If you hold the Brits and Aussies up as examples re Gun Control

This post is simply to ask you to think about a possibility. We have only had a few years to observe Britain and Australia since their country's gun grab en masse. It is my belief that the Agenda Makers saved the best for last...America.

Listen up, Britain. Listen up, Australia.

As you know, it has only been a few short years (in Britain's case), and a couple of short years (in Australia's case) that guns were confiscated en mass. American gun control advocates like to point at these two countries and say, "See? It can work."

How many times have we heard people say, "Well...look at Britain/Australia's gun statistics since their government confiscated their guns.....blah blah blah....no tyrannical gov't takeover, no thugs gone wild taking over neighborhoods and communities"?

How many Brits and Aussies right here on this board spout out about how warm and secure and fuzzy they feel since the masses are no longer allowed to have guns. Heck, they even brag that the police don't have them!

Have you ever stopped to think that the Agenda Makers are waiting on America. They need your countries to look like an example of peaceful security without an armed populace.

It's important to them that Americans see those countries as living in peace and security. It's important for these Agenda Makers to introduce 2A arguments and to divide us on the issue. They will use whatever means at their disposal to nudge Americans closer and closer to being at their mercy.

There is a reason the Agenda Makers are allowing this......for now.

But, once, they can crack the tough nut that is America's 2A and disarm us all, the real GLOBAL takeover will begin. Then watch out Britain and Australia! Your example will no longer be necessary.

reply to post by queenofswords



What is a short year?

As opposed to a normal year?

Originally posted by Knobby
reply to post by queenofswords

 

What is a short year?

As opposed to a normal year?

LOL...it's an expression as in "how time flies!"

Interesting theory, although I have never looked at the British and thought of peaceful. LMAO My immediate thought when I think of the British is how many countries they have invaded, their treatment of the native people and more. I promise you, none of it is a positive, peaceful, or fuzzy feeling about them and their ways.

I don't make it a habit of looking to other countries and how they do things so that I can decide how I think my own country should operate.

reply to post by MaMaa



While not having our PMs tongue up the POTUS rectum, I can't think of many countries we have invaded recently.

and you should see me in my onsie, I am positvely peacefull and fuzzy.

Originally posted by Knobby
reply to post by MaMaa

 

While not having our PMs tongue up the POTUS rectum, I can't think of many countries we have invaded recently.

and you should see me in my onsie, I am positvely peacefull and fuzzy.

edit on 19-1-2013 by Knobby because: schpelling

Isn't that the normal for politicians? LOL And of course not recently, but it is what I first think of whenever I think of England. A onsie?? Like what babies wear? .. I'm vaguely creeped out! You and your creepy peaceful fuzziness can just stay over on your side of the pond! LMAO

I don't recall when guns were allowed in Britain other than for hunting, special police operations and our military etc. so what you are going on about?

America must find it's own solutions to it's social problems just as Britain and our cousins down under must find theirs'. We don't live in a perfect world and unfortunately there are people out there who are mentally ill, depressed, angry, filled with hate or simply evil. Those are the issues that need tackling.

If arming everyone is the easy answer then we may as well admit Iran has a right to develop nuclear weapons because in their governments eyes the US, UK and Australia are all the mad, bad guys who want to destroy them.

reply to post by queenofswords


The UK is a false comparison as even when handguns were legal the penetration of firearms in society was very small. The UK never really had a serious gun culture to begin with.

Its not like we were a heavily armed population that disarmed itself. The ban had negligible impact on society.

more than a few short years, 85 years for automatic weapons (1937 firearms act) and 15 years (1997 firearms act) for pistols/larger calibre rifles etc

reply to post by queenofswords


Britains violent crime rate is actually 3.5x that of the USs.

Its not actually some peaceful utopia like the advocates and drones of disarmament squawk it is. Its all a fabricated MSM lie to get the people of the US to give up their rights through deceit and obfuscation of the truth.

Speaking of England, I once heard that you could fit England into the United states something like 38 or 39 times. I didn't realize England was so tiny! How is it that one tiny little country could cause so much destruction and invade so many countries?

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
reply to post by queenofswords

 

Britains violent crime rate is actually 3.5x that of the USs.

Its not actually some peaceful utopia like the advocates and drones of disarmament squawk it is. Its all a fabricated MSM lie to get the people of the US to give up their rights through deceit and obfuscation of the truth.

edit on 1/19/2013 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

The problem isn't who has the most violent, murderous populace it's about solving the social problems so innocent people do not become the victims of crime.

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
reply to post by queenofswords

 

Britains violent crime rate is actually 3.5x that of the USs.

Its not actually some peaceful utopia like the advocates and drones of disarmament squawk it is. Its all a fabricated MSM lie to get the people of the US to give up their rights through deceit and obfuscation of the truth.

edit on 1/19/2013 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

You have to be careful with the stats. There are some dubious comparisons going on to support both sides of this debate. Its all down to the definitions of what constitutes 'violent crime'. If you are unscrupulous you can frame stats to show anything you want.

I could reply with the UNODC figures showing that the UK has 1.2 homicides per 100,000 of population whereas the USA has 4.8 homicides per 100,000 of population.

reply to post by MaMaa


You should watch this video and be enlightened

reply to post by MaMaa


I've never used the youtube link before, but maybe you will learn something.

...if it works.

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
reply to post by queenofswords

 

Britains violent crime rate is actually 3.5x that of the USs.

Its not actually some peaceful utopia like the advocates and drones of disarmament squawk it is. Its all a fabricated MSM lie to get the people of the US to give up their rights through deceit and obfuscation of the truth.

edit on 1/19/2013 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

I don't give a rats butt about violent crime rate personally...people bonk each other over the head often.
I care about homicide rates...there is a difference between a traditional English pub fight and a slaughter...people comparing violent crime with homicide are comparing apples to oranges.

Originally posted by MaMaa
Speaking of England, I once heard that you could fit England into the United states something like 38 or 39 times. I didn't realize England was so tiny! How is it that one tiny little country could cause so much destruction and invade so many countries?

Good tea.

Incidentally, where are you from? I am sure it is a very peaceful nation given your incredible criticism of the UK's government.

Originally posted by MaMaa
Speaking of England, I once heard that you could fit England into the United states something like 38 or 39 times. I didn't realize England was so tiny! How is it that one tiny little country could cause so much destruction and invade so many countries?

Disruptive technology and an expansionist entrepreneurial spirit. Europe industrialised first, so it had the tech to spread out and colonise. The British Empire simply came out on top but Spain, France, Holland etc were all imperial powers.

We didn't really invade many countries. Not in the sense you mean it. The empire was a commercial venture first and foremost. It was about establishing colonies where there was no pre-existing nation and setting up trade routes. In other cases it was about co-opting existing regimes and making the leaders rich in turn for power and influence.

Thats how it was possible with such a small population.

China is adopting the same techniques now in Africa. If you buy a country out from under its population slowly you don't need troops to garrison it.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by MaMaa
Speaking of England, I once heard that you could fit England into the United states something like 38 or 39 times. I didn't realize England was so tiny! How is it that one tiny little country could cause so much destruction and invade so many countries?

Good tea.

Incidentally, where are you from? I am sure it is a very peaceful nation given your incredible criticism of the UK's government.

I'm in Colorado, but don't misunderstand me, I am even more critical of my own government here in the US. I'm cynical of all governments and their motives though.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I've heard that the Belgians were far worse than we were in regards to our colonies.

...why doesn't anyone give them a hard time?

... perhaps fat Americans like their chocolate a tad too much?