ForumGarden

Smaug;1489941 wrote: That's all very true, but consider a council estate where 95% of the people are peaceful and law-abiding, and the other 5% are thugs, drug dealers, muggers and burglars. That 5% is all that's required to make the estate a fear-filled battle-zone! When we're talking Islam and the call from many hard-line Mullahs to Jihaad, surely the risk of a swiftly spreading 'religious fire' is apparent?

I shudder at the many images of crowds of young Islamic men shouting their hate for us, and their plans to Islamify us all whether we like it or not. If we want to see the rise of the far-right in this country, we're going the right way about it! If you need evidence of this, just have a look at Greece. They have a party there called "The Golden Dawn" which is far-right and claims it is the only party in Greece trying to preserve Greek culture.

The worrying and sad thing is they may be right about that.


All well and good but the 0.1% of Muslims that are Jihadists should not be used to tar the entire barrel.

As for Golden Dawn, Greece is a country in crisis and, as usually happens, it's polarising - the communist and other far left parties there make the same claim.

Thought you all might be interested in a documentary programme that will be going out at 9 pm tonight (Monday 23 Nov.) on Channel 4 UK TV, looks like it will be replacing the advertised programme.

"ISIS; The British women supporters " on Channel 4 (UK TV) at 9 pm Monday (23 November).

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/621266 ... 29&ref=yfp

LarsMac;1489932 wrote: Oh, the do, indeed. If they ever truly feel threatened with extinction, they will be able to take the rest of the world with them.


Considering that is only the Arabs and Persians threating Israel with extinction, it be up to them.

tude dog;1489974 wrote: Considering that is only the Arabs and Persians treating Israel with extinction, it be up to them.


When the planet is a lifeless cinder, will it really matter who started it?

Bruv;1489934 wrote: I have never seen the logic in your American 2nd Amendment, but if it's apologists insist in makes America a safer place, why wouldn't a global 2nd amendment work the same ?


First of all nobody is making apologies for the natural right which the 2nd amendment represents.

You tell me, why wouldn't a global 2nd amendment work the same


Don't know what you mean by that.

Bruv;1489935 wrote: The Gatestone Institute publishes articles by a number of prominent right wing, neoconservative, Zionist and counter-jihad individuals and organisations and promotes them at exclusive speaking events, often in New York City.



No bias there then.


Your link didn't word for me, but I did goole this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatestone_Institute]Gatestone Institute

I don't get it.

tude dog;1489976 wrote: First of all nobody is making apologies for the natural right which the 2nd amendment represents.

You tell me,

Don't know what you mean by that.


How do you define a "natural right"?

The second amendment is, by definition, a legal right that was not even considered important anough to include in the original constitution.

Bruv;1489936 wrote: The story line to the 1964 film Dr Strangelove was far more believable.


Gosh, I love Slim Pickens.

Bryn Mawr;1489978 wrote: How do you define a "natural right"?

The second amendment is, by definition, a legal right that was not even considered important anough to include in the original constitution.


A natural right is one we are born with, like breathing.

The Constitution itself was written to define the government. Defining the separation of powers. taxation, trade between the states, etc.

There was an argument as to if a Bill of Rights was even necessary.

Lucky for us the first ten amedments were created.

spot;1489938 wrote: Given the annual billions of dollars of financial and armaments aid Israel gets from the USA, I don't expect you have.

Egypt gets something along the same lines, did you know?

Banning the transfer abroad of all US aid, private and government, to any foreign government or NGO, would help the cause of peace and prosperity immensely. Would it not be a popular measure among Republicans?


Golly



This is nothing new, The U.S. gives Egypt $1.5 billion a year in aid

LarsMac;1489975 wrote: When the planet is a lifeless cinder, will it really matter who started it?

tude dog;1489976 wrote: First of all nobody is making apologies for the natural right which the 2nd amendment represents.

You tell me,

Don't know what you mean by that.


I am sure you are only feigning stupidity.

I shall spell it out because I know some Americans just 'don't get it' (inhaling too much gunpowder I suspect)

If the 2nd amendment protects American's life and liberty, why not protect the world and it's independent country's lives and liberty, by 'allowing' them to have nuclear arms ?

G#Gill;1489957 wrote: Thought you all might be interested in a documentary programme that will be going out at 9 pm tonight (Monday 23 Nov.) on Channel 4 UK TV, looks like it will be replacing the advertised programme.


I watched it Gill, didn't like what I saw, but I don't like these people either Westboro Baptist Church , you must have run into their deeply held beliefs before on the news. Don't make either of them right, neither will end up ruling the world though.

Choose who you listen to, and the conclusions they come to.

Sun headline............1 in 5 British Muslims sympathise with jihadis

Mirror headline.......................ms-6882598"">No they don't.

Complain if you wish.

Bryn Mawr;1489978 wrote: How do you define a "natural right"?

The second amendment is, by definition, a legal right that was not even considered important anough to include in the original constitution.


You should probably read up on the Constitution, the process of its being written, and how the first ten amendments, known as the "Bill of Rights" came about, before going down that road.

I think that I stated before that the constitution and its ratification did not grant said rights. The Bill of Rights only enumerated certain "unalienable rights" that were assumed to be held by the citizens of the United States of America, and the ratification of the Constitution guaranteed that the newly formed government would be held to recognize them.

The fact that citizens of the various European countries have by default surrendered some of those rights to their government does not mean that we should do so as well.

What is being asked is that 100 million or so American citizens should surrender a right that has been ours for centuries just because a few thousand are incapable of behaving responsibly.

Bruv;1489988 wrote: I am sure you are only feigning stupidity.

I shall spell it out because I know some Americans just 'don't get it' (inhaling too much gunpowder I suspect)

If the 2nd amendment protects American's life and liberty, why not protect the world and it's independent country's lives and liberty, by 'allowing' them to have nuclear arms ?


The second Amendment does not protect anything. It merely states that the Federal government cannot prohibit citizens from arming themselves, nor confiscate weapons from its citizens without due process.

Were the United Nations to hold any authority, a variation of the US Second Amendment would be a good idea to prevent said authority from disarming nations and their citizens. Humans are not quite ready for that level of New World Order, yet.

The 2nd Amendment refers to "A Well Regulated Militia" - i.e. a Federal Military run by the Government - formed by the people, for the people. This, surely, is what is meant by "The People" - not every Tom, Dick or Harry having a bank of Assault Rifles.

tude dog;1489980 wrote: A natural right is one we are born with, like breathing.

The Constitution itself was written to define the government. Defining the separation of powers. taxation, trade between the states, etc.

There was an argument as to if a Bill of Rights was even necessary.

Lucky for us the first ten amedments were created.


The the right to own a gun is not, by your definition, a "natural right".

It is a right agreed by the people of the society you live in - were it a natural right the people would not have had the choice one way or the other, it would truly be inalienable in that no change to the societies legal framework would be able to remove it.

LarsMac;1489993 wrote: You should probably read up on the Constitution, the process of its being written, and how the first ten amendments, known as the "Bill of Rights" came about, before going down that road.

I think that I stated before that the constitution and its ratification did not grant said rights. The Bill of Rights only enumerated certain "unalienable rights" that were assumed to be held by the citizens of the United States of America, and the ratification of the Constitution guaranteed that the newly formed government would be held to recognize them.

The fact that citizens of the various European countries have by default surrendered some of those rights to their government does not mean that we should do so as well.

What is being asked is that 100 million or so American citizens should surrender a right that has been ours for centuries just because a few thousand are incapable of behaving responsibly.


For it to truly be an unalienable right (as opposed to just being called an unalienable right) it would not be possible for any society to remove it. The fact that many societies do not allow such a right shows that it is a legal right and not unalienable.

Bruv;1489989 wrote: I watched it Gill, didn't like what I saw, but I don't like these people either Westboro Baptist Church , you must have run into their deeply held beliefs before on the news. Don't make either of them right, neither will end up ruling the world though.


I watched it too, Bruv. It brought a chill to my spine. The women involved in those 'secret' meetings seem to be British born ! I don't think I will be able to be near somebody who has a burka on from now on, because how would you know if they were OK or carryng explosives ? To think that women born and bred in this country (England) could be radicalised like that, is a horrifying thought. They should be arrested and charged with treason ! What they were doing was against our Queen and country.

The girl who went under-cover to collect all that evidence was so brave to do what she did. I sincerely hope she is careful and possibly even change her address and phone numbers - her life is in danger now and I hope she has security around her to watch her back. Those jihadists will certainly have seen that documentary and I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled out all the stops to try to trace the under-cover girl.

That Westboro Baptist Church lot seem just as fanatical as the jihadists ! I hope they stay in America and don't bother us over here ! Why doesn't America's legal system round the lot up and charge them with incitement, after all, what their placards say is exceedingly offensive ! Public Order Offence at least.

LarsMac;1489994 wrote: Humans are not quite ready for that level of New World Order, yet.


But collectively American citizens are ready ?

And their government capable of judging whether other sovereign states are ready or not ?

Bryn Mawr;1490006 wrote: For it to truly be an unalienable right (as opposed to just being called an unalienable right) it would not be possible for any society to remove it. The fact that many societies do not allow such a right shows that it is a legal right and not unalienable.


Firstly it does not specifically state that owning guns is a right. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is interpreted to mean that as a citizen of a free state, I have a right to arm myself. It is therefore the duty of the government of said free state to secure that right, and any attempt by the government to disarm me is a violation of that right. Anything other than my willful unforced surrender of said arms is a violation of my right to arm myself.

After that has been assumed, then we can start to talk about the opening phrase.

G#Gill;1490008 wrote: I watched it too, Bruv. It brought a chill to my spine. The women involved in those 'secret' meetings seem to be British born ! I don't think I will be able to be near somebody who has a burka on from now on, because how would you know if they were OK or carryng explosives ? To think that women born and bred in this country (England) could be radicalised like that, is a horrifying thought. They should be arrested and charged with treason ! What they were doing was against our Queen and country.

The girl who went under-cover to collect all that evidence was so brave to do what she did. I sincerely hope she is careful and possibly even change her address and phone numbers - her life is in danger now and I hope she has security around her to watch her back. Those jihadists will certainly have seen that documentary and I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled out all the stops to try to trace the under-cover girl.


My peculiar point of view was that I am fearful for genuine non radicalised burka wearers, afraid to go about their daily business due to the reaction on the street.

Many of those going to Syria are British born and bred too, the attractions must be very strong, the arguments convincing.

Again my own peculiar point of view is that it is not so much about religion more to do with generations of perceived injustice.

Bruv;1490009 wrote: But collectively American citizens are ready ?

And their government capable of judging whether other sovereign states are ready or not ?


I guess I was not all that clear. I was referring to the UN having true authority and disarming nations an their citizens.

THAT New World Order.

No, we humans are not yet ready for that.

Bruv;1490011 wrote: My peculiar point of view was that I am fearful for genuine non radicalised burka wearers, afraid to go about their daily business due to the reaction on the street.

Many of those going to Syria are British born and bred too, the attractions must be very strong, the arguments convincing.

Again my own peculiar point of view is that it is not so much about religion more to do with generations of perceived injustice.


I'm right there with you Bruv, was upset to read this just now. It's such a stupid knee-jerk nasty reaction and as a society we are doing this more and more. So sad to see.

Paris attacks: Women targeted as hate crime against British Muslims soars following terrorist atrocity | Home News | News | The Independent

LarsMac;1490010 wrote: Firstly it does not specifically state that owning guns is a right. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is interpreted to mean that as a citizen of a free state, I have a right to arm myself. It is therefore the duty of the government of said free state to secure that right, and any attempt by the government to disarm me is a violation of that right. Anything other than my willful unforced surrender of said arms is a violation of my right to arm myself.

After that has been assumed, then we can start to talk about the opening phrase.


I was responding to post #105 where TD calls it a natural right and post #109 where he defines that and references the constitution so that's not my argument - I'm saying that it is a legal right rather than a "natural right".

Bryn Mawr;1490014 wrote: I was responding to post #105 where TD calls it a natural right and post #109 where he defines that and references the constitution so that's not my argument - I'm saying that it is a legal right rather than a "natural right".


So you're saying that humans do not have a right to arm and protect themselves?



(Sorry, that may come across as a bit "trollish" but, it is a valid question, within the context of the overall discussion.)

LarsMac;1490015 wrote: So you're saying that humans do not have a right to arm and protect themselves?



(Sorry, that may come across as a bit "trollish" but, it is a valid question, within the context of the overall discussion.)


I am saying that it's not an inherent right, it's a right agreed by the members of a given society.

An article from an abrasive comedian that is irreverent but strangely on the ball.

Frankie Boyle

Bryn Mawr;1490017 wrote: I am saying that it's not an inherent right, it's a right agreed by the members of a given society.


What if Lars had written: "So you're saying that humans do not have a right to protect themselves?" ??

Would your answer be the same?

AnneBoleyn;1490022 wrote: What if Lars had written: "So you're saying that humans do not have a right to protect themselves?" ??

Would your answer be the same?


Totally different question - what are you defending yourself against?

(Taking me as an unreconstructed English speaker where generic references to people default to the male gender as English does not have a neuter form)

If your mindset is that the man in the street should be allowed to defend himself against any possible force that he might encounter I can see the only possible outcome being an ever spiralling arms race that no-one will ultimately survive. I see this as the US situation.

If, however, the man in the street only needs the same level of weapons to defend himself as he is likely to encounter in day to day life, the UK situation, then humans have every right to defend themselves and regularly do so.

The problem about the 2nd Amendment is that of ambiguity. As far as I interpret it, "The People" means everybody as an entire nation, not as a group of individuals. This means that the nation may have an official militia / army to be armed to defend that country, and I have no issues with that whatsoever. As I see it, why else would the reference to a well ordered militia even be mentioned?

FourPart;1490026 wrote: The problem about the 2nd Amendment is that of ambiguity. As far as I interpret it, "The People" means everybody as an entire nation, not as a group of individuals. This means that the nation may have an official militia / army to be armed to defend that country, and I have no issues with that whatsoever. As I see it, why else would the reference to a well ordered militia even be mentioned?


You are welcome to interpret it any way that you wish. However, the only interpretation that matters is that of the US Courts.

The view of the courts is to understand the original intent of the authors of the amendment within the time it was presented.

The first part of the statement is the justification, That militias should be able to be formed from a ready and able population. Of course, no one at the time foresaw the evolution of weaponry over the last sixty years.

Bottom line is simple. We have guns. We are not going to give them up just because the rest of the world thinks we should. We don't need a justification. They are ours, and we are keeping them. The task is to find a reasonable way to prevent as many random killings of innocents as possible.

Making us give up our guns is not the answer. Time to move on.

LarsMac;1490032 wrote: Bottom line is simple. We have guns. We are not going to give them up just because the rest of the world thinks we should. We don't need a justification. They are ours, and we are keeping them.............The task is to find a reasonable way to prevent as many random killings of innocents as possible.

......................Making us give up our guns is not the answer. ......................Time to move on.


This from the country out of step with the rest of the world's metric measurement.

Did I tell you of the mother watching her son's army passing out parade ?

While he went,left-right-left-right-left-right all the other soldiers went right-left-right-left-right-left, his mother's comment ?

"My son is the only one in step"

Isn't it ironic that we decry the Islamicists for not moving with the times & interpreting the Qu'ran in it's literal sense from the time at which it was written, when the U.S. is doing exactly the same thing with a document created about 240 years ago, when guns still had to be loaded with a ramrod.

How long will it be before the individual citizen is allowed to arm themselves with a nuclear missile?

LarsMac;1490032 wrote:

Bottom line is simple. We have guns. We are not going to give them up just because the rest of the world thinks we should. We don't need a justification. They are ours, and we are keeping them. The task is to find a reasonable way to prevent as many random killings of innocents as possible.

Making us give up our guns is not the answer. Time to move on.


There is no justification for an American citizen to have a machine gun, etc.

AnneBoleyn;1490041 wrote: There is no justification for an American citizen to have a machine gun, etc.


Well, I can't argue with that. But then, to have one requires a special permit.

AnneBoleyn;1490041 wrote: There is no justification for an American citizen to have a machine gun, etc.


That's why they find no need for one - because they know there can never be one.

Betty Boop;1490013 wrote: I'm right there with you Bruv, was upset to read this just now. It's such a stupid knee-jerk nasty reaction and as a society we are doing this more and more. So sad to see.

Paris attacks: Women targeted as hate crime against British Muslims soars following terrorist atrocity | Home News | News | The Independent


Unfortunately, the ordinary man/woman in the street in the UK doesn't trust Muslims wearing Burkas these days. It is understandable really but, as you say, it is sad. I doubt that anybody would be able to convince the suspicious Brits that 98% ish of any Burka wearers would be totally innocent of any terrorist activity. They would probably turn around and ask 'Which 2% of those Burka wearers are the terrorists ?'. Could the answer to that problem be (like France) to ban the Burka ?

LarsMac;1490042 wrote: Well, I can't argue with that. But then, to have one requires a special permit.


How is the special permit issued?

AnneBoleyn;1490047 wrote: How is the special permit issued?


You apply to the Federal government for a license through a FFA level III dealer.

G#Gill;1490046 wrote: Could the answer to that problem be (like France) to ban the Burka ?


The Paris female radicalised blonde haired alcohol drinking Muslim suicide bomber didn't wear a burka.

Like the Heathrow cross wearing Christian, the burka wearers are brave, in my opinion. Not that I agree with any of them, but I do respect their conviction.

LarsMac;1490048 wrote: You apply to the Federal government for a license through a FFA level III dealer.


What kind of stuff is up for discovery about the applicant?

Bruv;1490050 wrote: The Paris female radicalised blonde haired alcohol drinking Muslim suicide bomber didn't wear a burka.

Like the Heathrow cross wearing Christian, the burka wearers are brave, in my opinion. Not that I agree with any of them, but I do respect their conviction.


Their conviction? Or the fear of their husbands, fathers, brothers, mullahs & their society in general?

AnneBoleyn;1490052 wrote: Their conviction? Or the fear of their husbands, fathers, brothers, mullahs & their society in general?


You missed the "Like the Heathrow cross wearing Christian" bit.

They may fear the husband,father,brother,mullah and the society in Islamabad, not so much in London or Birmingham.

Following a documentary I watched recently,investigating with a hidden camera racial abuse on the streets of the UK, burka wearers run the gauntlet every time they leave the house................and thats not a contradiction.

Bruv;1489988 wrote: I am sure you are only feigning stupidity.


Thank you for that, I think.

Bruv;1489988 wrote: I shall spell it out because I know some Americans just 'don't get it' (inhaling too much gunpowder I suspect)

If the 2nd amendment protects American's life and liberty, why not protect the world and it's independent country's lives and liberty, by 'allowing' them to have nuclear arms ?


Nuclear arms, whatever that means is way beyond the concept of to keep and bear arms.

Bryn Mawr;1490005 wrote: The the right to own a gun is not, by your definition, a "natural right".

It is a right agreed by the people of the society you live in - were it a natural right the people would not have had the choice one way or the other, it would truly be inalienable in that no change to the societies legal framework would be able to remove it.


The shame is we had to define/protect it in a legal framework, i.e. the Bill of Rights.

Try amending the Bill of Rights allowing the government to take any of them away.

The House approved 17 amendments. Of these 17, the Senate approved 12. Those 12 were sent to the states for approval in August of 1789. Of those 12, 10 were quickly approved (or, ratified). Virginia’s legislature became the last to ratify the amendments on December 15, 1791.

The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.


BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1791)

AnneBoleyn;1490041 wrote: There is no justification for an American citizen to have a machine gun, etc.


I don't see any need for justification. If I want one that should be enough.

The laws are so oppressive in that respect to get one is extremely expensive, not to mention not many people can afford to shoot one.

I shudder to think what a civilian person would want a machine gun for! Madness ! It just wouldn't be fair play to use them in a duel !!!

G#Gill;1490057 wrote: I shudder to think what a civilian person would want a machine gun for! Madness ! It just wouldn't be fair play to use them in a duel !!!


No more madness than someone who wants to own a race car.

I wouldn't mind owning a machine gun. They are fun to shoot.