|
Real0ne -> RE: Governmental double standard (2/2/2013 6:35:24 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
You really have an incredible allergy to facts....I AM home, Im in Canada, not the USA.... Im english, but I dont live there any more, Im not going to stop posting, or pointing out your mistakes and your utter bullshit posts, just because you cant understand stuff or ideas that are alien to you. You think its propaganda, its my way of life, it has been and will always be...I will not apologise for it, I will not shut up simply because you want me to. You have more chance of becoming the popes third wife, sooo....
suck it up cupcake.
Mistakes?
Your the fucking alien! this is american political issue not yours
I think not.
You apparently missed this post;
quote:
Cato Institute
Policy Report March/April 2004
Self-Defense: An Endangered Right
by Joyce Lee Malcolm
The withdrawal of a basic right of Eng-
lishmen is having dire consequences in
Great Britain, and should serve as an
object lesson for Americans. Today, in
the name of public safety, [<--
exact;y how they are treating AMERICAN
property owners right here right now
tofuckingday] the British gov-
ernment has practically eliminated the citi-
zens’ right to self-defense. That did not hap-
pen all at once. The people were weaned from
their fundamental right to protect themselves
through a series of policies implemented over
some 80 years.
Those include the strictest gun
regulations of any democracy, legislation that
makes it illegal for individuals to carry any
article that could be used for personal pro-
tection, and restrictive limits on the use of
force in self-defense. Britons have been taught,
in the words of a 1992 Economist article, that
such policies are “a restraint on personal lib-
erty that seems, in most civilized countries,
essential to the happiness of others.”
The author contrasted those policies with
“America’ s vigilante values.”
The result of that tradeoff of rights for
security has been disastrous for both. Many
Americans, either unaware of, or uncon-
cerned with, the perverse impact of British
policy, insist that our public safety demands
a similar sacrifice. But an examination of
the experience of the British people offers
a cautionary tale. A few examples under-
score the situation in Britain today.
A homeowner who discovered two rob-
bers in his home held them with a toy gun
while he telephoned the police. When the
police arrived they arrested the two men, and
also the homeowner, who was charged with
putting someone in fear with a toy gun.
An elderly woman who scared off a gang of
youths by firing a cap pistol was charged with
the same offense. The government is now plan-
ning to make toy guns illegal.
The BBC offers this advice for anyone
in Britain who is attacked on the street:
You are permitted to protect yourself with
a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should
shout “Call the Police” rather than “Help.”
Bystanders are not to help. They have been
taught to leave such matters to the pro-
fessionals.
If you manage to knock your
attacker down, you must not hit him again
or you risk being charged with assault.
In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old farmer
living alone in a dilapidated house, woke to
the sound of shattering glass as two bur-
glars broke in.
Martin had been robbed six
times before, but like 70 percent of rural
English villages, his had no police presence.
He crept downstairs in the dark and shot at
the burglars, killing one and wounding the
second. Both had numerous prior convic-
tions. Martin was sentenced to life in prison
for killing one burglar, 10 years for wound-
ing the second, and 12 months for owning
an unregistered shotgun.
The prosecutor
claimed Martin had lain in wait, then caught
the burglars “like rats in a trap.”
The wounded burglar was released after
serving 18 months of a three-year sentence.
He then sued Martin for injury to his leg,
claiming it prevented him from working
and interfered with his martial arts train-
ing and sex life. He was awarded £5,000
of taxpayer money to prosecute the suit.
Martin’s sentence was reduced to five years
on a finding that he had had an abusive child-
hood, but he was denied parole because he
had expressed no remorse for killing “one so
young” and posed a danger to other burglars.
As the Independent newspaper reported,
“Government lawyers say burglars ‘need pro-
tection.’” “It cannot possibly be suggest-
ed,” the attorneys argued, “that members of
the public cease to be so whilst committing
criminal offences, and whilst society natu-
rally condemns, and punishes such persons
judicially, it can not possibly condone their
(unlawful) murder or injury.” The Law Com-
mission advised the government: “Even a
criminal who had committed a serious offence
must be allowed to exercise his civil rights.”
❝The safety of individual citizens has taken a back seat to the
political preference for order and power.❞
SELF-DEFENSE Continued from page 1
yep you sound exactly what I would expect someone pushing british propaganda and poicy to sound like.
take your tea and your bullshit and go home. Its bad enough you infiltrated and polluted us with your police state constitutional corporate plutocracy and call yourselves the People in the name of democracy.
go back home
like all the other bullsshit in this country it will eventually be forced down our throat through none other than the court system of which the people HAVE NO CONTROL.
|
|
|
|
