Jump to content

Because The United Kingdom?


Mr King

Recommended Posts

On 12/6/2023 at 11:03 AM, EchoFiveMike said:

They clearly weren't fascist, if they were, AIDS would not have been a thing.

Had they actively quarantined and isolated the fags with AIDS even 1/2 as hard as they went after COVID, they could have stopped the spread and it would have burned itself out in the festering Petrie dish urban enclaves.  In fact it was quite the opposite, fuckers worked to spread the AIDS into the normal human community, "to force people to care." they actively said such.  These narcistic fuckers still actively try to spread diseases, demanding homos and other high risk groups be able to donate blood etc etc.  S/F....Ken M

 

 

Much truth in this. In the late 1980's, early 1990's there was some fear that A.I.D.S. could be contagious thus medical gloves became common. The narrative quickly became other reasons other than this virus.

Shortly after this our ophthalmology clinic received "special instructions" for those with A.I.D.S. to have procedures in place to "safeguard the privacy" of these individuals over and beyond our usual and customary practices. The most prevalent was instead of writing in the chart the patient had A.I.D.S. we wrote "At risk for C.M.V. "( Cytomegalovirus). to avoid B.S. from the federal government. 

We are now seeing the wretched results in the choice of government to encourage such wicked behavior above and beyond the sin of homosexuality in the current l.g.b.t. etc. immorality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Can we leave all the anti Gay ideological crap for another thread please? I really dont want to be associated with this kind of stuff if thats all the same to you.

 

The problem is the argument you make is the reason we are in this mess. People/companies don't want this crap so they pay lip service to "The message" which emboldens certain Ideologues that it must be right so push things further and if you don't agree you must be (insert current phobic). Which scares people and they pay more lip service. Which makes it appear more popular than it is. So people pay more lip service to it. It's basically an intimidation extortion racket.

 It's only going to stop once people realize what it really is. Unfortunately it a flight/fight response. Appeasement is the flight response and when it initiates a fight response people responses and thinking can go too far the other way. 

Edited by Wobbly Head
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, R011 said:

Quarantines have a long history even in democracies.  They used to have camps for people with leprosy, for instance, before modern treatments made that unnecessary.  Individuals could be require to quarantine themselves, and we have most recently seen whole countries subjected to quarantine orders.

 

Quarantines don't last long, either the people die from the disease or a cure comes along and people get better. Q zones can be effected by people fleeing them or illegal entry of said Q zones without the proper anti-virus protection gear.

Could anyone have the right to put everyday people in a Q zone when proper protected medical gear is avaliable to stop transmission? this did stop the spread in the 1980's along with test checks on contaminated blood amongst others.

It was just through fear that AIDS became the big evil thing in the 1980's. But one good thing that Princess Diana did, was to go to a hosptial for AIDS victims and shake hands with them. Most people at the time thought that this could result in AIDS being transfered even though all scientific logic was aganist it. 

It was just about fear that people hated HIV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Can we leave all the anti Gay ideological crap for another thread please? I really dont want to be associated with this kind of stuff if thats all the same to you.

 

What is anti gay? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TrustMe said:

 

Quarantines don't last long, either the people die from the disease or a cure comes along and people get better. Q zones can be effected by people fleeing them or illegal entry of said Q zones without the proper anti-virus protection gear.

Could anyone have the right to put everyday people in a Q zone when proper protected medical gear is avaliable to stop transmission? this did stop the spread in the 1980's along with test checks on contaminated blood amongst others.

It was just through fear that AIDS became the big evil thing in the 1980's. But one good thing that Princess Diana did, was to go to a hosptial for AIDS victims and shake hands with them. Most people at the time thought that this could result in AIDS being transfered even though all scientific logic was aganist it. 

It was just about fear that people hated HIV.

 

 

And, of course, at the time, it was completely apparent to everyone that measures other than quarantine would be effective in limiting the spread of AIDS in the UK or indeed throughout the West.  

You're right about quarantines not lasting long because people die from the disease.  That was the reality of HIV in the eighties.  The question was how to keep it from spreading uncontrollably throughout the entire population as it had in parts of Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, rmgill said:

The Lotus Eaters paint a rather bleak picture of the political landscape in the UK. 
 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ex7GUfSBoeQ/

Here, listen to these guys. One of them was the Labour Spin Doctor, the other was one of the best educated Tory MP's there was. You can trust them to be even handed.

https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/ee43ed9f-d9ab-4cd3-80ab-da28a1f2d060/the-rest-is-politics?ref_=dmm_acq_mrn_d_ds_rhsr_z_-c_c_680395585811_t_dsa-1789241054796

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, R011 said:

 

 

And, of course, at the time, it was completely apparent to everyone that measures other than quarantine would be effective in limiting the spread of AIDS in the UK or indeed throughout the West.  

You're right about quarantines not lasting long because people die from the disease.  That was the reality of HIV in the eighties.  The question was how to keep it from spreading uncontrollably throughout the entire population as it had in parts of Africa.

Promiscuity and prostitution enabled the spread of A.I.D.S. through Africa.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

And everywhere else.

Quite right. I would also add for the U.S. there were and are three deliberate  ways one could be infected by A.I.D.S. and that would be homosexuality, illegal I.V. drugs, and prostitution, especially the homosexual kind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rick said:

Quite right. I would also add for the U.S. there were and are three deliberate  ways one could be infected by A.I.D.S. and that would be homosexuality, illegal I.V. drugs, and prostitution, especially the homosexual kind. 

During the early days of the outbreak blood transfusion was also a vector.  Gay/Bisexual men weren't barred from donating blood until 1985 four years after the first cases of AIDs were discovered in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there has barely been a 2 month period over the past 25 years Ive been here, when Americans are not fraudulently claiming that the UK has massive gun death because we cant all own an Uzi. I would have thought the lesson would have been learned by now. But apparently not.

Significant death reduction. From what? What mythical world existed where everyone in the UK had guns, and socialists took them away? Because it didnt work like that, contrary to what kind of crap you might be hearing through 'experts' in the US, or the fleet street Murdoch press. Whatever flaws in our system, at least we dont try to convince everyone else that selling M16 rifles to mentally retarded 16 years olds, whom use them to shoot up the local shopping mall,  is a vital part of our Constitution.

Here are facts, pure, unvarnished, untained by alt right horseshit that pretends to be accurate analysis. In 2020-21, 35 people were killed by guns in the UK. Thats the UK. Not London, not Manchester, not Midsommer, not Shetland, not Oxford, not the California side of Gloucester. Thats the entire UK.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7654/

In 2019, the death by guns in New York was 804.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

Speaking for myself, if I have to defend myself in the UK, Ill happily use whatever means I feel necessary, then laugh at the police afterwards as they try to prosecute me, as will anyone else in the UK.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1930_murders_in_the_United_Kingdom

4 murders in the whole year. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1901_murders_in_the_United_Kingdom

1 murder in the whole year. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1896_murders_in_the_United_Kingdom

murders in the whole year. 

Britain's low homicide rate precedes its gun control. Reading the list of gun control legislation,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_Act_1920

its all about "could" not "did." 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think there has barely been a 2 month period over the past 25 years Ive been here, when Americans are not fraudulently claiming that the UK has massive gun death

We never claimed massive gun death. 

The point is more that you have out of control crime in part due to the fact that people cannot defend themselves AND that the police and law actively discourage basic self defense rights. 

Personally, I think it's no better if an elderly pensioner is beaten to death by a bunch of immigrants or chavs vs being shot to death or stabbed to death. What I find appalling is that you'd deny a VC holder the right to use a firearm to defend himself when he's the most qualified person in the fucking country to do so and your nation still presumes that such a person doesn't know what they're about, let alone any other citizen or subject of the crown. 
 

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

because we cant all own an Uzi. I would have thought the lesson would have been learned by now. But apparently not.

We could say that you have a shit military arms procurement program where small arms are concerned because you don't have a thriving civilian arms industry. 
 

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Significant death reduction. From what? What mythical world existed where everyone in the UK had guns, and socialists took them away? Because it didnt work like that, contrary to what kind of crap you might be hearing through 'experts' in the US, or the fleet street Murdoch press. Whatever flaws in our system, at least we dont try to convince everyone else that selling M16 rifles to mentally retarded 16 years olds, whom use them to shoot up the local shopping mall,  is a vital part of our Constitution.

Yes. We sell M16s to retarded 16 year olds. Always exaggerate the shit. 
Less out of bounds...why do you allow retarded 30 year olds to run your goverment? 

What we DO allow is little old ladies to possess handguns or rifles to defend themselves from rapists and predators and don't have a problem if the little old lady kills some skel who needed to be in prison but was not for some reason. 

We also DO allow people who are competent, law abiding and safe to own arms same as they can a tank or other things. 

 

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Here are facts, pure, unvarnished, untained by alt right horseshit that pretends to be accurate analysis. In 2020-21, 35 people were killed by guns in the UK.

Ok. Now do the other violent crimes. 

If someone's going to try to kill me with a knife, I don't use a knife, I use a firearm to defend myself in preference. 

Firearms are for self defense. Not JUST for self defense against firearms. 

Even for crimes like rape, or assault or robbery. 

Is it much better if a retarded 16 year old uses drain cleaner to horribly maim a person? 

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Speaking for myself, if I have to defend myself in the UK, Ill happily use whatever means I feel necessary, then laugh at the police afterwards as they try to prosecute me, as will anyone else in the UK.

And you'll probably laugh from the hospital or from the jail because you are denied useful tools to defend yourself  or you went too far because the Monday morning quarter backing is far to pervasive where the police are concerned. 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryan, I can speak of there being only 3 murders in the past 40 years. One of them was a girl I went to school with whom was tragically sexually assaulted and murdered. Another had her parents murdered by her brother. And I seem to recall there was an axe murder (no that wasnt me).

Unless you can make a case that we should go around packing a 45 in a shoulder holster all day, in the unlikely event that, oh I dont know, the Manson family turns up, the mad axeman of the Cotswolds get let out of the asylum or I get picked for burning in the next wicker man, I think the requirement for me to own a firearm is limited.

incidentally, you CAN own a shotgun. My uncle has one for pest control. I could fairly easily apply for one myself. Do I feel the need? No. And that is the difference between your society and mine. You obviously feel under threat so you can only feel safe being strapped. And I dont.

1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1930_murders_in_the_United_Kingdom

4 murders in the whole year. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1901_murders_in_the_United_Kingdom

1 murder in the whole year. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1896_murders_in_the_United_Kingdom

murders in the whole year. 

Britain's low homicide rate precedes its gun control. Reading the list of gun control legislation,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_Act_1920

its all about "could" not "did." 

 

 

 Now read up on the sky high murder rate in Whitechapel in the 1880's, to the point when they barely noticed a serial killer turned. Even then, most people committed murders with knives or bludgeoning. Search 'Mr Brigg's Hat'. Despite the availabity of guns, hardly anyone used them.

You can make a case removing guns from society reduced the murder rate, or you can make a case that the murder rate was low and removing guns did nothing at all. But what you cant get away with is the murder rate was and is low. There is no demand, requirement, or lobby for reversing gun control.

Now could we possibly put this to bed for a year or 2? You know, because its been done to death several dozen times over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ryan, I can speak of there being only 3 murders in the past 40 years. One of them was a girl I went to school with whom was tragically sexually assaulted and murdered. Another had her parents murdered by her brother. And I seem to recall there was an axe murder (no that wasnt me).

3 Murders in the uk in 40 years? What? Or you mean in your village? Or your town? 
 

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Unless you can make a case that we should go around packing a 45 in a shoulder holster all day, in the unlikely event that, oh I dont know, the Manson family turns up, the mad axeman of the Cotswolds get let out of the asylum or I get picked for burning in the next wicker man, I think the requirement for me to own a firearm is limited.

How many other violent crimes? It's for more than just murder. Robbery, Assaults, rapes. 

It's around 35 incidents per 1000 for all of the UK. 
 

So here's the other question. If crime is so low and murders are so rare. Why ban firearms? If there's not a trend for offing your neighbor, why not allow them for more legal, proper and lawful purposes that they are useful in? 

 

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

incidentally, you CAN own a shotgun. My uncle has one for pest control. I could fairly easily apply for one myself. Do I feel the need? No. And that is the difference between your society and mine. You obviously feel under threat so you can only feel safe being strapped. And I dont.

One can have and use firearms for things other than defending one's self. 

I have an a FAL, several AR15 variants, my tactical Tuna, a few shot guns, a bunch of hand guns (20? I lost count), even an AK. I hope to have a Sten and Serling at some point. We're also planning on making the 37mm gun live in the Humber. 

 

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Now read up on the sky high murder rate in Whitechapel in the 1880's, to the point when they barely noticed a serial killer turned. Even then, most people committed murders with knives or bludgeoning. Search 'Mr Brigg's Hat'. Despite the availabity of guns, hardly anyone used them.

So why ban them? Why make them hard to get? 

 

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You can make a case removing guns from society reduced the murder rate, or you can make a case that the murder rate was low and removing guns did nothing at all. But what you cant get away with is the murder rate was and is low. There is no demand, requirement, or lobby for reversing gun control.

Cases for removing firearms to lower crime rates a doomed to fail because the crime is not caused by the guns. It can be mitigated by the firearms to some degree. 

But your crime or lack there of has NOTHING to do with the guns. 

 

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Now could we possibly put this to bed for a year or 2? You know, because its been done to death several dozen times over.

I responded because you went off on your hyperbolic tangent of 16 year old retards given M16s. 


I'll go one better.

Our 9 year olds can out shoot your firearms cops and most of your military. 

 

 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure your 9 year old can. And why in the name of flying fuck do they need to? Can you name a war in the past 130 years that got decided by rifle marksmanship? The Taliban couldn't shoot for shit. Neither did the viet cong.

You want guns, I get that. But your reasons are nonsensical, full of easily disproven lies and myths. You want an M16, go to it. But don't tell me you need one for home defence, because its a crock of shit, and don't tell me I vitally need one to protect myself against Zombie attack.

Once again, you truly cannot conceiv3 of the rest of the world as different, and seeminglyview it as a personal insult that we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Sure your 9 year old can. And why in the name of flying fuck do they need to?

Because shooting is a sport, and in order to reach world class level you have to start training at about 7-8, with 10-12 being last chance to catch it. But keep being ignoramus as usual, because "guns scary".

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Sure your 9 year old can. And why in the name of flying fuck do they need to?

Because you don't NEED to have a flying fuck to do things in a free society. 

Why do you NEED to spend hours a day playing on train simulator games? 

43 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Can you name a war in the past 130 years that got decided by rifle marksmanship? The Taliban couldn't shoot for shit. Neither did the viet cong.

Which is why the US completely dropped firearms training for all the troops going down range to do GWAT stuff. 

Oh, wait they didn't. They turned it up to 11. 
 

43 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You want guns, I get that. But your reasons are nonsensical, full of easily disproven lies and myths. You want an M16, go to it. But don't tell me you need one for home defence, because its a crock of shit, and don't tell me I vitally need one to protect myself against Zombie attack.

I don't need an M16 for home defense. But it is more effective in certain situations. 

And it DOES matter when there's civil unrest which we have seen repeatedly. 

43 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Once again, you truly cannot conceiv3 of the rest of the world as different, and seeminglyview it as a personal insult that we are.

I can conceive of the rest of the world as different. I don't know why you think that's relevant to the point tough.

Conversely, you can't seem to conceive that not everyone lives in a nice safe area and might need tools that you yourself might think you don't need NOR that they might have different ideas than you might have. 

I know Brits who WOULD like to have access to firearms more than you think your fellow countrymen should have. I object to folks like you thinking what works for you should work for everyone else. 

I'll be curious to see how your upcoming unrest and anti-jewish pogroms work out. You think it's going to end with Pally flags on the Cenotaph? Your police won't enforce that shit let alone go after people conducting attacks until it's safe for them. Small consolation to the folks who are attacked and injured or killed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bojan said:

Because shooting is a sport, and in order to reach world class level you have to start training at about 7-8, with 10-12 being last chance to catch it. But keep being ignoramus as usual, because "guns scary".

Per a friend who's been taking some LEO angled courses in room clearing....

What's interesting there is that some number of small young girl shooters (among others) who have apparently bested some SF/Military types at some competitions. One is apparently Amish of all things. This apparently spurred some navel gazing and then inquiry of the civilian shooters who were FAR faster than the uber SF dudes. The training tricks and methods were adopted by some of the agencies after this discussion. One big takeaway was one size doesn't fit all for kinematics and movements, figuring out what movements work for the individual allowed these guys to speed up their skills dramatically. 

But if you listen to folks like Stewart the military doesn't need to have high proficiency in skills at arms. I'm sure the lads who re-took the Falklands could have completely tossed away their SLRs and stuck with other skills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...