The ID card bill is back

They can and they do , but those people are part of the percentage that this is going to try and stop from abusing the benefits we pay through our taxes, plus the 'terrorism problem'. They don't control peoples lives and if you think your a 'puppet' then your reading to much 'germany under the fascists' type stuff that has no real relation to the quite banal level of intrusion our goverment has. You can do all the things you say if you don't then it is your issue not that any goverment stopped you.

No

It is all a little more humanistic than us all in overals be they white or blue..off to the daily grind to support 'the system' . Actualy if i think about it it is like that.. The thing is i see the goverment working for me and the rest of society with such things as 'schools' the 'NHS' and the benefit system we pay for all of that, it being abused is not something i apreciate. Plus a percentage of 'our' money helps others around the world (less fortunate) the errosion of money that gets 'stolen' is mind blowing.

It is all about 'capitalism' 'imperialist juntas' and the other strange things people 'protest' against...generaly during the weekends when there is not much on the telly..ok thats unfair i am only joking.

 

100s a week were do you get these figures from ?.

Next time you see a murder on the TV news ..notice how many weeks before somebody is caught. Most of the time it is 2 weeks not months or years ..weeks. The police do a good job. The media highlighT crimes disproportianat with any kind of reality, not saying we don't have any problems but a lot of the time our news parrots the american news and the issues that are happening over there. Even though of course america is a completly diffrent kettle of fish.

 

Answering the question of “Should drugs be legal?” is like answering the question of “Should guns be legal?” Whoever answers either question steps onto a minefield of passionate opposition—from conservatives if you say yes to drugs, and from liberals if you say yes to guns. That’s why it’s easier to recognize that both questions are really part of a much larger and more important question: Should government be controlled? And the answer to that question, as well as the other two, is yes.

The illegalization of drugs gives government the excuse to trample our rights, under the guise of protecting us and our children from their effects, and the illegalization of guns will give government the ability to totally trample our rights because we would have no defense against it.

What has the illegalization of drugs accomplished?

• Prisons are overcrowded with drug offenders sentenced under mandatory sentencing laws while violent offenders go free to make room. The result is the U.S. now has the highest incarceration rate in the world, made up mainly of people who have never committed a violent crime—pretty incredible for a “free” country.

• There is increased corruption in our police and judicial systems due to the large amount of money available for payoffs. The poorer you are the more likely you are to go to jail; monied drug lords with their high-priced lawyers have little to fear from the law.

• Millions of Americans who suffer from chronic pain go undermedicated because doctors are afraid to prescribe pain killers for fear of being investigated (a number have already been sent to prison) by a drug enforcement agency. A U.S. health agency has called the suffering of these patients a national disgrace.

• Seizure of property from citizens who have not been found guilty of any crime has gone sky-high, thanks to drug laws that give police the power to seize property suspected of being involved in a crime. It’s up to the owner to prove his property is innocent. Orwellian?

• The War on Drugs is a repeat of Prohibition in the ‘30s. The amount of drugs consumed in America has not gone down appreciably, but the price of them has gone way up, making them even more attractive to sell.

What will the illegalization of guns accomplish?

• This is the classic history lesson of our century. Like all the communist and fascist states that outlawed guns before turning against their own people, we will be powerless to resist our government should it turn against us. And judging from our government’s conduct in its War on Drugs, it already has.

What about the arguments against making drugs legal and keeping guns legal? Both are essentially the same: drugs and guns lead to the destruction of our children, the former through destroying their physical and mental well being and the latter through killing them outright.

Both arguments play on the public’s desire to protect their children at all costs. Those who would keep drugs illegal would imprison our children rather than have them take drugs, and those who would make guns illegal would expose our children to the potential enslavement of a government turned tyrannical rather than let them be endangered by guns. (Another story is the fact that Justice Department statistics show that guns are used by private citizens to prevent violent crimes far more often than they are used to commit crimes, but the stories behind those statistics never make it into the newspapers. I wonder why?)

People in government, especially the cadre of bureaucrats who think they know best how we should run our lives, find these excuses convenient to hide behind. The illegalization of drugs has given our government the excuse it needs to stop us on the street and make a warrantless search of our person, to invade our home on the suspicion we may be using drugs, and to send our children to prison for their own good. The illegalization of guns would allow the government to go even further because we would have no way to resist police in what appears to be our emerging police state.

I am the father of four children and here’s what I think of the government and their conservative and liberal supporters who want to protect my children against drugs and guns: Leave my children alone. They are my concern, not yours. I would rather they ran the risk of experimenting with drugs than have some government agent send them to prison to be gang raped by hard core criminals. And I would rather they risked being gunshot than have them live out their lives as servants to a tyrannical government without any chance to restore their freedom through armed resistance.

Drugs and guns may be bad if used badly, but an all powerful Government is much worse. The illegalization of drugs may have sounded like a good idea in theory once, but it has given Government far too much power over us. And the proposed illegalization of guns may sound like a good idea in theory to some because it is supposed to help keep our children safe, but in reality it will take away our last and ultimate defense against government. And like our Founding Fathers I would rather live free with some peril than live as the protected slave of government.

The question is this: Do we want a powerful government that can come into our homes or stop us on the street at will and arrest us on the suspicion we may be guilty of a crime, that can seize our property on the suspicion it is guilty, and that sends our children to prison for their own good? Or do we want a government that dares not trample on our rights guaranteed in our Constitution?

If the latter, then both drugs and guns must be legal.

 

You've missed one big point.

You use drugs on yourself... you use guns on other people (unless you're Kurt Cobain)

 

hehe good one.

 

Life does not revolve around T.V. Open your eyes...

I live in North London Tottenham, the most, 10 people have been killed inthe area within a week. Not nice seeing Murder report signs every time you walk to your bus stop and back is it.

Police do a good job? You actually think every murder is shown on T.V news? There are so many unsolved murders, you really think the goverment would let you know about them?

 

You also use guns on someone else to get drugs to use on your self.

 

? Maybe if you're a gangster

Most people either grow them themselves or buy them off there local friendly dealer...

The drugs trade is steeped in violence at the higher level in the most part BECAUSE it is illegal.

 

you can thanks the british goverment for stripping your privately own guns . now pay the price.

 

That's not true, Violent crime is a lot less in the UK than it is in the US

 

Great Britain, which gave birth to the great political philosophy of classic liberalism and to America, the flowering of Western civilization, is in moral decline.

Not content with holding Gen. Augusto Pinochet hostage, Britain now holds its own citizens hostage like an authoritarian nation that distrusts its own citizens with firearms.(1)

Since 1996, when a madman went on a rampage killing 16 children and their teacher in Dunblane, Scotland, Great Britain has tightened to strangulation its already draconian gun control laws so that only certified members of approved target-shooting clubs are allowed to own guns. These must be .22 caliber or smaller and must be kept locked up at the club at all times.

Guns have been virtually banned, and the God-given right to self-defense has been virtually abrogated in England.

Dramatic Increase in Robberies and Other Crime

And yet, crime has steadily risen in Britain in the last several years. The U.S. Department of Justice says a person is nearly twice as likely to be robbed, assaulted or have a vehicle stolen in Britain as in the United States. Although the U.S. remains ahead of Britain in rates of murder and rape, the gap is rapidly narrowing.

And while robberies rose 81 percent in England and Wales, they fell 28 percent in the United States. Likewise, assaults increased 53 percent in England and Wales but declined 27 percent in the United States. Burglaries doubled in England but fell by half in the United States. And while motor vehicle theft rose 51 percent in England, it remained the same in America.

To make matters worse for England – and this is also true for Canada – in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not in to avoid being shot at by the intended victim.

The rising tide of thievery and burglaries in England has dubbed Britain "a nation of thieves," wrote the London Sunday Times, which noted: "More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of 40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains the crime capital of the West. Where have we gone wrong?"(2) Perhaps England should look introspectively.

The most drastic ascendancy of crimes in Britain was found in those types of felonies where recent studies in the U.S. have shown that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens not only save lives but also protect private property, reduce injuries to good people, and crime is generally deterred.(3)

Writing in the May/June 2000 issue of the Medical Sentinel of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), Dr. Michael S. Brown writes that while the British laws have disarmed law-abiding citizens, "a black market has flourished, as usual with prohibitions, to supply criminal elements. Up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions."

Dr. Brown continues, "Young criminals (ages 15 to 25 with prior convictions), according to the Sunday Times, 'own or have access to guns ranging from Beretta submachine guns to Luger pistols, which can be bought from underworld dealers for as little as £200 ($320 U.S.).'"(4) In the U.S., ordinary citizens shoot three times as many criminals in self-defense as do the police.

Recent work by professor John R. Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago has shown that allowing people to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime - without any apparent increase in accidental death or suicide. While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed-carry gun laws cuts death rates from public, multiple shootings like those in Littleton, Colo., this year or Dunblane, Scotland in 1996.

Professor Lott found that when concealed-carry laws went into effect in a given county, murders fell by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent and aggravated assaults by 7 percent. For each additional year concealed-carry gun laws have been in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, robberies by more than 2 percent and rape by 1 percent.(5)

Women Using Guns for Self-Defense

Moreover, studies in the U.S. have shown that guns are the great equalizer for females when accosted in the streets or assaulted in their homes.

When a woman is armed with a gun, up to 83 percent of the time she will be successful at preventing rape, and only half as likely of being injured in the process.(3) These figures should be good news in the U.S. for the 17 million American women estimated to carry guns, but not for those in Great Britain who have been proscribed from keeping guns for self-protection.

While the number of rapes in the U.S. is still higher than in Great Britain, it is falling, whereas the rate of sex crimes and violent assaults in England and Wales is increasing rapidly because of their permissive criminal justice system and even greater tendency than the U.S. to rehabilitate rather than punish criminals - and, of course, the stringent policy of citizen disarmament.

This pusillanimous policy advertises to sex criminals that they have nothing to fear not only from their criminal justice system but also from their intended victims. Will the British require another American Revolution to come to their moral senses? Or, instead, will we Americans reject our Second Amendment, the palladium of our liberties and our legacy of freedom?

 

No.
I dont read 'germany under the fascists'.
I just happen to have lived in more than one country.
Maybe thats why I can realise things you cant. But im not blaming you, I can understand why you think the way you do

 

SpliffVortex
Copy and paste does not do it for me and as for the guns.
I dont need guns, plus If i "really" wanted to kill sumone I could even do it with a tooth pick.

 

especially when the source is not quoted. You can find a lot of reports on the net, all with different views.

 

we have an old say "shoot your self"

 

my dear i never pay much attention how accurate the % are the general idea is far more important.

 

I know, if i open my eyes where i live is prety ok. Obviously diffrent area are well diffrent. I am not thinking we can all leave our doors unlocked like 'the good old day' (whenever that was). It is not realy the goverments fault the level of violence may have gone up. Follow those ten murders you spotted in your area, see what the outcomes are.. are the cops just asking for info on crimes they can solve ?.. i don't think so.

No i don't think every murder is shown on tv , those that are are solved or at least the enquiries are exhausted. These crimes are not sorted or vetted are they , they are merely a snapshot of the country. What i mean is, gathered together we can see extremes and and a supposed pattern emerges wich is not always true.

 

Why would you say holding Pinochet was a bad thing? He was a mass murderer who overturned a democratically elected government to impose his genocidal regime....

 

Not if your sources are unsound.

 

the reason i dont becouse many fucking times the moderator claim is copyright so he pulls the threat out . then i just wasted my fucking time.