Maybe the other officer was holding his legs down? The video quality is not great and the car seems to be blocking the view of the arm he used to pull the gun, its hard to tell. But given this mans extremely violent criminal past i have no doubt he went for that gun, and you can hear the officer giving him a warning not to before he is shot.
Theresa May becoming the Prime MinisterâŠ
@TheDivineInfidel This seems to fall under your definition of undemocratic, i.e. as you pointed out that the European Commission being voted in by elected European Parliament while not going through general elections being undemocratic.
why does it sounds like a porn actress name to me?
I was just given a complimentary issue of Playboy Magazine at a gun store, anything is possible I guess.
1 Like
not sure what sort of porn youâre into
but its not doing it for me 
2 Likes
Well heâs into wearing dresses, so, i wouldnât be shocked if he was into granny porn. 
3 Likes
I donât know how he thought posting that photo in here was ever going to be a good idea 
2 Likes
i saw that you were getting bored here so I threw you a bone.
You are welcome
Anyway today Cameron will switch with May.
I am not sure how this works, but I would have expected elections.
Well I guess solid agreement between two adult people is acceptable too.
He will go to see the queen later on and resign . May will then go to the palace and the queen will ask her to form a government .
As for elections . We had one a year ago , there simply isnât the desire for one at the moment . Right now we just want them to get on with what we have asked of them . To leave the EU .
Then in 2020 or sooner if the desire for one is shown we will decide if we want her or not , likely out come is we will .
Labour are in no position to form a government , theyâre destroying themselves from the inside .
Interesting fact . Just now for a few minutes the queen held absolute power over the UK .
âSo the most striking historical trend of Elizabeth IIâs reign has
been a sudden ethnic transformation of Britain. In 1931, when the queen
was a child of 5, only 1.75 percent of Britainâs population was
foreign-born. Her rule saw the Empire come to Britain: For the first
time, the island experienced large-scale nonwhite immigration from Asia,
Africa and the Caribbean. By 2011, when she was 85, about 20 percent of
the population of England and Wales were immigrants or the children of immigrants.
When the queen celebrated her 90th birthday this year, more than 12
percent of her subjects were nonwhite. This is the new England, but
London is already another country. In 1971, 86 percent of Londoners were
still white British. Forty years later, fewer than half were. Urban
areas with a population less than 60 percent white British now include
such major cities as Slough, Leicester, Luton and Birmingham. Ethnic
change is gathering pace: By 2050, roughly 30 percent of Britons could
be nonwhite.â
Have you started learning Chinese yet?
2 Likes
silence my dear boy . Merkel did not give you permission to speak .
i cant wait for the day she takes your guns by the EU overruling your own parliament . ohh how your tune will change
does start a rather good conversation âŠwhat would you do ?
She must decide how she wants the military to react in the event of nuclear war.
Her instructions will only be acted out if she, and her entire Cabinet, has been wiped out.
Mrs May will be given four options:
- To retaliate.
- To do nothing.
- To place the submarine under the control of an ally - specifically the United States Navy or Royal Australian Navy.
- To act according to how the Captain deems best.
She will be left alone to consider her options. It wonât be easy.
Think about it yourself for a minute. What would you do?
Your first reaction might be to retaliate, to hit back at the aggressor.
Bear in mind though, that by then, the nuclear deterrent would have failed.
It would have failed to do what it was designed to do: deter.
And your posthumous order would mean tens of thousands of innocent people would die.
Gosh, that requires pause for thought.
Once decided, Mrs May will write four handwritten letters.
They will be addressed to the Commanders of the four Vanguard class submarines.
They will be delivered to the boats and locked away.
David Cameronâs letters, which were written when he took office, will be burned without being opened.
Unless he decides to tell us, we will never know what his decision was.
Only one Prime Minister has revealed that secret.
James Callaghan told the historian Peter Hennessy: "If we had got to that point, where it was, I felt, necessary to do it, then I would have done it.
"Iâve had terrible doubts, of course, about this.
âI say to you, if I had lived after having pressed that button, I could never ever have forgiven myself.â
It is a decision, like no other.
thats pretty fucking stupid.
3 is probably best option. Give those who live something they can use.
4 is also not that bad.
But ordering to use weapons (1) after you are dead and dont know what exactly is going on is pretty damn irresponsible.
you mean that after Merkel takes our guns @snejdarek will be also hypocrite?
yes i predict he will be become a euro-sceptic over night . ⊠he will be like the Czech Nigel farage
personally i would go for 1 or 4 ⊠hard choice
I donât think i would have it in me to retaliate. It would do nothing other kill potentially millions of innocent people who had no part in what their government did, and if the nuclear exchange was between the U.S and Russia you would be dooming the world if you chose to strike back.
http://firearms-united.com/2016/07/13/open-letter-mep-marlene-mizzi-demand-trust-respect/
Dear Mrs. Mizzi,I read your circular email which repeatedly asks: What you need it for? My
name is David Karasek, a spokesman of Czech firearms rights
association, and I am answering your question from an Eastern Europe
perspective.
To be honest, your reply angered me at first, but then I thought
about it more deeply and I saw that it needs more detailed explanation.
Please donât take this answer as offense or a personal attack. It
isnât meant as either. In my discussions with both colleagues and
opponents from Western countries, I learned that disagreement and
misunderstanding often comes not from personal qualities of either side,
rather than from deep cultural gap between Western and Eastern Europe,
between well-established democracies and post-communist republics.
Eastern European view
The point in question, to which Iâd like to provide Eastern European view, is this:
As for the difference between 20 and 30 rounds and 2
or 3 seconds to change the magazine, could you please let me know for
what exactly do you use magazines with a capacity of 30 rounds and where
and what do you shoot with such an exceptionally high rounds of
bullets?
If it is for sport shooting you should be exempt, if it is for collecting you also should be exempt.
I assume that it was answer to explanation that magazine capacity
limitation has no meaningful security impact. I hear similar questions
quite often
âWhy is it so big issue? Who needs it, and what for, anyway?â
Such answer usually provokes negative response. I guess that everybody understands why. It basically says
âI donât need to explain to you why it should be
banned. It goes without question. But if you can convince me that you
need it, then I might give you an exceptional permission.â
I assume that nobody likes that.
But to understand HOW MUCH we Eastern Europeans dislike it, you would
have to actually spend some years in totalitarian state which treats
people in this way â deciding for the people whatâs good for them, what
they need, what they should and shouldnât be allowed to have or do.
We got four decades of it, and we remember it very well. We are not
âwell-established democracyâ. We are democracy thatâs so young that most
of us still remember its beginning â and before. It started when we
said âenoughâ and refused to obey laws which said that state has power
to decide how we should live our lives.
Personal liberty, won by this disobedience, is today one of our core values.
âCitizenâs needs are his or her to decide; the state has no say in itâ
is not just principle on which our state operates, it is also one of roots of its legitimacy. Thatâs what we revolted for.
Of course, itâs not unlimited. We donât allow driving without
license, we donât sell heroine like sugar, we donât allow storing
artillery shells in residential districts, and so on. But whenever those
limitations and bans are discussed and decided, the question âwhat you need it for?â is not in the equation.
Our firearms law reflects it too. Contrary to popular opinion, it is
quite strict, or I would say well safeguarded. Many requirements
contained in now discussed proposal are already part of our national
firearms law for many years â medical screening or safe storage, for
example. Semi-automatic firearms converted from military rifles are
quite popular, and our law allows them â along with requirement that the
conversion must be irreversible.
What is NOT part of our law, and would be met with furious resistance
if proposed, is citizenâs requirement to prove his need for firearm.
I know that in some countries, the police decides what is âgood
causeâ to have firearm, and whether particular citizen has it. That
would be unthinkable here. Our Constitution says that everything thatâs
not forbidden by law is allowed, therefore our firearm law is based on
assumption that every cause, other than criminal one, is good enough.
Citizen can be deprived of his firearms rights, but only for serious
security reasons enumerated in the law, and after due process.
The same goes with magazine capacity. Asking âWhy should it be allowed?â and expecting citizens to justify their rights or needs is just not legitimate approach here. The proper question is âWhy should it be banned?â
and the burden of proper justification and providing evidence lies
squarely on the state. If the state cannot give it and prove it,
citizensâ liberty takes precedence. Thatâs how we want it here.
Another issue here is justice. I often hear:
âThere were so many concessions from original proposal, so many water-downs. We are willing to compromise. Why arenât you?â
This also deserves explanation. We all know how EU got into this
situation. The Commission neglected its legal duties about deactivated
firearms for seven years, it resulted in death of many people, and now
the Commission desperately seeks someone to blame and punish. This is
true purpose of proposed ban on legal firearms and magazines; the
Commission needs someoneâs head on the stick, to wave it around and
pretend to be protector, instead of culprit.
I hope that you see why we are such no-compromise hardliners here.
Compromises simply arenât acceptable where justice is at stake
A crime has been committed, and you are charged, but you didnât do
it; what length of prison time would you be willing to accept as
âreasonable compromiseâ?Someone wants to rob you and you donât want to be robbed; how much
of violence and theft are you willing to suffer as âreasonable
compromiseâ?Someone wants to bully your daughter in the school, and she doesnât
want to be bullied; how much bullying is âreasonable compromiseâ?
There are no reasonable compromises in such a situations. Absolute
refusal is the only proper answer. Telling legitimate firearms owners:
âWe donât want to ban all semiautomatics, or even all
conversions, all we ask you is to give up 20+ magazines â why arenât
you willing to even this small concession?â
is like telling black Americans: âWe donât want you to wear
chains or slave in cotton fields, all we ask you is to sit in the back
of the bus â why arenât you willing to accept this small concession?â These
âcompromisesâ arenât unacceptable because they would be too burdensome;
they are unacceptable because they are totally unfair. The Commission
deserves punishment, not us.
Czech Republic treats people with trust and respect
You might wonder how Czech Republic can handle so many armed citizens
with an attitude and yet keep the peace. The answer is: through trust
and respect. Our state sees us as partners, not as risk or enemy.
We participate in firearms legislation, and our input is respected and
incorporated. The state respects our right to possess, carry and use
firearms for any legal purposes; we respect reasonable security
measures, like background checks, medical screening and safe storage.
The result is a law that works, simply because people follow it. The secret is: when rules are agreed upon, self-respecting people follow them, because they perceive it not as obeying commands, but as keeping their word.
As long as the other side does the same, their self-respect motivates
them to observe their promise, even when the same self-respect would
motivate them to rebel against much less if ordered.
For a long time, there was a special state power in our firearms law.
It was right of the government to impound all legal firearms during
state of war or other national emergency. This year, it was repealed.
Our state actually gave up its legal power to disarm its citizens during
wartime. Can there be any greater proof of trust?
I hope that you arenât much scared by how things are going here in
Wild East. Actually, it is quite a peaceful East: according to Global
Peace Index, weâre the sixth safest country in the world. I just wanted
to show you that the democracy can work in more than one way, that
liberty doesnât have to be dangerous, and that strictest rules arenât
always the best ones, even when pertaining to weapons.
If you did read it to this point, I hope that you look a bit differently now on us and the whole issue.
Thank you.
David Karasek
Spokesman of Czech firearms rights association LEX
1 Like