Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
Show More
thinley veiled I've got a dangerous weapon thread.
shame on the jury though
should just have returned not guilty
should just have returned not guilty
cannot be enforceable imo. too many reasonable excuses for handling that should not warrant 5 years, though many cases that do aslo. More poor legislation aimed at solving one problem and creating more.
It was a classic Labour knee jerk policy , no consideration of circumstances etc
seems absolutely crazy that any sane jury could find him guilty knowing that means a minimum of 5 years in jail. But at the moment nothing really surprises me.
I have pepper spray.
Is that class as a firearm ?
Is that class as a firearm ?
Absolutely mental. If he gets ANY jail time we should do a fecking A-Team and bust him out.
This is absurd who on earth the cps allow this to go to court ... is there more to it ?
nothing wrong with 5 years for posessing an illegal gun, just bizarre that handing one in is a crime. its like saying if you report a murder you are an accessory to the murder. makes no sense whatsoever.
Something does not add up in this story. How on earth can the JURY find him guilty ?
Sure they are being advised by the judge but where the fook is common sense.
Hope he gets let off and gets compo from the police for being tw@ts
Sure they are being advised by the judge but where the fook is common sense.
Hope he gets let off and gets compo from the police for being tw@ts
The population of Switzerland is 6,000,000
Their armed forces have to have an assault rifle in the house.
2,000,000 people have guns.
No mad shooters over there like in America.
Their armed forces have to have an assault rifle in the house.
2,000,000 people have guns.
No mad shooters over there like in America.
Wait til the daily mail gets hold of this.
Seriously though, what a w@nker that Brian Stalk must be (prosecuting). If this case is upheld then nobody can ever hand in a firearm again, !
Mind you it makes a change from blaming the CPS whenever our brave bobbies tell some hard luck story of how they valiantly arrest an armed robber only for him to be rimed by the judge and forced to have sex with Miley Cyrus as punishment. Oh no, for sure the CPS are**s too but some dozy cnt copper made the initial arrest.
Hang them all imo.
Hang them all imo.
Whilst not wishing to detract from the seriousness of people 'going postal' in the USA, Big Charlie, if you're suggesting that gun ownership in Switzerland isn't a problem you'd be arguing a dodgy case.
See http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/27/switzerland.shooting/
Wiki cites a claim (not in English) that 300 people per year die from firearms in Switzerland, which proportionally would represent around 2000 here.
See http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/27/switzerland.shooting/
Wiki cites a claim (not in English) that 300 people per year die from firearms in Switzerland, which proportionally would represent around 2000 here.
Don't believe everything on Wiki.
Thursday, 27 September, 2001, 13:19 GMT 14:19 UK
Switzerland and the gun
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.
It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm
Thursday, 27 September, 2001, 13:19 GMT 14:19 UK
Switzerland and the gun
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.
Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.
It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm
Lucky to get away with 5 imo. Learnt his lesson now.
" ... you know my feelings about arming morons: you arm one, you've got to arm them all, otherwise it wouldn't be good sport."
That about sums it up, for me.
That about sums it up, for me.
i think its very simplistic to think legal guns equals problems with gun crime etc.. theres an excellent book called "Death By Gun Control" which documents millions of deaths in countries where guns were made illegal, an unarmed society is a society left vulnerable to a dictator or any dictatorial regime.
Most people don't realise the reason its in the constitution for Americans to have to right to bear arms is to protect themselves from a government gone bad.
Places like Washington DC which are gun free zones have been the target of gun crrimes because the perpetrators know they're probably the only person armed in these areas.
Most people don't realise the reason its in the constitution for Americans to have to right to bear arms is to protect themselves from a government gone bad.
Places like Washington DC which are gun free zones have been the target of gun crrimes because the perpetrators know they're probably the only person armed in these areas.
WolvesFanInWales 18 Nov 22:50
I have pepper spray.
======================
It is illegal to have in the UK.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=326147
I have pepper spray.
======================
It is illegal to have in the UK.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=326147
How many times Dylan, have Americans used guns to protect themselves from a government gone bad?
maybe they haven't needed to because any government knows they'd be facing an armed society.
But there are many examples most notibly Nazi Germany where guns were made illegal followed by mass genocide against a populous unable to defend themselves. How many people do you think would have gone quietly to their deaths in Germany when the Gestapo came calling if they were armed?
But there are many examples most notibly Nazi Germany where guns were made illegal followed by mass genocide against a populous unable to defend themselves. How many people do you think would have gone quietly to their deaths in Germany when the Gestapo came calling if they were armed?
Not really sure where you're heading with this...not being allowed guns was hardly the worst restriction on freedom dealt to the Jews. If Germany had been a society in which gun ownership was permitted, the Nazis would have just changed the law so that Jews and everyone else theydidn't like weren't allowed to have guns. They wouldn't have been protected just because some of them had weaponry!
thats my point sparky, an armed society can at least defend itself if a government goes bad. As i said there are plenty of examples of where a ban of guns has been followed by mass killings of a society unable to defend itself.
Simiarly an armed society can defend itself if some nutter goes crazy, in that situation what would you prefer everyone else to be unarmed and unable to defend themselves or somebody else having a gun and being able to do something about it.
Simiarly an armed society can defend itself if some nutter goes crazy, in that situation what would you prefer everyone else to be unarmed and unable to defend themselves or somebody else having a gun and being able to do something about it.
Go on then, let's have this list of examples of where a ban of firearms has resulted in a subsequent massacre.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
here you go...
here you go...
at least have the decency to cut and paste it, lord only knows what that site is, I ain't going there!
Can't really cut and paste it as theres quite a bit of info there including the gun laws that were passed etc... but to summarise.
Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917
Soviet Union 1929-1945
Nazi Germany 1933-1945
China Nationalist 1927-1949
China, Red 1949-1952, 1957-1960, 1966-1976
Guatemala 1960-1981
Uganda 1971-1979
Cambodia 1975-1979
Rwanda 1994
Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917
Soviet Union 1929-1945
Nazi Germany 1933-1945
China Nationalist 1927-1949
China, Red 1949-1952, 1957-1960, 1966-1976
Guatemala 1960-1981
Uganda 1971-1979
Cambodia 1975-1979
Rwanda 1994
sparkmaster. 19 Nov 08:50
8 years ago, perhaps.
Sparky, your own link was eight years old
8 years ago, perhaps.
Sparky, your own link was eight years old
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Britons were entitled to bear arms until about 100 years ago. Started with swords and included firearms when they were invented.
just been unbanned and allowed to post :)
few things on this one.
firstly, the firearms case. read the comments made by prosecutor and judge - case was a "strict liability" charge, and the defendants intent or lack thereof was "irrelevant".
what does this mean? it simply confirms like i have been saying, that the charges which arise from statute, are merely contractual obligations. by turning up at the court, and pleading (guilty or non guilty), he is effectively guilty automatically because his presence indicates his consent to contract. by consenting to contract he is accepting the transaction. the consideration (meaning something of value in contracts, both parties must put something up that they agree is odf equal value) he is getting is in imprisonment! because he has agreed to it by contract (in which there is no mention of an exception with regard to handing a weapon in that one has found). he owes imprisonment - this is the liability - as his side of the contract. lol.
when will people wake up to this fact - you're stuck in commerce - all these statutes are only valid with your consent, which the government assumes. you can retract that consent and tell them to fk off. or you can carry on as you are and get locked up even when playing the good samaritan...
re gun ownership. it appears to be european propaganda and brainwashing has caused us to think that we do not need to be armed. a fundamental right of a free human being is the right to defend oneself. government's nowadays preach collective protection, ie they will protect us, but how are they doing? do you think you would be more likely or less likely to be robbed if people knew you had a gun? and what if, no matter how unlikely you think it is, what if we need to protect ourselves from government? as above they have already tricked the population into unknowlingly giving up their human rights, and have tricked you all into contract with them.... for money and control. it is becoming more visible to us because they are getting greedy, and collecting in cases such as the one in question.
someone mentioned the right to be armed - under common law (the law of england) we STILL have the right to be armed. regrettably you do not retain these rights unless you claim them, and claim youself to be a human being. so, being registered with society, and having accepted that you are a mere corporation/employee of the state and not a human being (through your tacit consent, ie your silence means you consent!) you now only have the "rights" that they give you. these are known as privileges - and as everyone knows, a privilege can be taken away at any point, with or without reason. how safe do you feel now about government??
you can never get rid of all guns. all that has happened is that registered members of society are banned from owning guns, but the criminals still have them.
a nice example re gun prohibition NOT WORKING, is the town of Kennesaw in Georgia, USA. a statute was passed making it mandatory for the head of every household to have at least one gun. violent crime promptly fell 74% the following year and a further 45% the year after.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts
but the european socialists must be right eh - gun ownership is a silly idea and they must all be banned.... lol. may i say wp to whomever above mentioned the disarming of populations prior to genocides. and consider also the frame of mind of the germans at the time - they thought they were doing the right thing. they thought their government was doing the right thing. large sections of society were crying out for the government to do what they did (as a result of them having been fed some nice propaganda in the media, just like you are today) - they were busy getting on with their lives, oblivious to any political detail, and then what happened.... BAM the government started rounding people up.
the americans havent had to use guns to defend themselves, precisely because they have them. government should be scared of the public, not the other way round as is now the case. what great balance check is there in all honesty..
few things on this one.
firstly, the firearms case. read the comments made by prosecutor and judge - case was a "strict liability" charge, and the defendants intent or lack thereof was "irrelevant".
what does this mean? it simply confirms like i have been saying, that the charges which arise from statute, are merely contractual obligations. by turning up at the court, and pleading (guilty or non guilty), he is effectively guilty automatically because his presence indicates his consent to contract. by consenting to contract he is accepting the transaction. the consideration (meaning something of value in contracts, both parties must put something up that they agree is odf equal value) he is getting is in imprisonment! because he has agreed to it by contract (in which there is no mention of an exception with regard to handing a weapon in that one has found). he owes imprisonment - this is the liability - as his side of the contract. lol.
when will people wake up to this fact - you're stuck in commerce - all these statutes are only valid with your consent, which the government assumes. you can retract that consent and tell them to fk off. or you can carry on as you are and get locked up even when playing the good samaritan...
re gun ownership. it appears to be european propaganda and brainwashing has caused us to think that we do not need to be armed. a fundamental right of a free human being is the right to defend oneself. government's nowadays preach collective protection, ie they will protect us, but how are they doing? do you think you would be more likely or less likely to be robbed if people knew you had a gun? and what if, no matter how unlikely you think it is, what if we need to protect ourselves from government? as above they have already tricked the population into unknowlingly giving up their human rights, and have tricked you all into contract with them.... for money and control. it is becoming more visible to us because they are getting greedy, and collecting in cases such as the one in question.
someone mentioned the right to be armed - under common law (the law of england) we STILL have the right to be armed. regrettably you do not retain these rights unless you claim them, and claim youself to be a human being. so, being registered with society, and having accepted that you are a mere corporation/employee of the state and not a human being (through your tacit consent, ie your silence means you consent!) you now only have the "rights" that they give you. these are known as privileges - and as everyone knows, a privilege can be taken away at any point, with or without reason. how safe do you feel now about government??
you can never get rid of all guns. all that has happened is that registered members of society are banned from owning guns, but the criminals still have them.
a nice example re gun prohibition NOT WORKING, is the town of Kennesaw in Georgia, USA. a statute was passed making it mandatory for the head of every household to have at least one gun. violent crime promptly fell 74% the following year and a further 45% the year after.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts
but the european socialists must be right eh - gun ownership is a silly idea and they must all be banned.... lol. may i say wp to whomever above mentioned the disarming of populations prior to genocides. and consider also the frame of mind of the germans at the time - they thought they were doing the right thing. they thought their government was doing the right thing. large sections of society were crying out for the government to do what they did (as a result of them having been fed some nice propaganda in the media, just like you are today) - they were busy getting on with their lives, oblivious to any political detail, and then what happened.... BAM the government started rounding people up.
the americans havent had to use guns to defend themselves, precisely because they have them. government should be scared of the public, not the other way round as is now the case. what great balance check is there in all honesty..
This is the same guy
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/golf/Man-accused-attacking-DVLA-inspector-broom-walks-free/article-361380-detail/article.html
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/golf/Man-accused-attacking-DVLA-inspector-broom-walks-free/article-361380-detail/article.html
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539