Whoda thunk it? Bobbies with sidearms!

J

jimpeel

New member
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0010/25/world/world9.html

Police take guns on routine street patrol

Nottingham: In a break with the famed British tradition that police are unarmed, officers carrying handguns in clearly visible holsters have been used on foot patrols in parts of a city. The operation marks a significant extension of the arming of British officers.

The armed patrols have been introduced in Nottingham to tackle a feared escalation of gun crime, much of it thought to be drugs related.

None of the officers involved has fired a shot during the six months of the operation. Nottinghamshire Police said the principal aim is to reassure people worried about criminals using guns on their estates.

The chief police officers' association said it did not mean that Britain was moving towards arming officers. But the leader of rank-and-file officers suggested it was another step on the road to an armed force.

<more>

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.

Edited to fix formatting problem. - TBM

[This message has been edited by TheBluesMan (edited October 27, 2000).]
 
I always ask the cops in chicago when I am there "why do you need a gun? I thought that guns were illegal there, and nobody has them right?"

------------------
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."

--Ayn Rand, in "The Nature of Government"

http://hometown.aol.com//jsax13/web.html
Member NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, and CCRKBA.
 
HI! Well...It's about time. I mean how much,

"STOP!...or I'll Yell STOP!,AGAIN...TWEET..TWEEEET....",does it take.

Did I read right that they can buy a fully selective fire AK on the street for about $50?
Wish it was here, I could strip that full auto group out and chuck it away it in less than 60 seconds and have a nice new AK cheap. :D
Brings new meaning to "In for a penny in for a pound", if all are banned, don't it?

------------------
Shoot early, shoot often...

Don't Vote for ****ing Lawyers!

[This message has been edited by LongArms (edited October 27, 2000).]
 
OK, I admit at first I thought this thread said boobies w/ sidearms & I clicked on it wondering how the hell you can put a holster on a, well - you get the idea.

As for what the topic is actually about it should throw a little dirt of the self righteous indignation that the avg. brit has about guns and the worth as instruments for self defense, hopefully anyway.
 
Airports are supposed to be secure, right? Well, each time I've gone through Gatwick, the Brit police were walking around in pairs, carrying SMG's. As far as I'm concerned, that sure puts the lie to the assertion that things are inherently safer over there...
 
My oh my, how can one help but laugh while reading that.

England takes away their subjects' guns ("why does anyone need a gun, even the bobbies don't need guns!") and then very shortly afterward, they arm up the police. The true definition of "subjects" just came into play.
Can you say "Police State"?
Checkmate, mate....they just got had.

And why do the bobbies need guns? Because of growing gun crime in a supposedly gun-free country!!! Ha! That is just hilarious.



[This message has been edited by jdthaddeus (edited October 28, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by jdthaddeus (edited October 28, 2000).]
 
I know it won't be popular for me to say this but I hope that genocide starts soon over there (according to history that will be the next step). These sheep and the world need to be taught a very hard lesson about disarmament by their govt. This would also build an even better case for us here in the U.S. The anti's all over the world won't get it unless it happens in their lifetime in a non third world country. These people just don't pay attention to the Pol Pot types in these third world countries. Live and learn.

Joel
 
I certainly don't hope for genocide ever, anywhere. I'm sure that you don't either, Joel. I think I know where you're coming from, though.

It often takes a terrible event or events to change the thinking of these (people) sheep.

Genocide has continued in the world almost since the beginning of time.
When it happened in Germany, I did nothing, because I wasn't German.
When it happened in Russia, I did nothing, because I wasn't Russian.
When it happened in China, I did nothing, becuse I wasn't Chinese.
When it happened in Africa, I did nothing, because I wasn't African.

If it happens in England, they *still* will do nothing. The liberal media would spin the genocide (ie: war on drugs) or just cover it up. I'm sure that some people wouldn't *really* understand until they had their hands tied behind them while kneeling in front of a deep ditch they just dug.

Hopefully, there will be enough armed, thinking people to prevent that from happening here.

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Don’t believe everything you read, gentlemen.

The regular British policeman does not carry a firearm in the normal course of their duties. However, specially trained officers have been carrying since the late 1950’s. More officers are trained than carry and more officers are carrying than you know.

The officers on duty at international ports carry visible armament for two reasons. To be visible to potential terrorists and to ensure the populace knows that they are carrying those weapons in their defense.

America has been more than fortunate and is extremely well insulated from the acts of terrorism within its borders. If you had the ‘Cole’ incident happening in your backyard on a regular basis, maybe your attitude would be a little less judgmental.

The general attitude to the police officer in the United Kingdom is one of respect because he does not carry a weapon. The general attitude is also that the police don’t carry anything more than a truncheon (club to you). The truth of the matter is that on any raid or high-risk situation, ‘carrying’ officers are in attendance.

The various posts from members on this board, generally speaking, have been posted in ignorance of the true facts. As for carrying weapons for self defense in the USA, that is better left to those on this site that are citizens of the USA.

However, I take great offense with Joel Harmon (JH) and TheBluesMan (TBM). It’s just plain disgusting that JH wishes for genocide to a Nation (of sheep, TBM?) that has more than ably defended the rights of the civilized Western World in two World Wars, and I might add, managed to make good account of themselves until our allies across the Atlantic finally decided to show up.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ex Bobby:
Don’t believe everything you read, gentlemen.

that has more than ably defended the rights of the civilized Western World in two World Wars, and I might add, managed to make good account of themselves until our allies across the Atlantic finally decided to show up. [/quote]


But every time you have called, we have taken up our arms and stood by your side and died by your side.

Fast Eagle
Lt. CDR US Navy RES.
 
Ex Bobby,

If the wool fits, WEAR IT!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

You are or have been part of the problem.

Enjoy your servitude as the loyal subject you are.

I will continue to be a citizen and control my own destiny and contribute to the destiny of my country as any good citizen should. :p
 
Ex Bobby,

I was referring to Anti-Freedom bigots worldwide when I referred to "sheep." I was basically pointing out a potential flaw in Joel's logic. He said, "The anti's all over the world won't get it unless it happens in their lifetime in a non third world country." My point is that even if it *did* happen in England, most of the sheep/people (sheeple) all over the world *still* would not get it; until it was too late. I hope and pray that genocide worldwide will come to an end.

I do not question the bravery of any soldiers in any war. Nor do I think that "who fought in what war, and when" is an issue here. Let's try and keep to the subject, shall we?

BTW, Ex Bobby, Welcome to The Firing Line. :)
 
Fast Eagle:
I've been slapped on the wrist by the moderator for relating freedom and war together on the same post, even though the two seem to go hand in hand in most instances. However, I will agree, that America's most reliable ally is the UK and the UK's most reliable ally is the USA.

CoastieN70:
I liked the little red face on your post. All the rest was the usual extremist gibberish. Put the safety back on your keyboard and take a couple of deep breaths, ok?

TheBluesman
Thanks for squaring me away on your comments. I'm happy to discuss and debate the relative merits of the relationship between America and the United Kingdom during past conflicts elsewhere.

BTW, thanks for the welcome to the site.
 
Considering the greatest threat Americans face the proliferation of restrictive laws
continues to grow city by city state by state
whats the difference between being a subject
and a lawabiding citizen that many groups like the NRA want us to be especially considering most of us feel that many of these (but not the NRA) laws are unconstitutional at best more likely outright
communism.
The Brits have only reached where were headed a little quicker.Again this seems quite true considering our greatest 'ally' if that is your opinoin doesnt even have as a long term goal the repeal of any of these laws that make us subject where we formerly were able to exercise a right.
Besides having a second amendment that our reps are so effectively and regulary writing right over where is it we americans have shown ourselves to be so much braver than the british?
Have we thrown out or hung many of these 'elected reps' that continue to infringe our rights.Have our soldiers that claim to defend american from enemies foreign and domestic done so???
Was it at WACO when army tanks were used against american ciitzens on their own property did texas americans run to their aid.
Did we storm the police station in Lebanon,TN
after citiznes were murdered in that fair country for attempting to defend themselves
and then the 'officials' pretended that they would have their swat backed murder 'investigated'.
Where is all this great backbone were supposed to have that separates us so much from the brits.
Do you not register your gun and tell the feds where you live when you buy a gun new
on that pretty yellow from just as the brits
and the Jews did.
Do not millions of americans support the NRA
even after hearing that they support closing
the so called gunshow 'loophole' and at the same time labeling your freedom to buy a gun unregistered a loophole on a FEDERAL as well as a state level.
Are we not saying just as the brits did the 'best we have' is to compromise and show that we obey the law and our elected prison warden no matter what the law may be.
We talk so much about how we get together and how we fight but what percentage of americans are even involved in this so called 'fight' for our rights maybe 6 million out of a stated 80 million gunowners.
Im sorry but its not that easy for me to see that big a difference between the bold americans and my english bretheren.
I know many of you are prepared to go down fighting even against our own so called 'countrymen' in uniform when their told that were the terroists but were certainly not preparing for that on any united level or front.



------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
ruger45,

Your anger is showing. Probably not undeservedly so; however, we are not the British. Blair is trying to institute having drunk and disordily folks taken directly to the ATM machine to pay a fine regardless of due process. He is, last I heard, trying to push for the ability to have those persons deemed a 'threat' thrown in jail until it can be determined - also they are outlawing those high ;) power Daisy Air Rifles.

The reason Blair is trying these things is all the press about the high crime rate. Especially burglaries. "those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"

Funny thing is, if all these rules/laws don't work, they will ask for more - never admitting that they have failed.

America has some problems, but nothing along the lines of the British. If Gore gets elected you can expect MORE political correctness laws such as hate crimes, or labeling groups as 'gangs' or 'hate groups' allowing their rights to be trampled on. Even Conn or Mass has a law allowing Police to take property and incarcerate based upon gun ownership and ANY suspision of possible problem. Groups will be labled by the Political Correct crowd and their rights diminished.

I'm ranting. Just let me say as a member of the NRA AND GOA that blaming the NRA is not going to solve anything. I also doubt the NRA taking the same 'no compermise' stand as GOA would have changed anything. Yes, most Federal laws are unconstitutional, but you, GOA, or the NRA is going to be able to do anything about it without court intervention. Emerson has been the right step so far. Hopefully the 5th will rule correctly and hopefully the SC will replace on liberal with one conservative between now and when Emerson reaches it. If Gore wins, we will have to sweat out the next 4 years - maybe 8.

Let's get Bush elected and apply the heat. I've read an article where lawmakers were upset with NRA for telling them they could vote for 24 hrs check at gun show, but that many letters from members didn't follow that and were very opposed.

The biggest Constitutional battle since 1930's is right now, in this election.

madison
 
Well, my family is very involved with grass roots politics with the Opposition Party in the UK. If she knows any dirt, it will be flung my way....

Email sent tonight as follows, but it may take a day or two to get back to me....

Hi Mum:
I'm in the middle of an online discussion with a bunch of American gentlemen. I am being informed that " Blair is trying to institute having drunk and disordily folks taken directly to the ATM machine (Cash teller machine) to pay a fine regardless of due process. He is, last I heard, trying to push for the ability to have those persons deemed a 'threat' thrown in jail until it can be determined ...."

I've not heard of this one but is it something that is rumoured or is on the books to be law?

------------
I'll post her EXACT response when received!

------------------
 
Ex Bobbie-

You tell us not to believe everything we read.
So, are you claiming that the article is false?
Are you claiming that it is untrue that more Bobbies are beginning to carry guns to combat criminals with guns in England, as the article claims?
 
My take is: If your knowledge is gained by reading articles that started this thread, you may want to reconsider that knowledge.

In response to Red Bull:
"So, are you claiming that the article is false? Are you claiming that it is untrue that more Bobbies are beginning to carry guns to combat criminals with guns in England, as the article claims?"

British policeman have been carrying clearly visible handguns on patrol for at least the last ten years in various parts of the country. The article sort to sensationalize the arming of UK officers.

The purpose of my original post was to set everyone right that police officers have been carrying guns, both visible and not, for quite some time. Some of the users on this sight were of the opinion that law and order was breaking down in a wholesale fashion.

Are more officers carrying guns more of the time? Definitely, if you looked at data from ten years ago and today. The armory did not get opened on November 1st 2000 and everyone started wearing a holster.

In my opinion, 'carrying' becomes a habit for an officer. When I was trained, 20 years ago, violence was a last resort and when facing an armed assailant, the assailant was less likely to use his weapon beacause he knew the 'copper' was not carrying. That's probably not in his mind set these days and that's crying shame.


------------------
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top