Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 3 votes

Anti-Gun propaganda on show 'Glee'


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#16    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    Environmentally Friendly

  • Member
  • 29,263 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trump Tower

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:05 PM

View Postealdwita, on 13 April 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:


Now in the UK, only robbers, murderers and 'gangstahs' have self-defensive-type firearms, and the British Public have neither the right of self-defence nor proper redress against criminals!
And the likelihood of any member of the Public who's not a member of a Gang ever encountering anyone who's got any kind of criminal intent who might be packing a piece is, what...? Somewhat less than negligible? Even in inner city urban areas, when the likelihood of carrying a knife is immeasurably more likely. And how often does one encounter a Murderer while out shopping?

Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."

~ D. Trump.


“You are going to hear all the familiar complaints: ‘freedom of speech,’ ” Mrs. Clinton said in an hourlong speech


#17    Ealdwita

Ealdwita

    Hwt oredmcg

  • Member
  • 5,272 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:10 PM

I'd much rather carry a gun and not need it than the other way around!

"Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel, ac gecnáwan þín gefá!": "Fate goes ever as she shall, but know thine enemy!".
I can teach you with a quip, if I've a mind; I can trick you into learning with a laugh; Oh, winnow all my folly and you'll find, A grain or two of truth among the chaff!
(The Yeoman of the Guard ~ Gilbert and Sullivan)

#18    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:12 PM

View Postealdwita, on 13 April 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

Ealdwita snippet alert.......

Ignoring the four Acts passed by James II, the first 'restrictive' firearms laws were passed after the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715, and only applied to Scotland initially. "An act for the more effectual securing the peace of the highlands in Scotland" and came  into effect on November 1, 1716 which outlawed anyone in defined parts of Scotland from having "in his or their custody, use, or bear, broad sword or target, poignard, whinger, or durk, side pistol, gun, or other warlike weapon" unless authorised. This was reinforced by another 'Scottish' Act passed in 1725.

The first nationwide controls came within the 'Vagrancy Act' of 1824, ostensibly as a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic Wars. The Act allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger [dagger], cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act".

The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (about £31 in 2005 terms), lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.

And it was all downhill from there.

The Pistols Act 1903 placed restriction on gun sales.
The Firearms Act 1920 (partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of firearms available following WWI).
Then another Act (1937) covered shotguns and air weapons.
The 1968 Act brought all firearms in the UK under one statute of Law and existed until the Hungerford massacre when an Amendment was passed effectively  prohibiting semi-automatic and pump-action centre-fire rifles, military weapons firing explosive ammunition, short shotguns that had magazines, and both elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles.
1997 brought the Firearms Act Amendment No2), banning private possession of handguns almost completely.

Now in the UK, only robbers, murderers and 'gangstahs' have self-defensive-type firearms, and the British Public have neither the right of self-defence nor proper redress against criminals!

Brilliant post Ealdwita. :tu:

Never actually knew most of that. Just vague bits of it. Glad you posted it saves me doing my homework. Haha


The first part makes it so obvious what gun/weapon control is about. I used to read about about how the government/Royals at the time time tried to control Scotland with some outrageous laws making the Scottish out to be second class to English. It's jsut a shame that the Rich and powerful in Scotland sold out to the Rich and powerful in England. Ended the chnace of the Scottish being able to liberate the English. Would have been a great moment in History if the people of Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England completely took down the government/Royals.


View Postealdwita, on 13 April 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

I'd much rather carry a gun and not need it than the other way around!

I have a crossbow, but I've not tried carrying it in public. Haha


View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 13 April 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

And the likelihood of any member of the Public who's not a member of a Gang ever encountering anyone who's got any kind of criminal intent who might be packing a piece is, what...? Somewhat less than negligible? Even in inner city urban areas, when the likelihood of carrying a knife is immeasurably more likely. And how often does one encounter a Murderer while out shopping?

Depends on the area.

I know people who have rooms full of firearms and higher grade military stuff, like grenade launchers. lol

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 13 April 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

[1] Pure paranoia
[2] Who's that, then? North korea? Or are we talking about the UN?
[3] & [4]: perhaps the reason that one needs [so one says] to have Guns to protect oneself from Spree killers is that Guns are so easy to have that any Spree killer or even just someone robbing one's home that one might encounter might well be likely to have one themselves. Self-perpetuating cycle?


[1] It's not paranoia if it's justified. That's the exact rubbish the Government tried to sue to devalue people. Do you work for a government agency or something? lol
[2] The UN might be signing an agreement to allow foreign troops to be used to patrol countries in the UN, it's a way around proper martial law.
[3]&[4] If that is the case then it's still better that the innocent have their rights and freedom than the innocent suffer because of the criminals. That is like saying we should all be chipped and tagged like cattle because not all of us cna be trusted to behave. Let me guess you back the ID chip idea?

Edited by Coffey, 13 April 2013 - 06:19 PM.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#19    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    Environmentally Friendly

  • Member
  • 29,263 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trump Tower

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:22 PM

View Postealdwita, on 13 April 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

I'd much rather carry a gun and not need it than the other way around!
If someone has a gun, then there's always the possibility that it might be used, and if that person is just an average person not trained in the use of firearms, the results are quite likely to be significantly more dangerous than if they didn't have one in the first place. In what circumstances would you envisage possibly needing a gun from day to day? Whenever a person saw anyone who they thought looked at them in a funny way? Would their use be strictly limited to only if someone pulled a Gun on them? or would people be free to blast away at anyone at all if they felt remotely threatened?

Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."

~ D. Trump.


“You are going to hear all the familiar complaints: ‘freedom of speech,’ ” Mrs. Clinton said in an hourlong speech


#20    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    Environmentally Friendly

  • Member
  • 29,263 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trump Tower

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:27 PM

View PostCoffey, on 13 April 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:


[1] It's not paranoia if it's justified. That's the exact rubbish the Government tried to sue to devalue people. Do you work for a government agency or something? lol
[2] The UN might be signing an agreement to allow foreign troops to be used to patrol countries in the UN, it's a way around proper martial law.
[3]&[4] If that is the case then it's still better that the innocent have their rights and freedom than the innocent suffer because of the criminals. That is like saying we should all be chipped and tagged like cattle because not all of us cna be trusted to behave. Let me guess you back the ID chip idea?
[1] what? I'm not sure i understand that. lol
[2] of course they might, yes; this is the same all-powerful secret international organisation that couldn't do a blind thing to stop G.W. Bush invading whoever he liked. lol.
[3] & [4]; again, sorry? What on earth do ID chips have to do with anything? lol.
[5] lol.

Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."

~ D. Trump.


“You are going to hear all the familiar complaints: ‘freedom of speech,’ ” Mrs. Clinton said in an hourlong speech


#21    F3SS

F3SS

    Heading towards the unknown

  • Member
  • 9,439 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:37 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 13 April 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:


[1] Pure paranoia
[2] Who's that, then? North korea? Or are we talking about the UN?
[3] & [4]: perhaps the reason that one needs [so one says] to have Guns to protect oneself from Spree killers is that Guns are so easy to have that any Spree killer or even just someone robbing one's home that one might encounter might well be likely to have one themselves. Self-perpetuating cycle?
It is a perpetuating cycle. Guns are here. And unless everybody in the world throws theirs into a volcano all at the same time they will always be here. You want them taken from good people knowing well that bad guys and oppressive governments will always have them. But...

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 13 April 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:


And the likelihood of any member of the Public who's not a member of a Gang ever encountering anyone who's got any kind of criminal intent who might be packing a piece is, what...? Somewhat less than negligible? Even in inner city urban areas, when the likelihood of carrying a knife is immeasurably more likely. And how often does one encounter a Murderer while out shopping?
...If it's such an unlikely occurrence then why get rid of them?  
Gangs are an issue, they don't just shoot each other and they hardly own the criminal market. Criminal intent and activity span the human spectrum.


#22    Glorfindel

Glorfindel

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The answer to 1984, is uhhh... 1812?

Posted 13 April 2013 - 07:52 PM

Remember, even if people got rid of all their guns, simple guns can be made out of piping and various household items, it has and can be done so that is no solution. Its only paranoia if you choose to ignore pretty much the whole of human history... Im sure people in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia said the same thing, "youre just being paranoid, as if the government would ever harm us". In fact, I read a book by Elie Wiesel and he said during the Holocaust, Jews who were fleeing western europe were passed off as paranoid or insane when they tryed telling other communities of the horrors they witnessed. It is just endlessy naive to think it will never happen again, especially when our governments are rubbing their recent power grabs in our faces. And I still can't wrap my head around these people who keep saying gun to defend your property/family is unneccesary... Criminals would have a hayday if they knew most houses were unarmed. Then again, these people who advocate for less guns and more control, are usually the ones advocating for the human rights of a murderer or rapist over their victims.


#23    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 13 April 2013 - 09:35 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 13 April 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

[1] what? I'm not sure i understand that. lol
[2] of course they might, yes; this is the same all-powerful secret international organisation that couldn't do a blind thing to stop G.W. Bush invading whoever he liked. lol.
[3] & [4]; again, sorry? What on earth do ID chips have to do with anything? lol.
[5] lol.

[1]How can you not understand that it's simple. If someones worry is justified, like the fact the government is taking peoples freedom. Then it's not paranoia. Paranoia is people worrying about things that won't happen and it's a mental state. Not the same as justified worry.
[2] HAHAHAHAHA you honestly think that monkey Bush was behind making wars? He couldn't even remember what he was supposed to eb saying half the time. lol
[3] Everything to do with it. You are saying innocent people shouldn't own firearms because criminals and nutjobs can get them easier. That's exactly the same as saying everyone should have ID chips because anyone could be a criminal. It's absurd and taking freedom from those who are innocent. What happened happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Edited by Coffey, 13 April 2013 - 09:35 PM.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#24    supervike

supervike

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,965 posts
  • Joined:16 May 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 April 2013 - 09:58 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 13 April 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

[
[3] & [4]: perhaps the reason that one needs [so one says] to have Guns to protect oneself from Spree killers is that Guns are so easy to have that any Spree killer or even just someone robbing one's home that one might encounter might well be likely to have one themselves. Self-perpetuating cycle?

That may certainly be a self-perpetuating cycle, but are law abiding citizens just supposed to give up our guns, in hopes that the spree killing criminals will as well?

Until I can be guaranteed that no bad guys have guns, I'll hold onto mine.


#25    supervike

supervike

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,965 posts
  • Joined:16 May 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:08 PM

View PostEonwe, on 13 April 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

http://news.yahoo.co...s-politics.html


Source: Yahoo news

Quotation by character played by Jane Lynch.



Hail glorious leader Obama, friend of the media.

Just as Biden thanked CNN for their efforts on promoting Gun Control, thank you Fox for not allowing these gun-nuts to tarnish our dear leader's vision. As this episode of Glee is in conjunction with all the other pieces of evidence of the indoctrination of our youth, let is not forget that there is a battle currently being waged over our basic right to self-defense and the mind's of young children every where.

Seems a cop out to  blame the media all the time.   They get to exercise their freedom of speech as well.  If we only had 1 television station, or 1 source of information, then maybe, but if kids are indoctrinated by the media, it's only the parents fault for allowing it.  There are plenty of opposing viewpoints out there, and quite frankly that Freedom of Speech amendment is just as important as that Right to Bear arms one.


#26    Glorfindel

Glorfindel

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The answer to 1984, is uhhh... 1812?

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:20 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 13 April 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

And the likelihood of any member of the Public who's not a member of a Gang ever encountering anyone who's got any kind of criminal intent who might be packing a piece is, what...? Somewhat less than negligible? Even in inner city urban areas, when the likelihood of carrying a knife is immeasurably more likely. And how often does one encounter a Murderer while out shopping?

If you wanna play "likelihoods", youre more likely to be shot by a cop in the USA then to be shot by a terrorist or mass shooting spree killer. Which makes the whole antigun argument that much more invalid.


#27    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:23 PM

View PostGlorfindel, on 13 April 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

If you wanna play "likelihoods", youre more likely to be shot by a cop in the USA then to be shot by a terrorist or mass shooting spree killer. Which makes the whole antigun argument that much more invalid.

Very good point.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#28    F3SS

F3SS

    Heading towards the unknown

  • Member
  • 9,439 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:23 PM

View Postsupervike, on 13 April 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:



Seems a cop out to  blame the media all the time.   They get to exercise their freedom of speech as well.  If we only had 1 television station, or 1 source of information, then maybe, but if kids are indoctrinated by the media, it's only the parents fault for allowing it.  There are plenty of opposing viewpoints out there, and quite frankly that Freedom of Speech amendment is just as important as that Right to Bear arms one.
Totally agree except for there being plenty of opposing views. There absolutely are but not on television. Nearly every cable and news channel is liberal. FOX NEWS pretty much stands alone in its brand of reporting. Now there are lots of newspapers and Internet sources that offer all types of variety but if kids are catching anything newsworthy it's likely on TV. Otherwise for papers and Internet you have to actively seek out the news and how many kids do that?


#29    F3SS

F3SS

    Heading towards the unknown

  • Member
  • 9,439 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh

Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:24 PM

View PostGlorfindel, on 13 April 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:



If you wanna play "likelihoods", youre more likely to be shot by a cop in the USA then to be shot by a terrorist or mass shooting spree killer. Which makes the whole antigun argument that much more invalid.
Welcome new guy! I welcome sensible voices.


#30    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:16 PM

View PostColonel Rhuairidh, on 13 April 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

If someone has a gun, then there's always the possibility that it might be used, and if that person is just an average person not trained in the use of firearms, the results are quite likely to be significantly more dangerous than if they didn't have one in the first place. In what circumstances would you envisage possibly needing a gun from day to day? Whenever a person saw anyone who they thought looked at them in a funny way? Would their use be strictly limited to only if someone pulled a Gun on them? or would people be free to blast away at anyone at all if they felt remotely threatened?


So with this "logic" of yours, we should also cut off all men's, well, let's say "reproductive organ" because some men use those to rape women.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users