! The ratio of ownership to killing sprees is tiny as you well know.[/'quote]

I didn't say anything about open carry.

Actually you made a direct comment about the open carry laws, which you would know if you actually had a clue about what you're trying to discuss!
Killing sprees are certainly rare. I don't think gun crime is though.

Maybe you could provide figures which show a large proportion of legal gun owners committing gun related crimes, as well as the percentage in relation to total gun ownership, to support your views? Good luck with that.
I do appreciate people are attached to their killing implements. Knowing one has the ability the instantly take a life at the pull of a trigger is just another little convenience in today's fast paced consumer age.

More fallacies, as has already been stated most handguns held in the US or anywhere else where they are in legal private ownership do not get used to kill, which is what you're attempting to infer. Having the ability to defend ones self has been something practised by humans since time in memorial regardless of the method implemented. The fallacy of convenience and consumerist society is yet more BS in an attempt to bring emotion to bolster your failed argument you can't sustain based on facts, logic or reason.
I think there is enough evidence for them to be concerned about the actions of their government. As said your discernment is flawed so your rational is hardly reliable.
Absolutely. Their govt are a bunch of cunts, as is mine. I was just referring to all that daft stuff associated with those guys who run around going to gun shows thinking black helicopters are going to invade little house on the prairie any second. I concede was stereotyping as you point out -
ad honinem and guilt by association. Do you realise how many legal firearm holders there are in the US? The percentage of violations by legal holders as a percentage is tiny.

But those from my cold dead hands y'hear guys do tend to be the most vocal and passionate.

More ad honinem attacks and implied guilt by association thrown in! I think you will find that the people who are defending their second amendment rights are a cross section of the American population, who understand the importance of upholding it and realise the implications of losing it.
Defending their second amendment right is doing something about it.

So let me get this straight...

They need their guns to defend against government tyranny, but the only tyranny they're actively defending against is the government taking their guns away. And they're not actually using their guns to do it. They're doing lobbying and stuff like anybody.

So what exactly do they need the guns for again?

See above and trot off and lookup Deterrent in the dictionary again as you seem to be struggling with its meaning! Not that I find that hard to believe.

Game shooting is classed as sports shooting and the result of it provides food for the table. Trophy shooting is also classed as sports shooting and only serves the ego. Most sport shooting is for game. If you think other wise please provide research that demonstrates that trophy shooting is more prolific than game shooting.

I neither know nor care enough about the ratio of who eats it and who doesn't to find out. All I know is anyone who shouts animals for fun is a cunt.
The point is running around the woods shooting animals for recreational purposes - whether one eats the animal or not - is far more what guns are about that some vague fantastical notion there would be a great evil upon the land without them.
[/quote]

Humm so you think keeping animals locked up in zero graze sheds or tens of thousands of chickens in sheds to be slaughtered is preferable to the management of animals that live in a natural state? OK! What you should really do is consider your own deep rooted and totally flawed understanding of the currents social structure especially in relation to the game shooting community. But then it's hardly surprising as you consistently argue from a position of complete and utter ignorance, in a vein attempt to uphold your irrational and deeply held out dated Marxist prejudices.

Now I guess you will howl that you are an Anarchist, which couldn't be further from the truth, as you seem to think that you gave the right to legislate against people pursuing a natural and fundamental right to feed themselves. You are laughable!
Again vast majority of gun owners are responsible and the percentage of errors in relation to total ownership is tiny.

The majority of shootings are crime related and you can't legislate for people who ignore legislation.

By that logic you may as well sell torture equipment at Tesco. you can legislate against people using it to actually torture people, so fuck it.

Logic is clearly not a strong point of your and here you demonstrate that yet again.

First it's a fact that gun owners are law abiding and they are responsible people. < period

The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by non legal owners, with illegally held guns which you obviously can't legislate against, as they aren't observing the legislation if they're prepared to commit a crime. < period

Now lets see if you can actually manage to comprehend what has been said this time. That should save you typing out a yet more fallacious arguments.
So your solution is the incitement of violence to prove their case? Humm and you call them nut jobs! Gun owners are lawful citizens which is born out by the statistics.

Well if their guns aren't going to be actually used against tyranny, what's the point? You say "deterrent" but that's totally ridiculous. "Deterrent" is something you're actually worried about.

Wow you actually get what deterrent means and then stumble and fall like a numpty at the last hurdle! The second amendment is there precisely to act as a very real deterrent and the American people actually do have every reason to be worried about their government. The alternative is to be totally defenceless! You know like the people of Chile can attest to as they suffered at the hands of the Pinochet regime. Only the completely dumb, ignorant or someone holding irrationally obsessed prejudice could manage to fail to grasp that most basic principle!
Humm tyranny is proportional to the military disparity between State and civilian population. I.e the more advanced the States military power is over the primitive weapons of the people the higher the rate of tyranny. Which is why the civil wars against swards and muskets were balanced as the population were capable of being equally matched with regards to weapons technology.

And the state today has weaponry that far outmatches anything domestic owners have.

They aren't hiding they are prepared to defend them selves as is the intention of the second amendment.

Great. They just sit there hoping they can keep their guns.

Nope they aren't hoping to use their guns as their more recent history bears out. They have however had points in their history where the second amendment right has ensured that the population could defend itself. Which is the whole point of having the second amendment as a deterrent.
Look, I don't like guns, but what Americans do with their guns isn't something I lose sleep over. They're not going to get banned anyway because they're too deeply embedded in the culture. I'm not some fierce advocate of banning them.

Well you seem pretty adamant for someone who makes that claim. You're seriously confused about some of the issues! Whether they retain the right to bear arms or not does have a bearing on our domestic situation, even if you fail to recognise it.
I just find all this I need mah guns to protect us from gubmint tyranny! to be a joke. And then every time some nut mows down some kids or something, you get the conspiracy ones concocting tall tales about how it's all big set-up to take their guns away which doesn't happen. Which kinda shows what their priorities are.

I guess if you're blinded by prejudice, while live in a world of fallacies and wilful ignorance (which you consistently demonstrate) that opinion is only to be expected.

The medical industry is responsible for far more accidental deaths in the US. In the vast majority of cases where there have been serious incidents involving firearms the perpetrator/s have either been on or have recently come off prescribed medication, such as Prozac, Zoloft and other SSRI class psychiatric drugs. SSRI Stats can be viewed here.

You have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to comprehend and evaluate information especially that of a conspiratorial nature, so it's clear you would not grasp the concept of a shooting incident as a false flag event. Just like three towers free falling to the deck on 9II was an everyday occurrence (move along nothing to see here).

I think the American people know exactly what their priorities are, and they have every intention of defending their nation from their enemies domestic or foreign. They have already lost their Republic and their current so called democracy is anything but democratic, as is the case in the UK and associated Commonwealth countries as well as all Europe nation states.

Only fools, the wilfully ignorant or expectant beneficiary could fail to recognise the situation many parts of the world are currently in and the dangers we all face.
No War But The Class War
Last Edit: 27 Oct 2013 17:19 by Frog.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 07 Nov 2013 18:46 #16

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Well let's try to unpick this mess above.
You certainly don't seem to have the ability to recognise a conspiracy no matter how obvious it maybe. They don't come much more obvious that 9II! It would be interesting to know which conspiracies you deem worthy of your recognition.

Not obvious at all to me. Over a decade later, all truthers have produced is an increasingly irrelevant mixed bag of frequently disconnected factoids and insinuations. They can't even explain their 'smoking gun', the mysterious silent two-stage demolition of WTC7 for no reason.
There probably is a conspiracy, but in my book it's the US government cover up of their general ineptitude and rather dubious covert activities.
In this tread as has been state twice it was used as an example of you inability to be discerning! And the reference was to your failure to recognise the importance of the second amendment. The conspiracy is the States intention to disarm the American people in total violation of their constitution! All of which would be obvious to a child of five with average cognitive ability.

So what is the exact basis of this conspiracy? Are there any verified documents? Who is behind it? How do we know they're behind it? Like actual evidence, not innuendo and speculation.
Because this conspiracy has apparently been running for years and never seems to get very far.
I think you'll find that that site caters primarily caters for section 4 which covers smooth bore shotguns. The types of shooting grounds they cover cater for various disciplines as well as game rounds/layouts.

For section 1 firearms which covers semi and fully automatic smooth bore repeating shot guns with a capacity over three rounds and rim or centre fire rifles. Rifles maybe used on shooting grounds such as Bisley for example.

Section 4 and 1 guns can be carried in public provided licensing conditions are met.

Who cares? You can target shoot.
I don't personally care what you can target shoot and where. I don't see it as remotely important and I don't care about different guns. I'm into guns. They don't interest me.
ou can no longer use hand guns in the UK which was brought in following the Hungerford incident. Ryan was a licensed holder despite the fact that he had been found in possession of illegally held guns previously and had threatened people with them. All of which was known to the constabulary issuing his licence and the police firearms officer had recommended his licence should be revoked. All of which is in the public domain. The Chief constable responsible magically retired when he should have been charged for criminal negligence and dereliction of duty. As a result of the incompetence of the Police Ryan retained his licence and the State instigated a ban on private hand gun use and ownership in the UK. Private ownership of hand guns in the UK was heavily regulated as are section 1 and 4 firearms then and now.

As predicted at the time gun crime would not be effected by the new legislation which all the evidence indicated. Gun crime has increased regardless of the abuse of law abiding individuals rights to legally own and use hand guns in the UK.

And they made MDMA a class A drug despite the fact it's not particularly dangerous. Governments do knee-jerk things. And the police are notorious for seldom being guilty of anything.
The British constitution states that the people of the Britain have the right to bare arms! That right is denied to the people of Britain in direct contravention of the constitution, due to the categorisation of arms as firearms and licensing legislation applied to firearms.

Britain doesn't have a US style constitution. Exactly what are you referring to?

Clearly you're not well versed on the situation at Waco...no surprise there!

So exactly what deterrent did the guns at Waco present?I kinda thought guns were why they targeted them in the first place.
I would be surprised if there haven't been a few situations where firearms have been a deterrent in repossession cases in the US.

I would. Or are you saying the police are reluctant to arrest someone threatening someone with a gun because....they've got a gun!!!!?
It's also a fallacious argument as the issue isn't about repossessions, which anyone with a braincell would know! The point of the second amendment is to allow the American people to form a militia, in order to defend themselves against enemies domestic or foreign.

So why haven't they then? It may have escaped your attention, but both over here and over there the shit is hitting the fan RIGHT NOW. People are being driven into poverty all over the place. Homelessness is soaring, people being left with literally nothing to live off. Oh I forgot - this is all about me, me, me. It's about sitting there cradling your penis extension until someone encroaches on your front porch.

And of course when people far more brave and less cynical than myself use their guns to do something about the state like, say, Ulrike Meinhof, they're evil terrorists. It's far better to sit at home pretending you're starring in Red Dawn. I assume. Because I'm not seeing his here militia.
Growing numbers of the British population are also becoming aware of the fact that the State is a domestic threat to our population. The reason our constitution and rights to bare arms are denied is pre-emptive State policy.

One would hope so. But guns will not assist this. Grass roots working class solidarity against the boss class will.
Actually you made a direct comment about the open carry laws, which you would know if you actually had a clue about what you're trying to discuss!

My apologies. Perhaps I'm not up on all the proper gun lingo like the cool kids.I shall subscribe to Soldier of Fortune immediately.
More fallacies, as has already been stated most handguns held in the US or anywhere else where they are in legal private ownership do not get used to kill, which is what you're attempting to infer. Having the ability to defend ones self has been something practised by humans since time in memorial regardless of the method implemented. The fallacy of convenience and consumerist society is yet more BS in an attempt to bring emotion to bolster your failed argument you can't sustain based on facts, logic or reason.

I have no idea how gun crime relates to legal ownership, nor do I feel motivated to research it. The point was, a gun is killing implement.
And you seem very confused as to what you think it's for. One second you're 'forming a (imaginary) militia, then you seem to think it;s about people becoming aware of what cunts the govt are, then they're just defending themselves. So what? We should all have guns to 'defend ourselves'? Sorry, never needed one. So what about this here militia and "becoming aware of the fact that the State is a domestic threat to our population"?
ad honinem and guilt by association. Do you realise how many legal firearm holders there are in the US? The percentage of violations by legal holders as a percentage is tiny.

I made it very clear I was explicitly referring to a certain subset.
See above and trot off and lookup Deterrent in the dictionary again as you seem to be struggling with its meaning! Not that I find that hard to believe.

Did that but sorry - it still didn't provide any answer to my question. I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out for me.
Wow you actually get what deterrent means and then stumble and fall like a numpty at the last hurdle! The second amendment is there precisely to act as a very real deterrent and the American people actually do have every reason to be worried about their government. The alternative is to be totally defenceless! You know like the people of Chile can attest to as they suffered at the hands of the Pinochet regime. Only the completely dumb, ignorant or someone holding irrationally obsessed prejudice could manage to fail to grasp that most basic principle!

Their guns aren't helping them now are they? This isn't about Alex Jones' sci-fi fantasies about dystopian supercities (havbe you ever noticed how much attention CTists give to certain sci-fi films and how often their wacky ideas sound like a Hollywood script?) or the mythical FEMA camps (originating in left wing fears and shifting over to being a right a right wing preoccupation by IIRC the late 70s/early 80s. Watch the excellent Punishment Park for a left wing take on that kind of idea.).
The real issue is the achievement of near total cultural hegenomy by neo-liberalism. The future is legions of the homeless, people scrabbling for whatever job they can get, poor people to blame for being poor, the unadulterated worship of money. This is happening right here, right now and your guns ain't doing jack shit about it. And, as I said before, you think people with guns that do try to do something about it are terrorists anyway.
Humm so you think keeping animals locked up in zero graze sheds or tens of thousands of chickens in sheds to be slaughtered is preferable to the management of animals that live in a natural state? OK! What you should really do is consider your own deep rooted and totally flawed understanding of the currents social structure especially in relation to the game shooting community. But then it's hardly surprising as you consistently argue from a position of complete and utter ignorance, in a vein attempt to uphold your irrational and deeply held out dated Marxist prejudices.

Actually I'm just resigned to the fact that while not needing to do so for survival many people in countries like the UK insist on the mass slaughter of sentient beings simply for their personal pleasure at the taste of flesh and that this primitive barbarism remains unfortunately endemic.
The notion that the population of Britain could go about taking potshots at herds of wild cattle or whatever for their meat is (in the absence of an enormous population cull) of course totally laughable. As it is in many areas of America.
Now I guess you will howl that you are an Anarchist, which couldn't be further from the truth, as you seem to think that you gave the right to legislate against people pursuing a natural and fundamental right to feed themselves. You are laughable!

I said before I'm not actually that arsed, but I simply think these arguments that people need guns to protect them from tyranny and stuff are bullshit. I simply challenge what I see as myths woven by people who are, for whatever reason, desperate to have a firearm.

I think the biggest barriers to people feeding themselves are things like virtually every corner of the earth being 'owned' by some rich cunt and capitalism., not guns.
The medical industry is responsible for far more accidental deaths in the US. In the vast majority of cases where there have been serious incidents involving firearms the perpetrator/s have either been on or have recently come off prescribed medication, such as Prozac, Zoloft and other SSRI class psychiatric drugs. SSRI Stats can be viewed here.

I looked at your link at it seemed to be rather over keen to make its point. In some cases SSRIs were a;llegedly directly implivcated, but in others the mere presence seems taken for granted as a contributory factor.
Now I'm somebody who has spent many years working directly with people with mental health issues who could also wrote rather a lot about their reservations about psychiatric drugs. But I would be a blind dogmatist if I did not listen to the - by now literally hundreds - of people who have told me to my face that SSRIs have dramatically improved their life, even saved it. I have myself never encountered a single person who has become violent, let alone killed anyone because of them. Not to say that never happens, but MASSIVE numbers of people take these things. Now there are many issues here, far too many to be succint about, but SSRIs are a drug. Like any drug they bear risks. The question is if on balance the benefit outweighs the risk. Perhaps if there wasn't a gun handy, those people who went loco woouldn't have found it quite so easy to kill anybody. Just a thought.
You have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to comprehend and evaluate information especially that of a conspiratorial nature, so it's clear you would not grasp the concept of a shooting incident as a false flag event. Just like three towers free falling to the deck on 9II was an everyday occurrence (move along nothing to see here).

Of course. You get 10 911s a day and that one was just weird. Right?
WTC7 was measured at freefall for IIRC 2 seconds. And...I think that's it.
I think the American people know exactly what their priorities are, and they have every intention of defending their nation from their enemies domestic or foreign. .

Evidence?
"enemies domestic or foreign". Jeez. You sound like George Bush.
No War But The Class War
Last Edit: 07 Nov 2013 19:07 by Chuck Random.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 08 Nov 2013 02:05 #17

  • Frog
  • Frog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Boarder 
  • Government is simply a conspiracy against a nation!
  • Posts: 2072
  • Likes received: 1701
Chuck Random wrote:
Well let's try to unpick this mess above.
You certainly don't seem to have the ability to recognise a conspiracy no matter how obvious it maybe. They don't come much more obvious that 9II! It would be interesting to know which conspiracies you deem worthy of your recognition.

Not obvious at all to me. Over a decade later, all truthers have produced is an increasingly irrelevant mixed bag of frequently disconnected factoids and insinuations. They can't even explain their 'smoking gun', the mysterious silent two-stage demolition of WTC7 for no reason.
There probably is a conspiracy, but in my book it's the US government cover up of their general ineptitude and rather dubious covert activities.

Ye buildings crumble to a pile of dust when ever an office catches fire! WTC7 didn't even suffer an impact and yet again it fell into its own footprint. You would have to close your mind off entirely to even begin to imagine that the collapse of the three towers was a natural consequence of the damage they sustained! You would also have to accept that the totally rigged official report that totally ignored the WTC7 collapse was above board and investigated all the facts. It was a total farce and a child of three would take all of five minutes to draw that conclusion!
In this tread as has been state twice it was used as an example of you inability to be discerning! And the reference was to your failure to recognise the importance of the second amendment. The conspiracy is the States intention to disarm the American people in total violation of their constitution! All of which would be obvious to a child of five with average cognitive ability.

So what is the exact basis of this conspiracy? Are there any verified documents? Who is behind it? How do we know they're behind it? Like actual evidence, not innuendo and speculation.
Because this conspiracy has apparently been running for years and never seems to get very far.

It's obviously beyond mere conspiracy maybe you haven't been keeping up.
Looks like people in the States are taking the threat seriously for something which according to you is a figment of their imagination!
I think you'll find that that site caters primarily caters for section 4 which covers smooth bore shotguns. The types of shooting grounds they cover cater for various disciplines as well as game rounds/layouts.

For section 1 firearms which covers semi and fully automatic smooth bore repeating shot guns with a capacity over three rounds and rim or centre fire rifles. Rifles maybe used on shooting grounds such as Bisley for example.

Section 4 and 1 guns can be carried in public provided licensing conditions are met.

Who cares? You can target shoot.
I don't personally care what you can target shoot and where. I don't see it as remotely important and I don't care about different guns. I'm into guns. They don't interest me.

The point is you were/are talking bollocks from a misinformed position as per usual.
ou can no longer use hand guns in the UK which was brought in following the Hungerford incident. Ryan was a licensed holder despite the fact that he had been found in possession of illegally held guns previously and had threatened people with them. All of which was known to the constabulary issuing his licence and the police firearms officer had recommended his licence should be revoked. All of which is in the public domain. The Chief constable responsible magically retired when he should have been charged for criminal negligence and dereliction of duty. As a result of the incompetence of the Police Ryan retained his licence and the State instigated a ban on private hand gun use and ownership in the UK. Private ownership of hand guns in the UK was heavily regulated as are section 1 and 4 firearms then and now.

As predicted at the time gun crime would not be effected by the new legislation which all the evidence indicated. Gun crime has increased regardless of the abuse of law abiding individuals rights to legally own and use hand guns in the UK.

And they made MDMA a class A drug despite the fact it's not particularly dangerous. Governments do knee-jerk things. And the police are notorious for seldom being guilty of anything.

Are you suggesting that we should accept bollocks legislation and the fact that the Police can act negligently without repercussions?
The British constitution states that the people of the Britain have the right to bare arms! That right is denied to the people of Britain in direct contravention of the constitution, due to the categorisation of arms as firearms and licensing legislation applied to firearms.

Britain doesn't have a US style constitution. Exactly what are you referring to?

We have a constitution the fact that you're ignorant of that fact is hardly surprising. The American constitution uses part of our constitution as its foundation. Go read about the Magna Carta also try reading Sir William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England". While your researching it you should discover the other two primary documents which form our constitution.
Clearly you're not well versed on the situation at Waco...no surprise there!

So exactly what deterrent did the guns at Waco present?I kinda thought guns were why they targeted them in the first place.

Guns were the excuse used to attack the compound, but if you spend some time researching the actual story you will discover that they weren't a risk and were deliberately targeted and massacred.
I would be surprised if there haven't been a few situations where firearms have been a deterrent in repossession cases in the US.

I would. Or are you saying the police are reluctant to arrest someone threatening someone with a gun because....they've got a gun!!!!?

You're saying that it's OK for third parties to threaten lawful people with guns, while lawful people should have no means to defend themselves? Why are you assuming that it's only the police that attend evictions?
It's also a fallacious argument as the issue isn't about repossessions, which anyone with a braincell would know! The point of the second amendment is to allow the American people to form a militia, in order to defend themselves against enemies domestic or foreign.

So why haven't they then? It may have escaped your attention, but both over here and over there the shit is hitting the fan RIGHT NOW. People are being driven into poverty all over the place. Homelessness is soaring, people being left with literally nothing to live off. Oh I forgot - this is all about me, me, me. It's about sitting there cradling your penis extension until someone encroaches on your front porch.

And of course when people far more brave and less cynical than myself use their guns to do something about the state like, say, Ulrike Meinhof, they're evil terrorists. It's far better to sit at home pretending you're starring in Red Dawn. I assume. Because I'm not seeing his here militia.

You seem to be under the impression that all 34 of the Red Army's victims were not innocent people. You would also have to consider proactive violence to be the same as self defence.
Growing numbers of the British population are also becoming aware of the fact that the State is a domestic threat to our population. The reason our constitution and rights to bare arms are denied is pre-emptive State policy.

One would hope so. But guns will not assist this. Grass roots working class solidarity against the boss class will.

Our constitutional right to bare arms was removed by the state because an armed civilian force can defend its self! Humm the grass roots working class have done such a great job in the past. They always get screwed because they assign leaders who seem to have a habit of selling them out. When reading the history of the General Strike it soon becomes obvious who was responsible for the failure of the workers to achieve their goals.
Actually you made a direct comment about the open carry laws, which you would know if you actually had a clue about what you're trying to discuss!

My apologies. Perhaps I'm not up on all the proper gun lingo like the cool kids.I shall subscribe to Soldier of Fortune immediately.

Humm it's par for the course reading your comments based on ignorance.
More fallacies, as has already been stated most handguns held in the US or anywhere else where they are in legal private ownership do not get used to kill, which is what you're attempting to infer. Having the ability to defend ones self has been something practised by humans since time in memorial regardless of the method implemented. The fallacy of convenience and consumerist society is yet more BS in an attempt to bring emotion to bolster your failed argument you can't sustain based on facts, logic or reason.

I have no idea how gun crime relates to legal ownership, nor do I feel motivated to research it.

Nothing like being wilfully ignorant on a subject to enable someone to make a valid and rational comment on a subject!
The point was, a gun is killing implement.

No, guns can be used to kill if that's the intention at a given time. Are you saying that every time a gun is discharged someone or something dies as a result?
And you seem very confused as to what you think it's for. One second you're 'forming a (imaginary) militia, then you seem to think it;s about people becoming aware of what cunts the govt are, then they're just defending themselves. So what? We should all have guns to 'defend ourselves'? Sorry, never needed one. So what about this here militia and "becoming aware of the fact that the State is a domestic threat to our population"?

Nope no confusion I understand fully what they are for! You on the other hand seem to be highly confused, ignorant and totally irrational when discussing the subject. The State is a threat to the population it's the single biggest threat to us as the current state of the Nation demonstrates. We don't have the ability to form armed militias in the UK because the State removed our ability to defend ourselves. Fortunately the American population still retain that ability and rightly so!
ad honinem and guilt by association. Do you realise how many legal firearm holders there are in the US? The percentage of violations by legal holders as a percentage is tiny.

I made it very clear I was explicitly referring to a certain subset.

No, you make it very clear that you're against the peoples right to bear arms.
See above and trot off and lookup Deterrent in the dictionary again as you seem to be struggling with its meaning! Not that I find that hard to believe.

Did that but sorry - it still didn't provide any answer to my question. I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out for me.

Why would I waste my time feeding you anything when you're happy to live in ignorance?
Wow you actually get what deterrent means and then stumble and fall like a numpty at the last hurdle! The second amendment is there precisely to act as a very real deterrent and the American people actually do have every reason to be worried about their government. The alternative is to be totally defenceless! You know like the people of Chile can attest to as they suffered at the hands of the Pinochet regime. Only the completely dumb, ignorant or someone holding irrationally obsessed prejudice could manage to fail to grasp that most basic principle!

Their guns aren't helping them now are they? This isn't about Alex Jones' sci-fi fantasies about dystopian supercities (havbe you ever noticed how much attention CTists give to certain sci-fi films and how often their wacky ideas sound like a Hollywood script?) or the mythical FEMA camps (originating in left wing fears and shifting over to being a right a right wing preoccupation by IIRC the late 70s/early 80s. Watch the excellent Punishment Park for a left wing take on that kind of idea.).

Punishment park wasn't about FEMA camps it was a bout a choice of crossing the desert to get a reduced sentence. It was also an demonstration of psycho cops killing unarmed people. Ye right there are no FEMA camps and there is no legislation for them, I guess HR-645 is about kindergarten after school clubs. In the UK sports stadiums and disused military bases will be used for the same purposes, and if you think there are no provisions for such an eventuality you would have to be extremely naive.
The real issue is the achievement of near total cultural hegenomy by neo-liberalism. The future is legions of the homeless, people scrabbling for whatever job they can get, poor people to blame for being poor, the unadulterated worship of money. This is happening right here, right now and your guns ain't doing jack shit about it. And, as I said before, you think people with guns that do try to do something about it are terrorists anyway.

We as in the 99% are all guilty regardless of wealth or lack of it! We have a responsibility to maintain our rights and keep the State in check. My guns? Are you some sort of cunt? We don't have an armed civilian population in the UK which you are in full knowledge of! The American civilian population do have the ability and if they need to fall back on it they have that option. Which is exactly why the second amendment was included in their constitution!

No I don't agree with killing innocent people you're quite correct on that fact! I don't have an issue with people engaged in self defence. I don't share your view the likes of Ulrike Meinhof should be seen as a roll model.
Humm so you think keeping animals locked up in zero graze sheds or tens of thousands of chickens in sheds to be slaughtered is preferable to the management of animals that live in a natural state? OK! What you should really do is consider your own deep rooted and totally flawed understanding of the currents social structure especially in relation to the game shooting community. But then it's hardly surprising as you consistently argue from a position of complete and utter ignorance, in a vein attempt to uphold your irrational and deeply held out dated Marxist prejudices.

Actually I'm just resigned to the fact that while not needing to do so for survival many people in countries like the UK insist on the mass slaughter of sentient beings simply for their personal pleasure at the taste of flesh and that this primitive barbarism remains unfortunately endemic.
The notion that the population of Britain could go about taking potshots at herds of wild cattle or whatever for their meat is (in the absence of an enormous population cull) of course totally laughable. As it is in many areas of America.

So it's OK for 400000 chickens to be force reared in a shed in six weeks, unable to bear their own weight because their legs are underdeveloped and then slung in crates to be sent off to some production line. You have no idea about the country scene in the UK most of which are rough shoots not major country estate shoots. The TV only shows toffs standing on pegs shooting on country estates which isn't representative of the majority. The media plays on the pee brains and ill informed prejudice or narrow minded morons.
Now I guess you will howl that you are an Anarchist, which couldn't be further from the truth, as you seem to think that you gave the right to legislate against people pursuing a natural and fundamental right to feed themselves. You are laughable!

I said before I'm not actually that arsed, but I simply think these arguments that people need guns to protect them from tyranny and stuff are bullshit. I simply challenge what I see as myths woven by people who are, for whatever reason, desperate to have a firearm.

You don't see anything because you're too hung up in your prejudice views and you don't have the wit to see the obvious when it's in plain sight! So what's the ideal protection against tyranny? Buckets of cold water and piles of soggy sponges? The people in American aren't bloody stupid and they know exactly what the Second amendment is written into their constitution for. Fortunately the wise far out number the fools and would be tyrants.
I think the biggest barriers to people feeding themselves are things like virtually every corner of the earth being 'owned' by some rich cunt and capitalism., not guns.

The major land owners on the planet are governments. In Africa right now the traditional common lands are being sold from under the people by their governments to multinationals. Capitalism and the Military Industrial complex are not one in the same thing - capitalism has been hijacked by corporations who have monopolised the free market with the assistance of the State. The only reason there are poor and hungry people is because the governments and corporations want things that way. It's by design!
The medical industry is responsible for far more accidental deaths in the US. In the vast majority of cases where there have been serious incidents involving firearms the perpetrator/s have either been on or have recently come off prescribed medication, such as Prozac, Zoloft and other SSRI class psychiatric drugs. SSRI Stats can be viewed here.

I looked at your link at it seemed to be rather over keen to make its point. In some cases SSRIs were a;llegedly directly implivcated, but in others the mere presence seems taken for granted as a contributory factor.
Now I'm somebody who has spent many years working directly with people with mental health issues who could also wrote rather a lot about their reservations about psychiatric drugs. But I would be a blind dogmatist if I did not listen to the - by now literally hundreds - of people who have told me to my face that SSRIs have dramatically improved their life, even saved it. I have myself never encountered a single person who has become violent, let alone killed anyone because of them. Not to say that never happens, but MASSIVE numbers of people take these things. Now there are many issues here, far too many to be succint about, but SSRIs are a drug. Like any drug they bear risks. The question is if on balance the benefit outweighs the risk. Perhaps if there wasn't a gun handy, those people who went loco woouldn't have found it quite so easy to kill anybody. Just a thought.

Well there is plenty of evidence to suggest you're talking out of your hole. There are dentists who still insist that mercury fillings are safe they would consider themselves to be professionals and well informed. The reality is they are dumb fuckers doing what they are told and doing no research of their own.

You do realise who provided the data for that report right? You also realise that that was only a small group who independently contributed to the data! They did that because they were seeing patterns in behaviour but hey I guess now you have shared your wisdom we can safely ignore their findings just like there was nothing to see at 9/11. You're having a fucking laugh mate!
You have repeatedly demonstrated your inability to comprehend and evaluate information especially that of a conspiratorial nature, so it's clear you would not grasp the concept of a shooting incident as a false flag event. Just like three towers free falling to the deck on 9II was an everyday occurrence (move along nothing to see here).

Of course. You get 10 911s a day and that one was just weird. Right?
WTC7 was measured at freefall for IIRC 2 seconds. And...I think that's it.

Wow you're right we are all fucking stupid buildings fall down in their own footprints daily. Do you realise how ridiculous it is to accept the collapses on 9II as a rational and physically plausible events?
I think the American people know exactly what their priorities are, and they have every intention of defending their nation from their enemies domestic or foreign. .

Evidence?
Now you will be screaming because this is associated with AJ while ignoring the fact that these people were on the ground and involved with the exercises. If you can't see what the implications are then you are naive and there is evidence to support what's going on because it's been done in the past. The British government did it in Glasgow in the general strike (Bloody Friday), when they sent English troops in to break up the strikers. The reason given was because they didn't want locals who may have displayed sympathy towards their fellow Scots. It's a well known and exploited tactic.
"enemies domestic or foreign". Jeez. You sound like George Bush.

Your ignorance knows no bounds!

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." William James
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman talks to Russell Brand about voting, revolution and beards... 08 Nov 2013 20:21 #18

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
Frog wrote:

Ye buildings crumble to a pile of dust when ever an office catches fire! WTC7 didn't even suffer an impact and yet again it fell into its own footprint. You would have to close your mind off entirely to even begin to imagine that the collapse of the three towers was a natural consequence of the damage they sustained! You would also have to accept that the totally rigged official report that totally ignored the WTC7 collapse was above board and investigated all the facts. It was a total farce and a child of three would take all of five minutes to draw that conclusion!

It didn't fall into it's own footprint at all -the debris spilled over the road. That's just one of those factoids truthers blindly parrot.
I think you'd have to be off your mind to think a 47 story skyscraper was somehow rigged in total secrecy to be detonated in an unprecedented silent two-stage demolition for no reason whatsover in a conspiracy apparently involving the fire department who said they expected it to collapse because it had been left burning uncechecked for hours. The entire WTC 47 idea comes from the fact the collapse of the main facade (typically tactically snipped by truthers top avoid showing the full collapse) visually looks like a CD. Then people have spent 10 years running round desperately trying to prove it and getting absolutely nowhere. It's classic conspiracy bullshit. And I'm not being aloof about that because I kinda bought that bullshit myself for a short time.
It's the same kinda deal with the twin towers. It doesn't even make any sense - it's just science fiction for a generation of people who grew up on Hollywood special effects blockbusters.
It's obviously beyond mere conspiracy maybe you haven't been keeping up.
Looks like people in the States are taking the threat seriously for something which according to you is a figment of their imagination!

I asked for evidence of a conspiracy, not some bloke making rather exaggerated claims a revolution is occurring.

There isn't actually any evidence of this conspiracy is there?
The point is you were/are talking bollocks from a misinformed position as per usual.

I would be when it comes to guns because I don't care about them.

Are you suggesting that we should accept bollocks legislation and the fact that the Police can act negligently without repercussions?

No, I'm saying knee-jerk reactions and police corruption are basically standard.
We have a constitution the fact that you're ignorant of that fact is hardly surprising. The American constitution uses part of our constitution as its foundation. Go read about the Magna Carta also try reading Sir William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England". While your researching it you should discover the other two primary documents which form our constitution.

Is this FMOTL bullshit? Magna Carta?

I repeat, I was under the impression the UK does not a US style constitution. Not that I care about such matter particularly, but I kinda thought the way the UK works is based on its current legislation. You can't go into a court citing Magna Carta - they'd just laugh at you. And given laws only exist to the extent people believe in them that's not going to do you any good.
I kinda thought guns were why they targeted them in the first place.

Guns were the excuse used to attack the compound, but if you spend some time researching the actual story you will discover that they weren't a risk and were deliberately targeted and massacred.

I agree - they didn't seem to pose any risk.

The question was what deterrent their guns presented when you say yourself they were the very reason they were attacked - which is the direct opposite of a deterrent isn't it?
You're saying that it's OK for third parties to threaten lawful people with guns, while lawful people should have no means to defend themselves? Why are you assuming that it's only the police that attend evictions?

No, I'm saying I'd be very surprised if having a gun was a deterrent in repossessions. In the same way as if I started waving a machete at some bailiffs they would simply call the police who would not shit their pants and refuse to come because I was armed.
You seem to be under the impression that all 34 of the Red Army's victims were not innocent people. You would also have to consider proactive violence to be the same as self defence.

As I stated on that other thread, some of their actions were dubious, but they did target what you might call 'legitimate targets' and did not target the public.
Just out of interest- who would you say they killed that were innocent?

But again you fail to address the point. You promote guns and claim people need them in the context of government tyranny, but when people actually fight the government you denounce them as terrorists, just like your TV tells you to.
Our constitutional right to bare arms was removed by the state because an armed civilian force can defend its self! Humm the grass roots working class have done such a great job in the past. They always get screwed because they assign leaders who seem to have a habit of selling them out. When reading the history of the General Strike it soon becomes obvious who was responsible for the failure of the workers to achieve their goals.

as I've pointed out to you before (yet you appear to believe something else happened, something to do with our benevlolent leaders or something), the ONLY REASON you got workplace rights, the NHS, free education, high taxes for the rich ad infinitum is because ordinary people fought for them. And they didn't need macho fantasies about guns to do it.

Indeed, there were big problems with corrupt leaderships. That does not detract from the point the bosses were - for a time - scared of the power of the workers. Which is why all that had to be undermined. And the masses distracted with wild tales of exploding skyscrapers and Satanists in pop music and all the other hokum CTs peddle.

And again you seem to get very upset at the thought of revolutionaries actually using their guns anyway.

Humm it's par for the course reading your comments based on ignorance.

Why the constant ad homs? Though I expect nothing less of a person so arrogant they thought they'd use their little bit of power to break into oine of UT's posts and edit it.
Did that make you feel powerful?

No, guns can be used to kill if that's the intention at a given time. Are you saying that every time a gun is discharged someone or something dies as a result?

No, I'm saying a gun is designed as a killing implement. It's not for ploughing fields or tightening screws, it is designed to kill. That is its function, whether it actually performs its given function or not. What you're saying is a bit like saying

"Are you saying every time a screwdriver is taken out of a toolbox a screw is tightened? Of course not. So therefore screwdrivers are not made solely for the function of tightening screws."
Nope no confusion I understand fully what they are for! You on the other hand seem to be highly confused, ignorant and totally irrational when discussing the subject. The State is a threat to the population it's the single biggest threat to us as the current state of the Nation demonstrates. We don't have the ability to form armed militias in the UK because the State removed our ability to defend ourselves. Fortunately the American population still retain that ability and rightly so!

...And yet the American population is conspicuously failing to form any militias.
Even the kind of right wing capitalist ones I assume you'd approve of.


No, you make it very clear that you're against the peoples right to bear arms.

I did? Where?


Why would I waste my time feeding you anything when you're happy to live in ignorance?

Why would you repeatedly claim something you can in no way, shape or form substantiate?

Punishment park wasn't about FEMA camps it was a bout a choice of crossing the desert to get a reduced sentence. It was also an demonstration of psycho cops killing unarmed people. Ye right there are no FEMA camps and there is no legislation for them, I guess HR-645 is about kindergarten after school clubs. In the UK sports stadiums and disused military bases will be used for the same purposes, and if you think there are no provisions for such an eventuality you would have to be extremely naive.

It was about the government acting to round up a dissenting population and start killing them. It;'s a reflection of a notion popular on the left that subsequently shifted to being a right wing preoccupation, becoming ever more hysterical.
Whereas I am sure that in the event of something like an environmental catastrophe or nuclear war such measure might be put into effect, what's far more likely to happen is what in fact is happening now - shut up and work or go live on the streets and starve. They don't need FEMA camps. Sit down and ask yourself seriously what purpose they would serve.

We as in the 99% are all guilty regardless of wealth or lack of it! We have a responsibility to maintain our rights and keep the State in check. My guns? Are you some sort of cunt? We don't have an armed civilian population in the UK which you are in full knowledge of! The American civilian population do have the ability and if they need to fall back on it they have that option. Which is exactly why the second amendment was included in their constitution!

You don't want to keep the state in check though do you? You sneer at working class organisation and despise armed revolutionaries.
You just want a gun in the hope it will somehow magically solve everything.
No I don't agree with killing innocent people you're quite correct on that fact! I don't have an issue with people engaged in self defence. I don't share your view the likes of Ulrike Meinhof should be seen as a roll model.

I believe in more than self defence. I believe in the defence of my fellow ordinary humans. I guess that's the difference. I believe in the people. You believe in protecting your little corner.

So it's OK for 400000 chickens to be force reared in a shed in six weeks, unable to bear their own weight because their legs are underdeveloped and then slung in crates to be sent off to some production line. You have no idea about the country scene in the UK most of which are rough shoots not major country estate shoots. The TV only shows toffs standing on pegs shooting on country estates which isn't representative of the majority. The media plays on the pee brains and ill informed prejudice or narrow minded morons.

Please try to pay attention to what is said. It gets tiresome that you seem totally unable to.
Of course I do not approve - if I regard eating meat solely for pleasure as barbarism why would I?
Please explain to me how 60 million people - primarily concentrated in large cities - could get their meat by shooting it wild in the UK.

What's so great about these rough shoots of yours? Why would an animal care if a toff shoots it or not? Have you considered they may prefer to not be shot at all?

Killing animals with guns is for pussies anyway. Strip naked and catch and kill it it with your bare hands like nature intended. any twat can point a gun at an animal and pull the trigger. It's not big and it's not clever, no matter who does it.

Here's some more 'terrorists' for you get irate about.



If you don't like the way chickens are kept, put vour gun loving ass into action doing something about it.
[

You don't see anything because you're too hung up in your prejudice views and you don't have the wit to see the obvious when it's in plain sight! So what's the ideal protection against tyranny? Buckets of cold water and piles of soggy sponges? The people in American aren't bloody stupid and they know exactly what the Second amendment is written into their constitution for. Fortunately the wise far out number the fools and would be tyrants.

Working class organisation to seize control of the means of production, run them according to the principles of cooperation and mutual aid and abolish money.

Though I admit that doesn't involve standing stripped to the waist, wearing a bandana and going eh eh eh eh eh eh! - while running and calling the police at the prospect of any actual revolutionaries.

The major land owners on the planet are governments. In Africa right now the traditional common lands are being sold from under the people by their governments to multinationals. Capitalism and the Military Industrial complex are not one in the same thing - capitalism has been hijacked by corporations who have monopolised the free market with the assistance of the State. The only reason there are poor and hungry people is because the governments and corporations want things that way. It's by design!

Actually they're monarchs. In fact, Queen Liz owns the most. The point is everywhere you go is 'owned'. The earth itself is a commodity, not the means of our existence no one person or group or corporation should have any privileges over. Somebody with lots of special pieces of paper gets to 'own' thew land and 'own' the factory built on it other people actually built and 'own' the goods other people made for them in it. And he will punish them if they do not do his bidding to his satisfaction by halting this process because they rely on these special pieces of paper to survive in a world where everything is 'owned' and you need the paper to get basic necessities. So he says he does them a favour by getting rich off their hard work. Can you not see what is wrong with this picture? Of course not - because you're a capitalist like your TV tells you to be. Because the media is owned by the vested interests of the rich. And luckily for them, self-styled 'rebels' like Alex Jones believe basically the same stuff they do. He just targets a niche market.
Capitalism IS corporations. What's this fluffy kind of capitalism you imagine? One without a state? That would be government by McDonalds.
How is capitalism "hijacked" by an entity it creates in the first place and is intrinsic to its functioning? It's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard.
You may as well have said "The problem is that Satanism has been too Satanised by the Satanists".
Capitalism is solely concerned with the accumulation of profit. It is quite literally putting money before everything else. It is the basis of our current nightmare. Ore do you simply believe what your TV tells you - that it's the only possible way to live?
Without any state, who do you imagine will stop monopolies from appearing everywhere?

Well there is plenty of evidence to suggest you're talking out of your hole. There are dentists who still insist that mercury fillings are safe they would consider themselves to be professionals and well informed. The reality is they are dumb fuckers doing what they are told and doing no research of their own.

What does dentists and mercury fillings have to do with whether SSRIs are safe?
You do realise who provided the data for that report right? You also realise that that was only a small group who independently contributed to the data! They did that because they were seeing patterns in behaviour but hey I guess now you have shared your wisdom we can safely ignore their findings just like there was nothing to see at 9/11. You're having a fucking laugh mate!

It doesn't matter who did the report, it is clearly very flawed whoever it was and their 'patterns' seem to contain at least some element of confirmation bias.
I simply reported my own experience which,m as it happens, contradicts my general beliefs about psychiatric drugs. I simply said I feel I cannot willfully ignore what people report. What is your problem with that?
Certainly some people do have extreme reactions to SSRIs. Some have less extreme negative experiences and do not experience benefit. This is a risk with many kinds of drug. But overall they have been very successful - or would you choose to dismiss all the people who say they have helped on the basis this does not fit what you wish to believe?

Wow you're right we are all fucking stupid buildings fall down in their own footprints daily. Do you realise how ridiculous it is to accept the collapses on 9II as a rational and physically plausible events?

No. Because I don't think it is, nor do I see any evidence any of the buildings 'fell into their own footprint' The twin towers debris was all over the fucking place.
I think the American people know exactly what their priorities are, and they have every intention of defending their nation from their enemies domestic or foreign. .
Now you will be screaming because this is associated with AJ while ignoring the fact that these people were on the ground and involved with the exercises. If you can't see what the implications are then you are naive and there is evidence to support what's going on because it's been done in the past. The British government did it in Glasgow in the general strike (Bloody Friday), when they sent English troops in to break up the strikers. The reason given was because they didn't want locals who may have displayed sympathy towards their fellow Scots. It's a well known and exploited tactic.

I'll simply say you failed to provide the requested evidence and appeared to believe the request related to something different

Why do you care about Glasgow strikers? I thought you weren't into that kind of pinko stuff? Shouldn't the strikers have simply stayed at home and cradled their automatic rifles?
Your ignorance knows no bounds!

I simply think you've been filling your head with too much right wing American stuff.
No War But The Class War
Last Edit: 08 Nov 2013 21:27 by Chuck Random.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Related topics

Topic subjectRelevanceDate of latest post
Do you trust Russell Brand?13.94Sunday, 21 January 2018
Russell Brand rages at the Sun and Rupert Murdoch13.64Friday, 29 November 2013
Downing Street demands apology after Jeremy Paxman calls David Cameron 'complete idiot'13.38Monday, 11 November 2013
Russell Brand, Jimmy Saville, David Icke & Controlled Opposition13.21Wednesday, 02 March 2016
RIGHT voting7.61Wednesday, 08 June 2016
Anyone going to bother voting in our pretend democracy in May?7.36Wednesday, 15 October 2014
Audiences Already Voting on Scottish Independence at Arts Festival7.2Wednesday, 17 September 2014
(YT) Richard Russell: American Hero6.97Thursday, 23 August 2018
I trust Russel Brand6.9Wednesday, 03 December 2014
Ickonic. a brand of snake oil..6.9Thursday, 21 November 2019
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 260 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 210 - Raised
( £ 160 GBP )
donation thermometer
62%
Updated
6th January 2020

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.