i love it when she gets called out , one of the most racist people in British politics , some of the remarks she has come out with are ridiculous
1 Like
difference between men and women shopping 
1 Like
In my state, the gun shops have to lock their guns in safes every night before closing. I guess the only exception to that rule would be if you had security guards.
I feel bad for the owner, that must be such a kick in the balls losing thousands of dollars worth of guns over night,
1 Like
Boris Johnson
1 hr · London ·
We make at least one fatal mistake in dealing with our beloved friends and partners in the European Union. And that is that we persist in the delusion that they do not really mean what they say.
Every so often the hierarchs of Brussels publish a manifesto or programme, sketching out the route map to further integration. They set out their ambition in black and white – to create a monetary union, a political union, a social union: in essence, to take a load of disparate countries and to try to fuse them into one, with common citizenship and loyalty to a “European” idea.
Oh come off it, we say. It’ll never happen – it’s just the usual old windy Euro-rhetoric. I well remember how we reacted to the news that they wanted to create the euro – with a sort of benign incredulity. I have just re-read former Prime Minister Sir John Major’s famous article in The Economist, in 1993, in which he poured scorn on the very text of the Maastricht Treaty: “I hope my fellow heads of state and government will resist the temptation to recite the mantra of full economic and monetary union. If they do recite it, it will have all the quaintness of a rain dance, and about as much potency … The plain fact is that economic and monetary union is not realisable in the present circumstances.”
Sir John was by no means alone. Across the political spectrum, people scoffed at the idea. It defied common sense that a one-size-fits-all monetary policy would be imposed on such divergent economies as Germany and Greece. Well, the sceptics were confounded: they did go ahead with the euro – and a thoroughgoing disaster it has proved.
Now EU chiefs are struggling to remedy the defects in that project, and they have produced a report explaining what they want to do. It is called the “Five Presidents’ Report”, and it came out last year and got rather buried in the aftermath of the general election. History teaches us that we would be mad to ignore this text. The five presidents in question are those of the European Commission, the Council, the European Parliament, the European Central Bank and a body called the “European Stability Mechanism”. They want to prop up the euro by creating an all-out economic government of Europe.
They want a euro-area treasury, with further pooling of tax and budgetary policy. They want to harmonise insolvency law, company law, property rights, social security systems – and there is no way the UK can be unaffected by this process. As the Five Presidents put it: “Much can be already achieved through a deepening of the Single Market, which is important for all 28 EU member states.” So even though Britain is out of the euro, there is nothing we can do to stop our friends from using “single market” legislation to push forward centralising measures that will help prop up the euro (or so they imagine), by aligning EU economic, social and fiscal policies.
Insofar as the recent “UK Agreement” has any force, it expressly allows these measures to be pursued, and agrees the UK will not attempt to exercise a veto. In other words we will find ourselves dragged along willy-nilly, in spite of all protestations to the contrary. So-called “Single Market” measures affect us as much as they affect the eurozone – and the question therefore is what we mean by “Single Market”. The answer is a mystery – because the single market has changed beyond recognition.
Twenty years ago there was a clear conceptual difference in the EEC between things that were done at an intergovernmental level – between member states, without the Commission, the Euro-parliament and the Court of Justice – and things that were part of the “single market”. Foreign and defence co-operation was done intergovernmentally, and so was anything to do with police, or justice, or borders, or home affairs, or asylum, or immigration, or anything to do with human rights. Then there were all the fields of EEC competence: the common trade policies, the common agricultural policy, the competition policy, environment policy, and so on.
Since Maastricht, that has all changed. Successive treaties have vastly expanded the areas in which the EU bodies operate so that there is virtually no aspect of public policy that is untouched. The EU now takes an interest in energy policy, in humanitarian aid, in education, in health, and in human rights of all kinds. There is a common European space policy. All of these policy areas involve the European Commission, the parliament, and above all the European Court of Justice. And remember – as soon as something enters within the EU’s field of competence, the Luxembourg Court of Justice becomes the supreme judicial body; and every time that happens, power is sucked away from this country.
We have seen recently how the Home Secretary has lost the power to deport murderers, or to conduct surveillance of would-be terrorists, because that might put the UK in breach of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. What has that got to do with the “Single Market”, you may ask, and the answer is nothing at all. But any clever lawyer can easily blur the boundaries: it is a short hop from a common policy on free movement of workers to a common policy on deporting terrorists.
The idea of the Single Market has become so capacious that it is a cloak for full-scale political and economic union. We now have up to half our law coming from the EU (some say two thirds); and if the Five Presidents get their way, the process of centralisation will simply continue – much of it in the name of the “Single Market”. It’s time we learnt the lesson. The federalists do mean it when they sketch out these programmes. The ratchet is clicking forwards. When you come to vote, the status quo is not on offer.
2 Likes
is that practicable though if you’re a large shop with hundreds of guns on the shelf ?
Ive seen a decent sized shop do it (granted it was probably only half the size of the one in the video). I would imagine a bigger shop like that would have to pass certain security standards, and maybe even have round the clock guards at night. At least in my state, honestly though there really isn’t much more the owners could have done here, i mean they pulled the grate off with a fucking truck.
The video shows you how shit police response time is in the U.S, a break in to a gun shop should be a top priority for any cop in the area.
Great point. I agree with it.
Just that I would prefer getting to pre-Lisbon EU (a.k.a. the EU we entered in 2004) instead of leaving EU.
I never understood your hate for Hilary. Because I never really heard her speak. My God she is unbearable.
1 Like
Doctor from India, yeah, sure.
the only way i could see it being done is if the display cabinets duelled up as a safe so a steel shutter could be pulled down over at night and it being secured that way .
When ever someone in the U.S government pushes for gun control i just think of this lovely incident.
Btw, the two men who tried to shoot up the draw Mohammed contest used guns that were part of this operation, and they have the fucking nerve to tell us we aren’t responsible enough to handle fire arms.
Or even better
They just put all the guns on carts and rolled them in the back where they locked them in safes. Granted the shop was much smaller.
or just not keep all the guns on display like when you boy shoes , you have a display shoe you can look at and if you like it they bring you your size (or in this case a gun ) out from the back .
That would work if you were selling hundreds of the same type of gun. But most smaller local guns shops tend to sell hundreds of very different guns. There is a good chance you won’t see the same type of gun twice in a small gun shop.
Saw Dead Pool the other night, very amusing i highly recommend it.
Doctor from India. Yeah, sure.
whats your point ?
1 Like
they could beat us if both of our entire armies met in a field .
but they lack the ability to deploy and support there troops as effectively as us .
huge difference between the size of military and the size of the force its able to project and support to a war zone .
so go JEFF !!!
1 Like
But they have designated shitting streets.
India -1 U.K-0
Also don’t forget how their attempted rocket launch went. It crashed in the ocean, and they thought they had landed on another planet that had life on it.